Oops!
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭✭✭
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭✭✭
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Kind of disturbing to me that anyone being paid to grade vintage cards would think for a second this is from 1973. It’s a completely different photo for heaven’s sake, and says “Heritage” in huge letters!
I'd bet error occured after it left grading station.
I'm not up on Modern but was that card worth submitting in the first place?
So grading occurs before the card is identified? I was not aware of that.
Yeah not worth anything, why even submit it. AN inside job maybe,
Plus it is all-time average leader not all-time hits leader.
To be fair, they did correctly identify it as Ty Cobb.
It’s strange all around because Topps Heritage used card number 471 (that’s the number on the back of the heritage card) for the All Time Batting Leader, but the original 1973 Topps card #471 is for the All Time Hits leader. So SGC was just printing out the label for the real 1973 #471.
Also, why did Ty’s average go down by a point since 1973? 😂 Rounding error I guess.
Now preparing every gosh darn HOFer insert card I can find for submission before they figure this thing out.
Gobble.
What should have been a dead giveaway is that there's no way on earth that a 1973 card gets a 9.5 grade in 2024!
ESPN reported a couple 0-fers in the afterlife against Old Hoss Radbourn…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
It’s pretty widely accepted now that Cobb was given 2 extra hits by the Commissioners office in 1910 by double counting a game so that he won the batting title over Nap Lajoie (whose opponent allowed him to bunt for a bunch of hits on the last day of the season so that he would beat Cobb). So baseball reference, etc, has him with 4189 hits and a .366 average now, which was not the case in 1973. Also means Rose broke the record earlier that thought.
Nah, the error occurred at intake (like PSA research & ID). Though you'd have to assume that the person submitting it entered it as 1973 #471, possibly because there was no entry in the DB for the new one and figured it was a 1973 style or something. The intake person didn't do their job properly identifying it and left the entry. The grader just makes sure the card doesn't look like a reprint/fake which was probably apparent. The grader doesn't really look at the identity of the card in the computer, just enters the grade for that item, and then the slabber just takes the word of everyone and encapsulates it.
Well, it didn't have refracting speckle rainbow bedazzled colors, so obviously, it must be old.
Ol ' Hoss could hit 'em on any plane of existence