Clearly a case of "buy the card, not the holder"
ctsoxfan
Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
Or, is this another big submitter gift?
Look at this...where's the qualifier?
You should see some of what gets an OC, but not this one?
Look at this...where's the qualifier?
You should see some of what gets an OC, but not this one?
0
Comments
Steve
Not sure if I could bring myself to sell that card on eBay.
James
Ken
- Slowly (Very Slowly) Working On A 1952 Topps Raw Set (Lower Grade)
<< <i>As a final quality control check, a "verifying" grader carefully examines the encapsulated item to ensure the integrity of the sealed capsule and to check the accuracy of all certification information. >>
This guy musta been asleep at the wheel!!!!
Mike
I think now each card is looked at by just the one grader, and then encapsulated.
Steve
I just spoke with a customer service rep last week and she told me that each card is "verified" by another person - then again that could be the party line speech.
Mike
I'm really not sure either way. I just seem to vaguely remember a thread a couple or so months ago (about PSA running short of graders), where it was mentioned that they had done away with the "verifier" position. I'm not sure of the truthfulness of that in the prior thread, or if they have subsequently reinstated the "verifier" position.
Steve
My point was that she was not immensely friendly and very self assured of the integrity and accuracy of their system - I'm not saying that mistakes can't happen - it's just that, as we all know, the difference between two grades can mean a lota $$ and can be a strong point of contention on our part
Mike
I was going to check the cert# to see if it was a scam. Then I saw the seller. Surprised the seller would list. Shocked Psa
graded this. Man, I thought you guys said Sgc was loose with their centering criteria.
aconte
I did check it and its totally legit - no errors etc. Wow, Wow, Wow!
Mike
I checked the cert # on PSA's website and it came up as a PSA 9 NQ. So the seller isn't trying to hide an OC qualifer.
Steve
beat me by a matter of seconds there Mike
"5. Final Verification
As a final quality control check, a "verifying" grader carefully examines the encapsulated item to ensure the integrity of the sealed capsule and to check the accuracy of all certification information. "
This doesn't say that the "verifying" grader actually verifies the grade of the card, rather the integrity of the holder and the "certification information" which may only be the card # and player's name. I find it hard to believe they'd actually give the card a grade twice...
Let me preface this with the fact that what I say is what I was told to the best of my recollection. I spoke with a grader who now is at GAI who told me that the verification is a cursory recheck of the validity of the grade given - he told me that it was a "check" against mistakes being made.
Mike
That was a rumor some months ago, but Joe Orlando posted on the Set Registry forum that at least 2 people see every card.
Joe
edit to add: how the F did that get through as a nine!
Thanks for the clarification.
So what you're saying is that in this case, the (first) grader was drunk, and the second person was stoned?
Steve
That was a good one - has anyone from the left bank ever visited their site and gotten a tour to see first hand how they work?
Mike
And while we're at it, we should do away with this notion that the big submitters get preferential treatment. There's no proof of it, and it just damages the hobby. My guess as to why the big boys tend to get better grades is because they buy lots of already slabbed cards, then pick through and resubmit the best ones. I know Joe Tuttle, for example, goes to almost every major show across the country, and he goes exclusively to buy. You know he's not buying 7000 mint raw cards a month, so you're left with the other explanation.
It brought in 15% of the PSA-9 price, so its good to see that the bidders were clearly bidding on the card, not the holder.
With that said, this "mistake" shouldn't have even been aired on eBay, it should have been sent back to PSA, and been properly adjusted. If the seller paid according to the grade then compensation should have been issued, if he was the submitter, a change of grade w/ a qualifier should have been in order. Thats what I would have done.
By sending it back to PSA, questions could be raised to avoid this situation in the future. If its thrown on eBay, they might not have even known about this mistake...jay
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
Jay- Yep it clearly looks like a mistake by PSA.....not a perk.
John
Todd
<< <i>wow, that card is horrid. Stevie Wonder is the new head grader apparently >>
and Helen Keller is the "verifying grader!"
I had two different Bonds cards graded, a 1993 and a 1995. Both received the same grade. When I got the cards back, the 1993 was in the 1995 holder and vice versa. The classic "mechanical error".
If the seller has an OC qualifier on another copy of the same card, I think the cards were sealed with the wrong labels. It happens.
So it looks like they put the wrong one in the wrong slab. What that probably also means is that someone has a real 9 in a holder that says its OC.
It looks like the wrong card got in the wrong holder...two times probably but it looks like the error was in the slabbing department, not the grading department.
Keith
as Basilone stated, this shouldn't have ever hit eBay, it should have been returned to PSA. A simple auction like this, does more harm than good...jay
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
<< <i>Jay you are right again anyone thinking this was some sort of perk is a fool >>
<< <i>they may fianlly realize how ignorant some of their conspiracy claims actually are. >>
Now, is that very nice glynparson? All that was being mentioned is that it was entirely possible that some submitters get the benefit of the doubt more often than others. It is not, as you say, a conspiracy theory, but rather, something that many people feel is true, whether you like it or not (and whether you agree or not). This particular example is too bizarre to be that, I agree...but the perception will still remain in many collectors minds, and this type of "error" does nothing to make me feel better about it.
I would give the insults and name calling a rest.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
1) I believe it was an honest mistake on PSA's part during grading; given the amount of the same type card submitted, etc. as has been pointed out previously.
2) I wonder if the left hand knew what the right hand was doing as far as the listing goes. I wouldn't risk the intelligence of my customers with a card like that claiming $335 SMR. I wonder if he was even aware of the listing. I say this because, to me, he has much more to lose than to gain if it was intentional. Although he certainly didn't do anything wrong as far as legality goes, bidder's are sure to question items like this........and remember the sellers ID.
2000+ positive feedback and no negs..................I would have done something else with this card if I were selling it. Why risk it?
BOTR
If a card can be so easily switched, then what must the grading floor look like? A whole bunch of raw cards floating around with absolutely no way to identify them?
Here is how I view the PSA grading process to be, or how it SHOULD be:
1. Cards arrive in the mail.
2. Whoever opens the package verifies that there is a one-to-one match between the cards listed on the invoice and the ones that were actually sent. This person should know their stuff. No sending in a '52 Mantle reprint yet listing it as an actual '52 and getting away with it. The invoice is then entered in to the computer system, and the certification numbers are assigned to each card and taped to the individual top-loaders. A new printout is made that contains all the same info as the original invoice, but has the cert numbers for each card listed as well. The cards and printout are then sent to the Grading Department.
3. The Grading Department does their own one-to-one check of the contents and then grades each card ONE AT A TIME. The top-loader is cut open, the card is graded, placed in a new top-loader, and a sticker is attached that lists the cert number, the card info, and the grade.
4. Once all the cards in the shipment are graded then, hopefully, the Verification department takes the cards, does their own one-to-one match, and does a cursory review of the grade assigned. The grade is then entered in to the computer system, and a printed label is made with a UPC code that uniquely identifies the card. This new label is then attached to the top-loader. The cards are then sent to the Slabbing Department.
5. The Slabbing Department takes each invidual card and scans the UPC code. This prevents the slabber from manually entering the wrong cert number. From this, the label is then automatically printed. The slabber then slabs the card ONE AT A TIME. No chance for the slabber to screw up here as the label is printed from the computer database with only a trigger-pull from the slabber.
6. Once all cards in a shipment are slabbed, the Final Review Department does a final one-to-one match of the shipment, validates the cards for the database, and the shipment is then sent to the Shipping Department.
7. The Shipping Department then packages the cards, sends them, and releases the invoice so that the customer can be notified that the grades have been assigned.
Apparently this isn't quite how PSA does things, though, as this Clemente mistake would have been impossible to squeak by. One person grading and the other person verifying should not let such a bad grade go through. And the slabbing is just a mechanical process with no chance for human error.
So just how DID this mistake get through? Is PSA not as thorough as I've described, or is the grading room a hodge-podge of untracked raw cards? How professional are they, then?
packCollector has it exactly right.
This was not a grading error, it was a clerical error.
As to whether the submitter should have sent it back to PSA to correct,
or just put it up on eBay in hopes of getting lucky :
I guess it depends on what you would do if someone,
by mistake, gives you a 100 dollar bill back in change instead of a 10.
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
7 PSA 9oc, and this one marked PSA 9.
I knew immediately it was a mechanical error by PSA.
I saw no reason to send it back to PSA. Why pay $12.00 each way to have it corrected? I figured the honest thing to do was put it on ebay (which was my intention all along with these cards) with a scan, knowing that people would bid on it as a PSA 9 oc anyway.
I did not try to pass this off as a PSA 9 unqualified. I mentioned the SMR for a 9 as a reference point, not as a claim that this card was worth that.
I've had people contact me and tell me I should have a friend send it back to PSA and claim he paid $300 for it and split the profit on what ebay would "buy it back" for.
I've had others contact me and tell me they knew someone who was going to bid on it on ebay and do the same thing, send it back to PSA and claim they didn't see the card before buying it.
So, who's the dishonest person here.
I'm a collector, not a dealer. I don't send massive submissions. There is no reason I would get any consideration, even if that ever occured, which I don't believe happens anyway.
As for the thought that this was somehow slipped into a different holder, that's not the kind of person I am, as those of you who know me can attest.
I think the card sold for a fair price, based on its true PSA 9 OC value. I trusted ebayers to recognize the card for what it was and bid accordingly, and they did. I see harm here only if someone tries to defraud PSA or someone else down the line. But, I have no control over that.
Besides, we've probably all gotten cards back from PSA that were graded higher than we thought. Maybe its a PSA 9 that we thought was certainly no more than an 8. Do we send those back to PSA and say, "you made a mistake, lower the grade on this card and send it back." I doubt it.
The grader was on crack and deserves to be beaten with a switch.
i am not sure if you tried to take advantage of the error and will take your word for it that you didn't based on your reputation but there are a lot of things that you could have done differently to eviminate the questions.
1.) if you send this card back with another submission then it costs you nothing to get the error corrected , not the $12 each way that you state. you probably could have talked with Joe to get some free grades also for keeping the error "in house" and for saving them the headache that is going to happen when the buyer sends it back saying he paid smr for that card.
2.) you have 18 others of the same card, why list this one given the obvious ramifications. even though you are an upstanding honest seller it does not make you look that way. it looks like you are trying to take advantage.
my 2 cents, you state that you are a collector, as a collector and knowing all the bs that goes on in the market place, i would have kept that card and got it corrected instead of opening up the potential for someone else to defraud another collector.
My guess was that one of the cards that ended up with the OC label was actually the straight 9 that they improperly flip-flopped with an OC 9.