Motley looking Motley

rhilbeli

Probstein has this for sale. Yikes. Slab doesn't look compromised. $700-$800 card.

https://ebay.com/itm/384951751514?hash=item59a0e9935a:g:NOAAAOSw0Z9iqkcj

1966CUDA

WOW! Right border looks funky...pencil checkmark on reverse!!!

Chicago1976

@1966CUDA said:
WOW! Right border looks funky...pencil checkmark on reverse!!!

Agree. How on earth did that rate a "7" ?

JakeR2234

What a joke PSA has become.

dontippet

Don't forget the bottom border.

bobbybakeriv

That's simply horrible. If I submitted that card it would get a 4 or 5 MC.

azvike

MC and MK...

billwaltonsbeard

This is still on a scale of 10, right? jeesshh

jeffcbay

Why does it seem like all of these extremely over-graded cards coming from the same seller? Surely that isn't a coincidence.

CardGeek

@jeffcbay said:
Why does it seem like all of these extremely over-graded cards coming from the same seller? Surely that isn't a coincidence.

really?

Mickey71

I'm seriously not sure where all of this is headed. It appears to be headed to no mans land. Quality has deteriorated terribly. The world of grading vintage cards is uncertain to say it as nice as humanly possible. Very disappointing.

georgebailey2

Any chance it is a mechanical error, rather, a one (since it is both mis-cut and marked) that was misread as a seven? That assumes they use handwritten forms internally. Occasionally, my ones can look like sevens and vice versa.

jeffcbay

@CardGeek said:

@jeffcbay said:
Why does it seem like all of these extremely over-graded cards coming from the same seller? Surely that isn't a coincidence.

really?

Yes, really...

NGS428

This Motley is even offended that Motley got a 7. Tommy chimed in and said even a 4, one for each of his broken ribs is too much.

Mickey71

@jeffcbay said:

@CardGeek said:

@jeffcbay said:
Why does it seem like all of these extremely over-graded cards coming from the same seller? Surely that isn't a coincidence.

really?

Yes, really...

This card is very high end.....problem is, a very high end 6

BaltimoreYankee

That Motley card better be fake or PSA has really, really lost it. I stopped subbing several years back and it looks like I got out just on time judging from the stories I've been reading lately.

smallstocks

Maybe someone cracked it and swapped cards?

Jayman1982

@smallstocks said:
Maybe someone cracked it and swapped cards?

It does seem like that is possible, or it was a mechanical labelling error

Mickey71

Send it to KSA. It might get a 7.5

miwlvrn

Once again, another example of a mech error on the grade portion of the label that made its way through QA/QC. There is no way a PSA grader assigned this a 7 NQ. That getting a MK qualifier is a sure thing, no matter what experience the grader had. It is frustrating to see how incredibly frequent mech errors on the grades are. Again, this was not over-graded; it was unacceptably under-proofread during the quality stages. While examples like this stand out as obvious mech errors, it does highlight how the wrong (unintended/assigned) grade being on the label happens often but without being caught by the card owner, leaving the card owner to feel like his item was judged overly harshly in the grading stage when in actuality the grader got it right and the subsequent labeler screwed it up (or, as in this case, maybe scored a grade that was higher than it deserved even though the grader got it right but lower than what was printed on the label).

CardGeek

Is this the show a nice card and pretend its a 6 thread? what's wrong with the front of that Ripken?

Jayman1982

@CardGeek said:
Is this the show a nice card and pretend its a 6 thread? what's wrong with the front of that Ripken?

The black ink lines on "Bob Bonner Shortstop" I'm guessing

miwlvrn

@Jayman1982 said:

@CardGeek said:
Is this the show a nice card and pretend its a 6 thread? what's wrong with the front of that Ripken?

The black ink lines on "Bob Bonner Shortstop" I'm guessing

plus the edge damage by the A in Stars and on the other side between the photos of Ripken and Schneider

also, there is some slight diamond cutting w/ the centering

jeffcbay

@CardGeek said:
Is this the show a nice card and pretend its a 6 thread? what's wrong with the front of that Ripken?

The left edge looks like it was hand cut with scissors, and the chip on the right edge under the "A" in STARS.

82FootballWaxMemorys

daltex

@miwlvrn said:
Once again, another example of a mech error on the grade portion of the label that made its way through QA/QC. There is no way a PSA grader assigned this a 7 NQ. That getting a MK qualifier is a sure thing, no matter what experience the grader had. It is frustrating to see how incredibly frequent mech errors on the grades are. Again, this was not over-graded; it was unacceptably under-proofread during the quality stages. While examples like this stand out as obvious mech errors, it does highlight how the wrong (unintended/assigned) grade being on the label happens often but without being caught by the card owner, leaving the card owner to feel like his item was judged overly harshly in the grading stage when in actuality the grader got it right and the subsequent labeler screwed it up (or, as in this case, maybe scored a grade that was higher than it deserved even though the grader got it right but lower than what was printed on the label).

Why do you suppose these are more frequent, much less "incredibly frequent"? If they happen 1 in 10,000 (or 1 in 1000 or 1 in 5000), then grading ten times the cards would result in ten times the mechanical errors. We never talk about the vast numbers they get right.

CardGeek

It is a little tilted.

If you zoom in enough on that Ripken to see edge damage on the A in stars, you're seeing pixilation.

I don't think it should be a 10. A 6 seems like a pretty low though.

miwlvrn

@daltex said:

@miwlvrn said:
Once again, another example of a mech error on the grade portion of the label that made its way through QA/QC. There is no way a PSA grader assigned this a 7 NQ. That getting a MK qualifier is a sure thing, no matter what experience the grader had. It is frustrating to see how incredibly frequent mech errors on the grades are. Again, this was not over-graded; it was unacceptably under-proofread during the quality stages. While examples like this stand out as obvious mech errors, it does highlight how the wrong (unintended/assigned) grade being on the label happens often but without being caught by the card owner, leaving the card owner to feel like his item was judged overly harshly in the grading stage when in actuality the grader got it right and the subsequent labeler screwed it up (or, as in this case, maybe scored a grade that was higher than it deserved even though the grader got it right but lower than what was printed on the label).

Why do you suppose these are more frequent, much less "incredibly frequent"? If they happen 1 in 10,000 (or 1 in 1000 or 1 in 5000), then grading ten times the cards would result in ten times the mechanical errors. We never talk about the vast numbers they get right.

The absolutely get almost all of them right. Mech errors are relatively easy to spot when they occur on the letters text portion of the label, but it more often than not takes a qualifier or lack thereof to highlight a mech error on the grade portion. However, the grade portion does get its share of mech errors that are inaccurately passed off as either harsh or generous grading when in fact it had nothing to do with the grade but was instead a mech error. It is disappointing that these slip through the system when there is sufficient QA/QC time built into the process to catch them. Also, there is a method in place for the card owner to review the order for errors prior to Q2 shipment; the card owner can often spot the words/text error and have them fixed before final shipment, but they have no way of knowing if a numerical grade is an error relative to the assigned grade by the grader or not when looking at the list of cards on the review form.

jeffcbay

@CardGeek said:
It is a little tilted.

If you zoom in enough on that Ripken to see edge damage on the A in stars, you're seeing pixilation.

I don't think it should be a 10. A 6 seems like a pretty low though.

Here's a scan of the back... maybe the bottom is diamond cut or tilted, but the top is 100% hand trimmed. I rotated the image so the print on the back is straight, so you can easily see the edges move as you scroll up and down. I mean come on.

82FootballWaxMemorys

@miwlvrn said:

@daltex said:

@miwlvrn said:
Once again, another example of a mech error on the grade portion of the label that made its way through QA/QC. There is no way a PSA grader assigned this a 7 NQ. That getting a MK qualifier is a sure thing, no matter what experience the grader had. It is frustrating to see how incredibly frequent mech errors on the grades are. Again, this was not over-graded; it was unacceptably under-proofread during the quality stages. While examples like this stand out as obvious mech errors, it does highlight how the wrong (unintended/assigned) grade being on the label happens often but without being caught by the card owner, leaving the card owner to feel like his item was judged overly harshly in the grading stage when in actuality the grader got it right and the subsequent labeler screwed it up (or, as in this case, maybe scored a grade that was higher than it deserved even though the grader got it right but lower than what was printed on the label).

Why do you suppose these are more frequent, much less "incredibly frequent"? If they happen 1 in 10,000 (or 1 in 1000 or 1 in 5000), then grading ten times the cards would result in ten times the mechanical errors. We never talk about the vast numbers they get right.

The absolutely get almost all of them right. Mech errors are relatively easy to spot when they occur on the letters text portion of the label, but it more often than not takes a qualifier or lack thereof to highlight a mech error on the grade portion. However, the grade portion does get its share of mech errors that are inaccurately passed off as either harsh or generous grading when in fact it had nothing to do with the grade but was instead a mech error. It is disappointing that these slip through the system when there is sufficient QA/QC time built into the process to catch them. Also, there is a method in place for the card owner to review the order for errors prior to Q2 shipment; the card owner can often spot the words/text error and have them fixed before final shipment, but they have no way of knowing if a numerical grade is an error relative to the assigned grade by the grader or not when looking at the list of cards on the review form.

At best PSA is between Level 3 and 4 which given their immense volume is way way way way too many errors. While Six Sigma has been abused by many orgs the principles are all still valid. PSA needs to do better!

miwlvrn

FWIW, most of what I sub is foreign vintage soccer lately, but for the past several years, I had been averaging 9% mech error over thousands of cards graded. To be fair, most of it was because they didn't have anyone on staff with sufficient knowledge of the items, but, I had done substantial research and always provided links to checklists and scans of the albums etc. in addition to labeling correctly on the sub forms, so it was still frustrating. But, there were still plenty of mech errors on more normal/standard items too.

CardGeek

How do you guys know that Probstein submitted those cards?

jeffcbay

@CardGeek said:
How do you guys know that Probstein submitted those cards?

I'm not claiming Probstein SUBMITTED these cards, but it's interesting that he keeps ending up with, and selling, these obviously over-graded cards. I'm not accusing him of anything, but maybe someone who is consigning through Probstein had gotten really good at tampering with and resealing slabs. Can't rule anything out at this point.