PSA 1 vs. PSA 10? - Crack and Resub Update - Scans Added

scotgreb · April 18, 2013 11:26AM

Recently I've had a couple cards come back as PSA 1. In each case, they are clearly not in PSA 1 condition and actually much closer to PSA 10.

In one case, I subbed five of the same modern card (after very close inspection) and four were PSA 10 and fifth was a PSA 1.

At any rate, in your experience, is it common for the grade to simply be mis-keyed when generating the flip?

Further, if the card is obviously not a PSA 1 -- has anyone returned them as "mechanical errors" and with what outcome.

Thanks,

Scott

[/URL]

RipublicaninMass · April 18, 2013 11:28AM

maybe some kind of pinhole or weird paperloss? Sorry, but such a thing seems impossible!!

Baez578 · April 18, 2013 12:29PM

How strange.... You certainly have a good reason to argue the grading IMO

mygotta · April 18, 2013 12:30PM

that is kinda strange. the only difference i see is slight yellowing. but i dont think thats enough to warrant a 1. Otherwise it looks uniformly centered with solid corners. There is either something you are not seeing or it is a mistake.

digicat · April 18, 2013 12:47PM

I'd guess that there's paper loss that you didn't see.

mlbfan2 · April 18, 2013 12:57PM

A little paper loss on an otherwise mint card would make it a 1? I think it's far more likely that it's an error, and it was supposed to be graded a 10.

vladguerrero · April 18, 2013 1:03PM

I would say paper loss from a card made in 1986 is doubtful.

scotgreb · April 18, 2013 1:07PM

The yellowing is a scanner issue.

Another from a recent sub . . .

[/URL]

bobbybakeriv · April 18, 2013 1:27PM

I'm speechless Those cards are not a one I hope it was an error upon
encapsulation

digicat · April 18, 2013 1:54PM

<< <i>I would say paper loss from a card made in 1986 is doubtful. >>

I cracked a bunch of late 80s Fleer cards and seen some horrid chipping on the back that was big enough to be paper loss. I didn't bother submitting any of them to see what they'd grade to though. On a white-backed card, chipping like that would be hard to see.

But since we're looking at scans on a computer, it's going to be totally impossible to give an accurate judgement. I'm just tossing out an idea.

puckhd27 · April 18, 2013 2:05PM

I had the same problem once. One of my submissions a 1989 Score Deion Sanders came back a PR-1, I brought it to the Chicago Sun Times show PSA booth, they changed the grade to a Mint 9

fkw · April 18, 2013 4:23PM

my guesses,

the Oneil is a screwup and should be a 8-10

the McCovey Wheaties Stamp may have been soaked off an album (used) ?? does the back look to still have the glue??

still if this is the reason... Ive always thought these graders should take eye appeal into consideration, ie a pinhole is not nearly as bad looking as a bad creases or rounded corners, yet scores lower most often

Brick · April 18, 2013 11:01PM

If the grade does not fit....you must resubmit.

scotgreb · April 19, 2013 1:14AM

This was the grading sequence for the O'Neil . . .

17 1 20939840 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 30 JOSH GIBSON Card
17 2 20939841 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 30 JOSH GIBSON Card
17 3 20939842 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 30 JOSH GIBSON Card
17 4 20939843 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 30 JOSH GIBSON Card
18 1 20939844 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 31 JOSH GIBSON Card
18 2 20939845 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 31 JOSH GIBSON Card
18 3 20939846 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 31 JOSH GIBSON Card
18 4 20939847 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 31 JOSH GIBSON Card
18 5 20939848 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 31 JOSH GIBSON Card
19 1 20939849 MINT 9 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 32 BULLET ROGAN Card
19 2 20939850 MINT 9 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 32 BULLET ROGAN Card
19 3 20939851 MINT 9 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 32 BULLET ROGAN Card
19 4 20939852 MINT 9 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 32 BULLET ROGAN Card
20 1 20939853 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 45 BUCK O'NEIL Card
20 2 20939854 POOR 1 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 45 BUCK O'NEIL Card
20 3 20939855 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 45 BUCK O'NEIL Card
20 4 20939856 GEM MINT 10 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 45 BUCK O'NEIL Card
20 5 20939857 MINT 9 1986 FRITSCH NEGRO LEAGUE BASEBALL STARS 45 BUCK O'NEIL Card

dtkk49a · April 19, 2013 1:57AM

I just had a Piazza RC come back PR1 and I can't see a thing wrong with it. Looks like an easy 9. I will post tonight when I get home.

Mickey71 · April 19, 2013 3:02AM

Disturbing thread. Send it in for review for the .5

scotgreb · December 3, 2013 10:58AM

An update per grades that popped today . . .

Just for kicks, I cracked and re-submitted the O'Neil and McCovey -- not that either is worth much money but I was curious to see if the they could simply have been keying errors when creating the flips.

The O'Neil graded PSA 10 -- as I though it should and the McCovey graded PSA 7

I'll post updated scans when they return.

mlbfan2 · December 3, 2013 11:04AM

<< <i>An update per grades that popped today . . .

Just for kicks, I cracked and re-submitted the O'Neil and McCovey -- not that either is worth much money but I was curious to see if the they could simply have been keying errors when creating the flips.

The O'Neil graded PSA 10 >>

Nice bump. I believe that's an all-time record.

bobbyw8469 · December 3, 2013 11:21AM

wtf?!?!

Mapleleaf · December 3, 2013 12:03PM

I would say it's a labelling error since a card with sharp corners/full gloss and paper loss usually comes back as a 2.

MrNearMint · December 3, 2013 12:29PM

Clearly it's a PSA 1, PSA 10 is the mechanical error!

bobsbbcards · December 3, 2013 1:47PM

I think you have a pretty good case for asking for a refund of grading fees for the second go round. C'mon PSA.

rltexas1 · December 3, 2013 11:36PM

Im just getting into this PSA thing and its clear to me it is a mistake .. but what if it was submitted for review in the PSA case?

miwlvrn · December 4, 2013 12:21AM

I agree this confirms suspicion I've had on some of my grades, as discussed in further detail in this mech errror thread.

It is disappointing that there is not better QA/QC to prevent grades being mis-entered during the label process, but clearly any aspect on the label can have a mech. error.

scotgreb · December 5, 2013 11:46AM

Following are the updated (crack/re-sub) scans -- note that my scanner has been upgraded.

PSA 1 vs. PSA 10? - Crack and Resub Update - Scans Added

Comments