PSA grades reprint card...
ranch
Posts: 341 ✭
Thread from Network54 Boards
What a shame! People are freaking out over this error PSA made, even I know that card is a reprint! Sigh*
What a shame! People are freaking out over this error PSA made, even I know that card is a reprint! Sigh*
0
Comments
1915 SPORTING. NEWS JIM THORPE # 176 PSA 3
Left -- reprint. Right -- real.
I believe PSA also graded a fake M101-5 Babe Ruth within the last year.
but thanks for posting.
Yes, it looks like mistakes happen.
Appearently they are human at PSA.
For anyone who would like a Microsoft Powerpoint presentation detailing the differences between an authentic and a reprint Sporting News Babe Ruth card, please e-mail me privately. It was prepared by the original owner of the reprint Ruth card that ended up in a PSA 1 holder. The file is approximately 2.3 MB in size, and it is a good educational tool for those entering the foray of vintage cards.
Yes, PSA makes mistakes. In situations like these, I think the most important thing that we can focus on for the future is educating consumers to make their own, independent verifications outside of a third-party process. Though PSA and other grading companies serve a very important market need in today's collecting world, it is nonetheless imperative that anyone who spends significant money on cards (e.g. over $1,000) educate themselves to be knowledgeable enough to differentiate between authentic unaltered examples and the scam artists and dealers who took advantage of the uneducated public.
I was the one who started the Net54 thread. I have no problem with the concept that people make mistakes, but mistakes like this completely turn off a vintage type collector like me. It is very widely known that the m101-5 reprints all look like this one--large space between frame and picture. I do not know of any real m101-5's that have that space. Also, they all, to my knowledge, are blank backs, except for any computer-generated forgeries that attempt to paste/print a back. These are two huge flags to look for when judging authenticity of the issue. Add to that what MikeSchmidt has pointed out, i.e. that PSA already bought back some time ago a fake m101-5 Ruth, and you would think that there would be a memo if not manifesto on how to scrutinize these cards. Finally, keep in mind that this is one of fewer than 5 Thorpe baseball cards, and one of the rarest cards in the set--it's not a Jimmy Archer card. So how does a mistake like this get made?
I happen to collect the set, so I stayed away from this fake. Still, I collect type cards from a variety of obscure or at least somewhat scarce issues. The grading companies are supposed to provide a comfort level that the card is at least genuine--I can judge the grade for myself. If they blow this one, how can I trust them with others? I mean, come on now, I have heard for so long that more than one grader at PSA examines each card, and many of you feel that's bunk, but when an infrequently encountered card like this is submitted, I would hope that multiple graders are used. So, which is it, 2 or 3 PSA guys can't tell this is a fake or they're too damn busy to have more than one grader look at what purports to be one of the more scarce and valuable cards in the hobby? Either way, this stinks.
regards.................Todd
ebay id: nolemmings