How to get PSA to correct their mistakes? Population report

So I just finished my first complete PSA 10 Gem Mint set in the Set Registry, with only 1 PSA 9. HOWEVER, the PSA 9 that I have is the highest graded, but the population report shows there to be a POP 1 - PSA 10 in circulation. THERE IS NOT. The card was either mislabeled when being slabbed by PSA or the submitter pulled a fast one on PSA by giving the wrong description of the card in order to get a "POP 1" on a tough card.

The set is the 1993 Topps Black Gold Set. I know it's not a barn burner of a set to some, but it's a set that I grew up with and was always drawn to. https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/baseball/company-sets/1993-topps-black-gold/alltimeset/202543

The card I am talking about is the A/B/C/D Certified Winner card. There are 2 versions of all of the Winner cards "Certified" and "Redemption." The card that was slabbed as a PSA 10 POP 1 A/B/C/D Certified Winner card is the "REDEMPTION" version.

I have been trying to get PSA to correct this issue in the pop report for the last 5 months. I keep hearing that they will fix it, but nothing ever happens. I've called, I've emailed (multiple people) and nothing has happened. Is it the end of the world, no, but I spent a lot of money buying hundreds of these Topps Black Gold sets in search of "10's" and paying multiple submission and grading fees, and return shipping fees to achieve the best set possible and I feel that I'm being cheated. PSA wants to use the set registry to market themselves by getting people to use the registry, thus having to buy and submit cards TO PSA making them boat loads of money, the least they could do is correct their mistakes.

Has anyone every had this issue? If so, how did it get it fixed, or did it? My next call/email to PSA is going to be looking for Joe Orlando's contact information. I am missing why it is so hard for someone to take my email, with all the information I've provided (I've already done their job for them), and walk to the guy who enters certification #'s into the population and say "Hey, we have this error in the population report, this certification number needs removed as a 1993 Topps Black Gold Winner A/B/C/D Certified PSA 10, and re-entered as a 1993 Topps Black Gold Winner Redemption PSA 10." PROBLEM SOLVED.

Comments

  • MCMLVToppsMCMLVTopps Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭

    It's over my head too...however, ranting here doesn't solve your problem. Having spoken in the past with both Joe Orlando and Cosetta Robbins, the Registry Set Manager, I've always found them to be willing to listen and help if they could.

    I would recommend a call to Customer Service and ask to speak with Cosetta, OR, email her at PSA, she always responded to my questions in a timely manner. She's at [email protected]

    I'd tone down the rant though, you'll get a better response with just factual data to bolster your position...after all, THEY have the power to help you, or not. What may be earth shattering to you, more than likely is just another problem to solve, no more, no less.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,181 ✭✭✭✭

    I feel your pain, but can offer no real solution. My experience was not the same as yours, but here's what happened;

    I purchased (at a pretty high cost) all three variations of the Harmon Killebrew 1967 Punch Out card and had them graded. PSA would not agree they were three different cards and refused to let me add them to my Killebrew master set.

    I then contacted SCD and Tom Bartsch who agreed they were all different. For a time, PSA relented, and the three cards were re-graded and allowed into my #1 ranked Harmon Killebrew Master Set. The cards are listed in at least one price guide/publication as variations.

    All of a sudden, it was back to one card allowed. I give up.

    Not sure for certain, but these three being in my #2 rated Master set might just get me back to #1. Frustrating.

    Good luck with your efforts!



    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • MCMLVTopps - I'm not trying to rant, just trying to get my point across of the frustration this is causing me.

    JoeBanzai - It's easy to see the difference in your cards, different players names in different orders on all 3. I agree those are 3 different versions of the same card.

    For the guys that say it's over their head. Look at the 1st and 3rd cards.....they are the same card, the "Redemption" version. The 3rd one is correctly labeled Winner A/B/C/D Redemption. The first one is labeled Winner A/B/C/D Certified, which is wrong. The 2nd card is the "Certified" version, you can see where it says certified circled in red. (You may have to click to enlarge the pic to see it.) Then notice that the red circle on the 1st card does not say Certified, because it is the Redemption version just like the 3rd card.

    Any better? I'm not sure how else to explain it.

  • lawyer05lawyer05 Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    I feel your pain, but can offer no real solution. My experience was not the same as yours, but here's what happened;

    I purchased (at a pretty high cost) all three variations of the Harmon Killebrew 1967 Punch Out card and had them graded. PSA would not agree they were three different cards and refused to let me add them to my Killebrew master set.

    I then contacted SCD and Tom Bartsch who agreed they were all different. For a time, PSA relented, and the three cards were re-graded and allowed into my #1 ranked Harmon Killebrew Master Set. The cards are listed in at least one price guide/publication as variations.

    All of a sudden, it was back to one card allowed. I give up.

    Not sure for certain, but these three being in my #2 rated Master set might just get me back to #1. Frustrating.

    Good luck with your efforts!



    this was an atrocity.... i cant believe they switch it back ..what does beckett say ?

  • lawyer05lawyer05 Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭
    edited January 25, 2019 11:26AM

    sorry those scans made me dizzy LOL > @mint_gems said:

    So I just finished my first complete PSA 10 Gem Mint set in the Set Registry, with only 1 PSA 9. HOWEVER, the PSA 9 that I have is the highest graded, but the population report shows there to be a POP 1 - PSA 10 in circulation. THERE IS NOT. The card was either mislabeled when being slabbed by PSA or the submitter pulled a fast one on PSA by giving the wrong description of the card in order to get a "POP 1" on a tough card.

    The set is the 1993 Topps Black Gold Set. I know it's not a barn burner of a set to some, but it's a set that I grew up with and was always drawn to. https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/baseball/company-sets/1993-topps-black-gold/alltimeset/202543

    The card I am talking about is the A/B/C/D Certified Winner card. There are 2 versions of all of the Winner cards "Certified" and "Redemption." The card that was slabbed as a PSA 10 POP 1 A/B/C/D Certified Winner card is the "REDEMPTION" version.

    I have been trying to get PSA to correct this issue in the pop report for the last 5 months. I keep hearing that they will fix it, but nothing ever happens. I've called, I've emailed (multiple people) and nothing has happened. Is it the end of the world, no, but I spent a lot of money buying hundreds of these Topps Black Gold sets in search of "10's" and paying multiple submission and grading fees, and return shipping fees to achieve the best set possible and I feel that I'm being cheated. PSA wants to use the set registry to market themselves by getting people to use the registry, thus having to buy and submit cards TO PSA making them boat loads of money, the least they could do is correct their mistakes.

    Has anyone every had this issue? If so, how did it get it fixed, or did it? My next call/email to PSA is going to be looking for Joe Orlando's contact information. I am missing why it is so hard for someone to take my email, with all the information I've provided (I've already done their job for them), and walk to the guy who enters certification #'s into the population and say "Hey, we have this error in the population report, this certification number needs removed as a 1993 Topps Black Gold Winner A/B/C/D Certified PSA 10, and re-entered as a 1993 Topps Black Gold Winner Redemption PSA 10." PROBLEM SOLVED.

    sorry those scans made me dizzy, my eyes dont know where to focus , lol , sorry

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,181 ✭✭✭✭

    @lawyer05 said:

    this was an atrocity.... i cant believe they switch it back ..what does beckett say ?

    I never found a publication that listed these. I contacted the editor of Sports Collectos Digest, Tom Bartsch. He was very helpful.

    Since the 2 of the cards were removed, I have been told there is a checklist in one of the books that lists them separately.

    PSA simply told me that "PSA is no longer recognizing the different varieties. Any variety can be added as either/or in the 1967 Topps Punch-outs slot".

    On a different item I WAS able (probably not just me) to get PSA to accept the fact that you can determine the year on the 1966 and 1967 Bazooka complete boxes that seem identical. The 1966 has a small photo of Koufax the 1967 has a small photo of Mantle. The 1967 also has some coding on it.

    It's going to be hit or miss with getting things changed. I have SEVERAL other stories about similar struggles to get things "right" but do not want to get into it. I frankly no longer really care. The final straw was when a variation was added to the Killebrew set of the 1969 Globe Imports card, the new one has some kind of red checkered back, same exact card but with lines on the back. That's fine as far as it goes (by the way, I am looking for one with the back lines) but why not the Punch Outs?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • I know I'm losing my faith in PSA quickly. Now I have another problem. Get to that in a minute.

    I don't know much about the variations of the vintage cards (I do have a nice 1966 Mantle PSA 9 though, just bragging), but you're saying PSA isn't recognizing the different variations of those punch out cards.

    However, they DO recognize the different versions of these Black Gold cards. So much so that they are requiring both versions to complete the set.

    Winner A Redemption
    Winner A Certified
    Winner B Redemption
    Winner B Certified
    Winner A/B Redemption
    Winner A/B Certified and so on.

    So here's my now new problem. I just got an order back yesterday, more of these Topps Black Gold cards......but from 1994. They labeled them as 1993!! They didn't even bother to check the form I filled out. So now, after waiting 70 days for these cards to come back, I have to call them Monday and go through all the hoops of returning them and waiting another 14-20 days for them to come back again. You guys have seen from the first post what the '93's look like, these below are 1994 Topps Black Golds. Obviously different. Grrrrrr......


  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,181 ✭✭✭✭

    They might be recognizing the Punch=outs as variations, BUT they are allowing only one of the three in the Master set.

    Item below also not allowed in set but can be listed in set as an additional item that does NOT count towards value of set.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • PROMETHIUS88PROMETHIUS88 Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭✭

    @mint_gems said:
    I know I'm losing my faith in PSA quickly. Now I have another problem. Get to that in a minute.

    I don't know much about the variations of the vintage cards (I do have a nice 1966 Mantle PSA 9 though, just bragging), but you're saying PSA isn't recognizing the different variations of those punch out cards.

    However, they DO recognize the different versions of these Black Gold cards. So much so that they are requiring both versions to complete the set.

    Winner A Redemption
    Winner A Certified
    Winner B Redemption
    Winner B Certified
    Winner A/B Redemption
    Winner A/B Certified and so on.

    So here's my now new problem. I just got an order back yesterday, more of these Topps Black Gold cards......but from 1994. They labeled them as 1993!! They didn't even bother to check the form I filled out. So now, after waiting 70 days for these cards to come back, I have to call them Monday and go through all the hoops of returning them and waiting another 14-20 days for them to come back again. You guys have seen from the first post what the '93's look like, these below are 1994 Topps Black Golds. Obviously different. Grrrrrr......


    Ok, two things to address. First, from your original issue on the card that is slabbed as certified incorrectly, my guess is that they can't/won't do anything about it until that specific card is sent back in to be corrected and re-labeled. I could be wrong but that is my hunch.

    Second, on the 1994's that came back slabbed as 1993's. I might have to put part of the blame on you....please correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, indeed you have them on the submission sheet as 1994's. That is absolutely their mistake for labeling them incorrectly. But, my question would be.... Why did you not catch this when your grades popped and call them to have it corrected before they were sent back to you?? I'm going to be honest, if right now if I have a submission that I've been waiting on for 80+ business days and I see an error on the grades when they pop, I'm probably not saying anything until them come back and then later sending back those specific cards. God only knows how long it might take to correct them and get the entire order to me if I call before they ship!!

    Either way, I wish you the best of luck and understand your frustration. Those black gold cards are awesome looking, btw!!

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,181 ✭✭✭✭

    @PROMETHIUS88 said:

    Second, on the 1994's that came back slabbed as 1993's. I might have to put part of the blame on you....please correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, indeed you have them on the submission sheet as 1994's. That is absolutely their mistake for labeling them incorrectly. But, my question would be.... Why did you not catch this when your grades popped and call them to have it corrected before they were sent back to you??

    Might not have helped. I called on a card BEFORE the grades popped and said that I thought I had made the mistake of not listing it as an OPC issue. I was assured that the grader would catch it and of course he/she did not.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  •  Don't ask me why my font change....?
    
     Well, I get what you are saying however, there is absolutely no blame on me.  No, I did not catch it when looking at the grades.  After waiting for "65 ~~~~Business Days," and like 78 days in general, who remembers all 150 cards they submit, while also having 2-3 submissions in at once?   In fact I didn't catch it until like 3 days after I had them back.  I listed them correctly on the form, and I paid PSA for a service.  And on those 2 cards their service was shotty.  They are supposed to be "professional sports authenticator's" but they sure do seem to screw a lot of stuff up.  Especially at $8/card.  
    
     How this SHOULD be handled (as a business) is they should have emailed me return overnight postage the day I called, return them, correct them, and overnight them back to me.  Should be 3-4 day turn around MAX.  Which goes back to the title of this post, acknowledging their mistakes and errors.  Instead, they make the customer suffer even longer once they screw up. 
    
     As far as the POP ABCD Certified card that they labeled wrong, as it sits, that card is in circulation labeled wrong, and the population report on that card is wrong.  They don't have to have the card back to fix the population.  Then the card is just sitting out there labeled wrong, but the population is right.  Instead, they want to let both instances be wrong  instead of just one.  Why would that person who has that card send it in to be changed when they have the elusive POP 1 of a super tough card?  (even though they don't).  
    
    **See attached,** more screw ups........the more I'm looking the more I find.  Here's two '93 cards, both labeled as 1994????? The PSA population report is a joke.
    

  • MCMLVToppsMCMLVTopps Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭

    Ahhhhh, my favorite subject with PSA...the POP report.

    Prior to the half-point change, things were (IMO) relatively stable concerning the POP report...though it had issues do to crack outs. Since the half-point change, the POP report was and forever will be almost totally invalid. It is my opinion, that the burden of accuracy of graded cards within the PSA system falls squarely on them. The half-point change really opened the gates.

    Pls follow...

    As an example: Let's say you have a 1955 Topps (almost any star player in any sport can be used), #2, Ted Williams, PSA 7. You think the card will grade higher and hope to get the half-point bump, thus turning your PSA 7 into a more valuable PSA 7.5. You crack the original PSA 7 and send in the raw card. The card comes back as a PSA 6.5...whoa, bad news. You crack the card and send in the raw card. It comes back as a PSA 7, you are now back where you began. BUT, the originial PSA 7 has now morphed into one non-existent PSA 7 (the original), one non-existent PSA 6.5 from the first submission and one real PSA 7, the latest grading. End result...the POP report has risen by one in the PSA 7 area and one PSA 6.5 in the PSA 6.5 are, both cards do NOT exist you didn't send in the flip (greatest majority don't), thus the POP report is tarnished.

    Just in the 1955 Topps set alone, one can easily see the craziness with ongoing crack outs, seeking the elusive half point, or full grade upgrade on star and other common, hard to find cards. PSA (IMO) did not do due diligence to ensure this situation never happened. However, it has happened untold number of times, and created "ghost" numbers in the PSA 6-8 range (just a guess on my part) that can never, ever be fixed.

    Think of the number of sets in all sports and non sports, where cards have been submitted over and over and over seeking higher grading to increase the value of the original card...stunning. I have personally put together 3 different 1955 Topps sets, one was just about 20 cards short of a straight PSA 8 set. If memory serves, this was in the 2006-2008 time frame. The POPs then, on some cards was in the low to mid 20s...I just looked, they are now in the upper 90s. No way is there that much original raw out there to have justified this incredible jump in numbers. Logical conclusion...lots and lots of crack outs. Jim Rivera, #58 is a case in point. I remember when his PSA 7 was a POP of 26...it is now 94 !!

    The half-point change was great for the PSA coffers, but it became the achilles heel of the POP report.

  • lawyer05lawyer05 Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭

    @MCMLVTopps said:
    Ahhhhh, my favorite subject with PSA...the POP report.

    Prior to the half-point change, things were (IMO) relatively stable concerning the POP report...though it had issues do to crack outs. Since the half-point change, the POP report was and forever will be almost totally invalid. It is my opinion, that the burden of accuracy of graded cards within the PSA system falls squarely on them. The half-point change really opened the gates.

    Pls follow...

    As an example: Let's say you have a 1955 Topps (almost any star player in any sport can be used), #2, Ted Williams, PSA 7. You think the card will grade higher and hope to get the half-point bump, thus turning your PSA 7 into a more valuable PSA 7.5. You crack the original PSA 7 and send in the raw card. The card comes back as a PSA 6.5...whoa, bad news. You crack the card and send in the raw card. It comes back as a PSA 7, you are now back where you began. BUT, the originial PSA 7 has now morphed into one non-existent PSA 7 (the original), one non-existent PSA 6.5 from the first submission and one real PSA 7, the latest grading. End result...the POP report has risen by one in the PSA 7 area and one PSA 6.5 in the PSA 6.5 are, both cards do NOT exist you didn't send in the flip (greatest majority don't), thus the POP report is tarnished.

    Just in the 1955 Topps set alone, one can easily see the craziness with ongoing crack outs, seeking the elusive half point, or full grade upgrade on star and other common, hard to find cards. PSA (IMO) did not do due diligence to ensure this situation never happened. However, it has happened untold number of times, and created "ghost" numbers in the PSA 6-8 range (just a guess on my part) that can never, ever be fixed.

    Think of the number of sets in all sports and non sports, where cards have been submitted over and over and over seeking higher grading to increase the value of the original card...stunning. I have personally put together 3 different 1955 Topps sets, one was just about 20 cards short of a straight PSA 8 set. If memory serves, this was in the 2006-2008 time frame. The POPs then, on some cards was in the low to mid 20s...I just looked, they are now in the upper 90s. No way is there that much original raw out there to have justified this incredible jump in numbers. Logical conclusion...lots and lots of crack outs. Jim Rivera, #58 is a case in point. I remember when his PSA 7 was a POP of 26...it is now 94 !!

    The half-point change was great for the PSA coffers, but it became the achilles heel of the POP report.

    thanks for the info.... i can see it happening

  • lawyer05lawyer05 Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭

    @lawyer05 said:

    @MCMLVTopps said:
    Ahhhhh, my favorite subject with PSA...the POP report.

    Prior to the half-point change, things were (IMO) relatively stable concerning the POP report...though it had issues do to crack outs. Since the half-point change, the POP report was and forever will be almost totally invalid. It is my opinion, that the burden of accuracy of graded cards within the PSA system falls squarely on them. The half-point change really opened the gates.

    Pls follow...

    As an example: Let's say you have a 1955 Topps (almost any star player in any sport can be used), #2, Ted Williams, PSA 7. You think the card will grade higher and hope to get the half-point bump, thus turning your PSA 7 into a more valuable PSA 7.5. You crack the original PSA 7 and send in the raw card. The card comes back as a PSA 6.5...whoa, bad news. You crack the card and send in the raw card. It comes back as a PSA 7, you are now back where you began. BUT, the originial PSA 7 has now morphed into one non-existent PSA 7 (the original), one non-existent PSA 6.5 from the first submission and one real PSA 7, the latest grading. End result...the POP report has risen by one in the PSA 7 area and one PSA 6.5 in the PSA 6.5 are, both cards do NOT exist you didn't send in the flip (greatest majority don't), thus the POP report is tarnished.

    Just in the 1955 Topps set alone, one can easily see the craziness with ongoing crack outs, seeking the elusive half point, or full grade upgrade on star and other common, hard to find cards. PSA (IMO) did not do due diligence to ensure this situation never happened. However, it has happened untold number of times, and created "ghost" numbers in the PSA 6-8 range (just a guess on my part) that can never, ever be fixed.

    Think of the number of sets in all sports and non sports, where cards have been submitted over and over and over seeking higher grading to increase the value of the original card...stunning. I have personally put together 3 different 1955 Topps sets, one was just about 20 cards short of a straight PSA 8 set. If memory serves, this was in the 2006-2008 time frame. The POPs then, on some cards was in the low to mid 20s...I just looked, they are now in the upper 90s. No way is there that much original raw out there to have justified this incredible jump in numbers. Logical conclusion...lots and lots of crack outs. Jim Rivera, #58 is a case in point. I remember when his PSA 7 was a POP of 26...it is now 94 !!

    The half-point change was great for the PSA coffers, but it became the achilles heel of the POP report.

    thanks for the info.... i can see it happening

    did u ever get the 1955 humberto ?

  • PROMETHIUS88PROMETHIUS88 Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭✭

    Lol, I had the same issue with the font change the other day. You can edit the post and take the spaces between the paragraphs out and it will correct itself.

    "After waiting for "65 ~~~~Business Days," and like 78 days in general, who remembers all 150 cards they submit, while also having 2-3 submissions in at once?"

    As far as this goes, I get it, it's wrong and shouldn't have happened in the first place. I currently have 5 submissions in with 3 of them between 100-150 cards each. If you look at your online submission form after they log your cards, it shows how/what you submitted and should be pretty easy to cross reference when the submission pops. I can guarantee that I have looked at that thing no less than 20 times in the 85+ days I have been waiting on my oldest sub. Could almost go line by line knowing what was submitted.
    On the POP 1 PSA 10 card...yeah, it sucks and I completely agree they could just change the pop report but like I said, I don't think they will until the card is returned to have the label fixed. Can you tell if someone has that card registered to a set?? Obviously if you can find it you could send them a message or possibly PSA would. Of course, doesn't mean they would send it in.

  • On the POP 1 PSA 10 card...yeah, it sucks and I completely agree they could just change the pop report but like I said, I don't think they will until the card is returned to have the label fixed. Can you tell if someone has that card registered to a set?? Obviously if you can find it you could send them a message or possibly PSA would. Of course, doesn't mean they would send it in.

    Yes, I actually tried to add the cert # to my set in order to see if it was registered, and it is. But yeah, it did not put me in contact with the owner. It sent an email to the owner from PSA asking to remove it from their inventory, then PSA came back to me with an email saying they owner still owns the card. So I haven't been able to connect with the owner. Plus, why would they send it back in, especially if they submitted it wrong and pulled a fast one PSA to get a POP 1? A REAL POP 1 ABCD Certified PSA 10 would command a premium price where as the ABCD Redemption versions in PSA 10 sell in the ballpark of $25.00-$45.00.

    So if PSA would just fix the pop report for this card that would take away the credibility of the card......THEN the owner may be more persuaded to send it back in to get it fixed. As it stands, the owner is holding pocket aces, and PSA is letting him.

Sign In or Register to comment.