PSA claiming I have 16 stars in my common submission???, updated with "stars" hahahah

RipublicaninMass · September 20, 2005 2:15AM

Whatever, wait until I post who they felt the "stars" were. 59 fleer ted williams???? So every card in this set is a star? Service rep told me any all star or HOF'er is a star player. This is ridiculous I guess any Brooklyn Dodger common is also a star, or any card listed 5 bucks higher than a common. There must be more stringent guidelines about "star" players. I have clemente's duke's and 10 other waiting to send in as stars, and now I had to pay for stars anywyas????? So now should I just have them ship them back ungraded, or pay 2 dollers more per card, plus return shipping??? Which now I obviously did.

donnnster · September 20, 2005 3:23AM

yea that star/non-star thing always did bug me. I have seen on these boards some folks sneak in some pretty major stars in their 50s or 60s specials. Maybe PSA should have a more definitive list of what they considered stars.

As for your case, I would definitely pay the extra money to have them graded right now instead of sending it back. Since they arrived safely over there, why risk sending it back to you and you sending it back and forth...more trips and more chance of something going wrong.

packCollector · September 20, 2005 3:36AM

that's a joke I would find someone else to complain to. The ted signs is a star, the rest are all on the same level and valued less than every other 50's common. that makes no sense , why would anyone grade them for $12 when they sell for $30 in psa 8. you can grade 52 topps commons that sell for 500 in psa 8for $5 but a 59 fleer is a star . I think this is the case where if you complain to the right person , common sense will prevail

zef204 · September 20, 2005 3:49AM

<< I think this is the case where if you complain to the right person , common sense will prevail >>

I respectfully think you are mistaken.

carew4me · September 20, 2005 4:02AM

PSA has got to address this!

I have been confused by this and so have many others.

Go into the registry master lists and * every card that has to be submitted at the "star" level.

Why is this so hard? Why does PSA make this so hard?

envoy98 · September 20, 2005 4:37AM

I emailed Joe Orlando about this and asked what I could and could not send in under the 60's bulk etc. He said some stars do sneak through, when I asked for clarification (and gave him a specific list of players I would be including)...something to the effect of "ok, so I can send in 50 or 1960's cards that are on my registries, all are rookies and mostly common except a few like Merlin Olsen and some other $15-$30 cards" I was plainly told "If it makes sense for us"

I left it at that, as it was a bit too cryptic for me to even bother exploring explanation...so I gave up.

I agree, it is stupid and I have yet to send in those cards for fear of having the same thing happen to me that Rip is experiencing.

phreakydancin · September 20, 2005 5:07AM

They should just set a dollar value limit ($200?) and be done with it. The star/non-star distinction makes no logical sense and is impossible to police consistently.

Stone193 · September 20, 2005 5:18AM

If they put a dollar limit make it something realistic like 1000 bucks and just grade the darn things already.

The commons were intended for the registry, I would imagine, but heck just grade'm. They're probably doing it to make sure the graders stay busy?

Star, not a star, hi pop, low pop - kinds of gives me a headache.

Keep'm raw for a while and watch them come begging?

Just my - I'm stuck at work - rant.

2dueces · September 20, 2005 5:24AM

How would they classify 61 Fleer. That set is loaded with HOFer commons that sell for $10 in a 7. Are they all star cards too? Just curious because I just bought a lot of 50 from that set. Thanks

tkd7 · September 20, 2005 5:42AM

You are right, this is ridiculous. PSA needs to set up the standard ahead of time. And don't base it on value, since they are setting a value in their own publication. I've got a 1967 Seaver and 1952 Berra to grade. Now do I have to guess their value at above or below $500? Isn't that why I get my card graded in the first place?

Just place an asterisk in the SMR next to every card that falls into the "star" category. If the set isn't worthy of putting in the SMR, then there aren't any star cards in the set. At the very least, you won't tick people off after the submission.

In my last submission I included a '57 Giants team card, '61 Yankees team card and '58 All Star Aparicio as commons without any problem. It wasn't as a submission special, but nonetheless no problems.

A761506 · September 20, 2005 5:43AM

I hate that type of petty business. I've been saying this for a long time, but it really doesn't matter who is on the card, it matters what the card is worth. Same deal with condition. A prestine card worth $200 in PSA 8 is not even close to the same as the same card in a PSA 4 worth $40, but if it's a card of Hank Aaron, they are put into the same pool. A high number common in a PSA 8 worth $100 is a common, but a Luis Aparicio from the same set, worth $40 in PSA 8, is a star?

I had to argue with a PSA employee at the National, as she gave me a fight about submitting a not-so-mint 1968 Venezuelan Brooks Robinson card (which wound up grading a 4) with a larger order of 60's common cards under the July special. OK, so let's see how smart this is from a business stand-point... alienate a regular submitter by pissing him off over a single card of a large order... after seeing the light, and me telling her how ridiculous she was giving me a hassle over 1 card, she reluctantly accepted the order.

mtcards · September 20, 2005 6:48AM

I think it is ridiculous to charge more to grade one card over another. If PSA is being a "Third Party" in grading a card based upon its merits, then it should not matter WHO the card is of. Basically this policy is saying that it costs more to grade a star card than it does a common. I know the arguments coming on this, well a star in 9 is worth more than a common in 9....my answer is NOT if you are unbiased in how you are grading. A grader should not give merit to who the card is of, just the condition of the card and nothing else. And following this logic, you are also stating that common graded cards may not be as high a quality than of a star card of the same grade. Consistency is what collectors and buyers want, this is not it.

My opinion

tkd7 · September 20, 2005 7:28AM

I guess the only problem with charging the same to grade all cards would mean grading fees would increase. I can't imagine PSA lowering its fee to $5 to grade a 1952 Mantle, but I can imagine the fee to grade a 1978 Sixto Lezcano increasing to $15.

Stone193 · September 20, 2005 7:59AM

The hell with all this - I'm going back to collecting rocks!

CDsNuts · September 20, 2005 8:13AM

Charging more to grade one card than to grade another in any particular set is counterintuitive to the whole "objective" third party grading idea. How can they give both cards the same amount of attention if they charge the more for one card (say a 1969 common and a 1969 Mantle)? Conversely, how can they justify charging more for one card if they do in fact give them the same attention. And if they do give the "star" more attention, how consistent can they be in grading cards across the board?

They should charge the same amount to grade any card in any specific set, and base their prices on amount of material and resources they use. Obviously tall boys might be a a dollar or two more, etc... They shouldn't care who or what the card is, but instead just verify its authenticity and assign a grade.

Lee

mealeworm · September 20, 2005 10:34AM

Wow... the order gor rejected.. I have been sneaking them thru since i started submitting. Look at the HOFers in that recent 50's common special I sent in. Hell Don Drysdale was in there 579569 45239

jaxxr · September 20, 2005 11:08AM

I read the special to include all cards from the 50s valued at $500.00 or less.

To those that think ALL cards should be treated the same....
Don't you feel your 53 Topps Mantle which is probably a 7 or 8 should be evaluated a bit more completely than your 56 Ruben Gomez which rates between a 5 or 6 ????
Don't you feel the liability for an error or lost card like the nice 53 Mantle is much more than the mediocre 56 Gomez ?
Would you not feel a little more time should be spent on a card worth perhaps thousands, than one worth probably 4 or 5 dollars?
For all the additional time, effort, responsibility, liability, etc. involved, is it not acceptable for PSA or any grader, to charge more for a 53 Mantle than a 56 Gomez, or a 79 Gorman Thomas for that matter ?

baseballfanatic · September 20, 2005 11:11AM

<< I read the special to include all cards from the 50s valued at $500.00 or less.

To those that think ALL cards should be treated the same....
Don't you feel your 53 Topps Mantle which is probably a 7 or 8 should be evaluated a bit more completely than your 56 Ruben Gomez which rates between a 5 or 6 ????
Don't you feel the liability for an error or lost card like the nice 53 Mantle is much more than the mediocre 56 Gomez ?
Would you not feel a little more time should be spent on a card worth perhaps thousands, than one worth probably 4 or 5 dollars?
For all the additional time, effort, responsibility, liability, etc. involved, is it not acceptable for PSA or any grader, to charge more for a 53 Mantle than a 56 Gomez, or a 79 Gorman Thomas for that matter ?

>>

Why shouldnt the same time be taken for every card? What does it matter if it is a Mantle or a common? Joe Blow gets a quick glance but Mantle gets studied by a team of experts? Its ok if they lose my card and I pay 20.00 to have it graded but if I pay only 5.00 on a special its no big deal if they lose my card? I'll never get it............

dgbaseball · September 20, 2005 11:45AM

I can't believe people are actually suggesting there is a correlation between the grading price and time or attention or grader expertise spent evaluating the card.

Stars cost more because more people grade more stars because they have more value so PSA charges more for them... not because they receive more attention, or better graders, or more time grading, but because they can and they make more money doing so. It's a completely unjustified and artificial premium, make no mistakes. And we, the consumers, eat it up and figure "well the card's worth so much more, so it's acceptible that I pay more for the EXACT SAME SERVICE". It's crazy, but don't fault PSA for getting away it with. They will charge what the market will bear... etc.

If you think it actually costs them any more to grade a 52 Mickey Mantle than it does an 82 Mickey Rivers, how could they ever have specials for any groups of cards? Wouldn't they be losing money? Don't limit the discussion to stars. If I can pay $8 for a card one month, then the next month I can pay $6 in a special for the exact same card, but I can always pay $4 if I want to send in 100 cards like it... C'mon. It's a fee structure based on demand, to maximize profits of a huge business unit, of a publically traded company. That's all.

But I feel like I'm probably preaching to the choir now.

The liability issue is an interesting one I never considered. Although I've never heard a story about PSA damaging a card at their site (not shipping), and/or any information about what their liability/policy would be in such a case, so I don't think that's a valid justification for the higher prices either. And if you're talking about reimbursement/insurance for a $50,000 card, I don't think a $5 difference in grading fees would really make up whatever insurance costs they have in that case anyways.

That being the case, I hate hearing stories like this where they are being jerks and splitting hairs about what is and what is not a star. They should be thankful we eat it up the fee structure in the first place, and cut the customer a break sometimes, especially on these specials, which must attract ridiculous amounts of submissions.

CDsNuts · September 20, 2005 11:54AM

jaxx,
If they give one card more attention than another then they are not being consistent with their grading. Value has nothing to do with the service they offer. They assign grades to cards based on a number of factors in order to give an unbiased and objective view of the card in question. The attention they give to a Mantle HAS to be the same as a common otherwise they are not being unbiased and objective- they are giving special treatment to one card over the other which shows bias and will lead to inconsistent grading. Here's an extreme example:

They lock a grader in a room for 2 weeks with a 53 Mantle and a 15x loupe. Over those 14 days he scours the card for imperfections and finally assigns a grade. Don't you think that card is going to be graded a little more harshly than a 1953 common that he's looked at for 1 minute? There goes consistency. Simply put, if they grade cards in an incosistent manner based on who is pictured, then the grades on a large scale are going to be inconsistent. Any grading company's reputation is built on consitency, which is vital to their growth and bottom line. That's why it's always highlighted on these forums when even a hint of inconsistency rears its ugly head. Common examples are undergraded/overgraded cards , OC cards not getting a qualifier, and counterfeits being slabbed.

Lee

CDsNuts · September 20, 2005 11:59AM

dg,
Between you and I, I don't think this thread will last much longer. And artificial premium is the exact term that I couldn't get my dumb brain to think of. Kind of like when a bar charges a cover charge on the weekend but not during the week. Are they offering you anything extra on the weekend? No, but its always a pleasant surprise when you pay the cover and find out it's also $9 beer night as well.

Lee

kingraider75 · September 20, 2005 12:25PM

CdNuts and other are right, it's insane. They once questioned me about it, and I said the card was less than $500. But this was over a year ago, when I would actually drop the cards off in person. Easier to stick it to some guy on the phone back east. It's insane, they should just charge a flat rate for everything, except the turnaround time. They should just list all players who are star or forget it. Problem is that list will change daily, with rookies and all.

RipublicaninMass · September 20, 2005 1:01PM

Here it Is before i can even read all these posts. I am paying 12 per car, 6 dollars more cause I dont have 50 cards for the vintage bulk!!! So it is 12 bucks per card...let me make my list and u pick ou tthe 16 stars. i did notice one or two.
Chuck Diering
Camilo Pascual
Bob Kennedy
Ted Kazanski
Leo Kiely
Jim Pendleton
Tom casagrande
Herman Wehmeier
Frank Sullivan
Don Zimmer
Johnny Podres
Jim Davis
Rip Ripulski
Jim Hughes
Jim Hegan
Harry Brecheen
Rudy Minarcin
Norm Zauchin
Bert Hamric
Frank Thomas
Gus Zernial
Whitey Ford
Eddie Mathews
Al Kaline
Name Variety
John Podres
Gil Hodges
Rithie Ashburn
Ernie Banks
Tom Umphlett
Dusty Boggess
Mickey Vernon
Ed Hurley
George Kell
All Star Hero Ted Williams
Milt Bolling
Sandy Amoros
Mel Parnell
Ted Lepcio
Windy Mccall
Bob Keegan
Dean Stone
Jake Thies
Jerry Lynch
Jim Pearce
Joe Coleman
Joe Amalfitano
Joe Amalfitano
Gene Freese
Stan Hack
Dick Hall
Dick Groat
Mel Roach
Charlie White
Carlos Paula
Steve Bilko
Preston Ward
Lou Limmer
Tom Brewer
Billy Consolo
Elmer Valo
Dale Long

So...mathews, kaline and banks, maybe podres?

RipublicaninMass · September 20, 2005 1:03PM

<< Wow... the order gor rejected.. I have been sneaking them thru since i started submitting. Look at the HOFers in that recent 50's common special I sent in. Hell Don Drysdale was in there 579569 45239 >>

Me too, maybe too much talk on the board!

phreakydancin · September 20, 2005 1:04PM

<< The hell with all this - I'm going back to collecting rocks!

>>

Now THERE is a master set I wouldn't want to tackle! Too many 1/1's!

baseballfanatic · September 20, 2005 1:14PM

<< 

<< Wow... the order gor rejected.. I have been sneaking them thru since i started submitting. Look at the HOFers in that recent 50's common special I sent in. Hell Don Drysdale was in there 579569 45239 >>

Me too, maybe too much talk on the board! >>

If you check out the submission he snuck the Drysdale in, he also "snuck" in Whitey Ford, Pee wee Reese, Gil Hodges and a few others, and that was just at a quick glance looking for the Drysdale. Hard to believe they contacted you because I thought Customer Service was something they got rid of to free up some extra cash for the stockholders.....

mealeworm · September 20, 2005 9:50PM

I questioned the exact use of "commons" over a year ago. I had answers from "everyone but HOF and Rookies" to "anything not listed in the SMR". The SMR was my favorite, because as you all know the older sets list almost all the cards. I just wish they would decide on something and go with it. This causes alot of friction between others kinda like the turn around times. It is all luck. You might get your cards graded in 3 days or maybe 45. You might sneak some stars thru or maybe we charge you extra. You might hit the LOTTERY and get your stars thru and grades back all in three days.
We actually pay good money to be subjected to this type of pot luck.. Amazing

rbdjr1 · September 20, 2005 10:13PM

Imagine if you paid $2.99 for a set of 1982 20th Aniversary K-Mart cards. This set is loaded with stars!

TAKE A LOOK!

I guess PSA would charge you for grading star cards?

LOL

rbd

lostdart58 · September 20, 2005 10:34PM

<< Imagine if you paid $2.99 for a set of 1982 20th Aniversary K-Mart cards. This set is loaded with stars!

TAKE A LOOK!

I guess PSA would charge you for grading star cards?

LOL

rbd >>

I do not believe they charge extra for grading 80's stars............it's only vintage

rbdjr1 · September 20, 2005 10:43PM

<< I do not believe they charge extra for grading 80's stars............it's only vintage >>

Opppps! I believe U R right! Sorry!

rbd

dgbaseball · September 20, 2005 10:46PM

Maybe, as a big stretch, here are 10 that may be considered stars... Zimmer, Ford, Mathews, Kaline, Podres (2), Hodges, Ashburn, Banks, Williams.

RipublicaninMass · September 20, 2005 11:17PM

Ok Ok keep em coming, lets see the whole 16 stars.....

CDsNuts · September 20, 2005 11:20PM

Honestly, I think you got hurt on this because you tried to sneak Banks, Kaline, Matthews and Ford in. I think they're trying to get their point across not to try and sneak players that are clearly stars in with commons. If you had separated those four I think you would have been fine. Still a crock of crap.

Lee

packCollector · September 21, 2005 12:58AM

was just going to say the same thing, mathews , ford , kaline and banks. If you had only put one of those they would have let it through. but with 4 of them plus some other questionables , it was enough to push you to the wrong side

RipublicaninMass · September 21, 2005 1:16AM

I wasn't trying to "fool anyone". these cards would grade a PSA 5 at best. I could have sent them with my 6 free submissions if I had known

so 16 stars 192$
47 specials 282

or 63 common bulk at 8 $504 I guess I am still ahead or close to even with postage.

WinPitcher · September 21, 2005 1:56AM

I counted 8 or 9 cards that could be considered stars.

kell is in the HOF

Steve

baseballfanatic · September 21, 2005 2:03AM

<< I counted 8 or 9 cards that could be considered stars.

kell is in the HOF

Steve >>

Gil hasnt gotten in the hall yet, which is a true shame.
The other fellow that snuck in the Drysdale (rookie no less) also snuck in Whitey Ford, Hoyt Wilhem, Early Wynn, Peewee Reese, Nellie Fox, Warren Spahn, Luis Aparicio PLUS Hodges and Billy Martin. All were 57's and almost got a PSA 6,7 or 8

Beat me to the edit

RedHeart54 · September 21, 2005 3:00AM

What would happen, if for example, you submitted a bulk of commons from say 1967. And let's say on the order form you listed #569 Hank Allen. Are they going to call you on it and charge you a "star" price because this is one of those multi-rookie cards and #569 happens to have some guy named Carew on it? (For the record, I THINK SMR is under $500 for an 8.)

BigtimeBowmanfan · September 21, 2005 3:24AM

After reading this post it makes it very obvious that PSA should pray with all there might that SGC or GAI does not catch up in resale value. If this ever happened there would be an exodus not seen since the red sea parted.

Seriously i think things like this have alway's been an issue with them and that is why you hear so many good things from the SGC guy's. That is if the regisrty or resale are not the motivating factors.

dgbaseball · September 21, 2005 3:30AM

Here's hoping they do more than pray and that one day competition from other companies forces PSA to offer:

$5/card, any card, any year, 5 day turnaround.

With an occasional $3 monthly special, of course.

wheat34 · September 21, 2005 6:15AM

They let you off the hook easy. I counted 26:

Camilo Pascual
Frank Sullivan
Don Zimmer
Johnny Podres
Jim Hegan
Harry Brecheen
Frank Thomas
Gus Zernial
Whitey Ford
Eddie Mathews
Al Kaline - Name Variety
John Podres
Gil Hodges
Rithie Ashburn
Ernie Banks
Mickey Vernon
George Kell
All Star Hero Ted Williams
Mel Parnell
Bob Keegan
Dean Stone
Joe Coleman
Stan Hack
Dick Groat
Tom Brewer
Dale Long

I complete agree with a few people saying that PSA needs to provide a clear list of which cards are considered what. Once that is established, there is no questioning and it should be strictly enforced. There is nothing worse than the feeling like you are not being treated equally than others. This way, policy is clear and we all know what to submit at the appropriate level (and cost).

I also agree that the service levels should be based on value, not strictly All-Star or even HOF credentials. If you look at HOF'ers outside of Baseball, there are some pretty low value vintage cards.

I can completely understand the differences in cost, however. I would assume that the graders with the highest level of expertise and experience (and are paid the most) are called on to examine the highest valued cards. Since the highest valued cards are the most likely cards to be reprinted, altered, ..., it makes sense to have their top people looking at those cards.

Harry

mealeworm · September 21, 2005 10:47AM

I am the one who had the order with Drysdale and about 10 others go thru. I know the rules and I have sent $12/5 cards in also. I basically got tired of seeing other peoples submissions that had stars like Aaron and Mays in there. I decided to give it a try and it worked. I feel bad for RipublicanMass. My submission probably makes it worse, but it was only to show that there isnt any set rules. Some of those commons are valued much higher than a few of those stars. So once again my question is: Is it dollar amount or the name on the card, HOF or Rookie, SP or a really tough common????

THE ANSWER IS IT'S ALL LUCK!!!!

baseballfanatic · September 21, 2005 11:02AM

I can completely understand the differences in cost, however. I would assume that the graders with the highest level of expertise and experience (and are paid the most) are called on to examine the highest valued cards. Since the highest valued cards are the most likely cards to be reprinted, altered, ..., it makes sense to have their top people looking at those cards.

Harry >>

I dont agree with that at all. If you get a vintage PSA 10 of a low pop common, they could bring well more than 5 times the value of a PSA 5 or 6 Aaron.

Buccaneer · September 21, 2005 11:06AM

wheat34, that's a ridiculous list, imo. I only count 5 true stars at most. Just because a player made an all-star team or is a marginal HOFer (a lot of them are since the good 'ol boys let their cronies in) does not mean it's a star card. Also, I don't count specials like league leaders or team cards or world series as star cards, no matter who's on them. I wouldn't attempt to pass a Banks or Mathews or Ford by but I sincerely doubt that the folks they have grading/checking the cards in have not heard of 90% of those players. For the sets of the 1950s and 1960s, I would say that 95% of each year would be made up of non-star cards. For exampe, in the 1957 Topps set, I count only 23 star cards at most (that's less than 6% of the set).

eyebone · September 21, 2005 11:15AM

Two words Republican....SUE THEM!!!

Eyebone

wheat34 · September 21, 2005 11:22AM

baseballfanatic - I understand your point. However, again, I'm not familiar with any counterfeit high grade vintage commons. True that the PSA 10's go for big money as, which you stated, the submits of those quality gems is few are far between. Easy enough to have a big gun grader look at a few commons submitts verses 1,000's of commons on the off chance of a PSA 10. Overall, I am in favor of value verses "Star" status. That way, we are both happy, right? We are paying the most to have the big guns looking at our most valuable cards.

Buccaneer - I totally agree. My point of the full list is every one of those players was an "All-Star" team member at some point in their career. As stated above, I would be happy to have a system based on value instead of "Star" status. But, if we are to retain this current system, we need to know what is what. My list had 26 players. PSA's was 16. A realistic one has 6? Realistic being players whose value and market demand justify a higher level of expert examination.

Harry

mtcards · September 21, 2005 2:52PM

You know what's really insane?

You can control the Black Eyed Peas with the push of a button.

joeyuk · September 21, 2005 6:53PM

I would think not that stars cards are more expensive to grade rather that common cards are discounted.
Much like the free registry submissions to encourage completeness, discounts on common cards encourages
them to be graded and makes a larger market for graded cards.

This being said I also feel there are some coustermer service problems at PSA.

MorrellMan · September 21, 2005 11:44PM

1. I don't mean to steal dabighertz thunder, but PSA's liability is greater in grading a '53 Mantle than grading a '53 Wyrostek.

2. My opinion on commons submissions- if you think you might be pushing the envelope, you probably are. My experience has been that if a minor star (or maybe even a minor HOFer) happens to get into a bulk submission, it gets through, because that makes sense. Trying to include a Mathews, Ford, Kaline, etc in a commons submission wasn't a good idea.

3. The 59, 60 & 61 Fleer sets have commons. If this is the only reason for rejection I would appeal to someone higher up.

4. Doesn't GAI holder rocks?

sagard · September 22, 2005 12:17AM

I'm sorry the submission didn't go through, but I wish people would stop complaining about lack of strict definitions. The only thing that will create is a much higher aggregate cost of submissions.

RipublicaninMass · September 27, 2005 12:21PM

list of stars, they HAVE to be kidding
1 90538743 1955 TOPPS 91 MILT BOLLING N/A 6
2 90538744 1955 TOPPS 128 TED LEPCIO N/A 8OC
3 90538745 1955 TOPPS 26 DICK GROAT N/A 5
4 90538746 1955 TOPPS 84 CAMILO PASCUAL N/A 6
5 90538747 1955 TOPPS 25 JOHNNY PODRES N/A 6
6 90538748 1954 DAN-DEE FRANK THOMAS POTATO CHIPS 5
7 90538749 1952 TOPPS 31 GUS ZERNIAL N/A 4
8 90538750 1955 BOWMAN 59 WHITEY FORD N/A 6
9 90538751 1955 BOWMAN 103 EDDIE MATHEWS N/A 7
10 90538752 1955 BOWMAN 23 AL KALINE N/A 5
11 90538753 1955 BOWMAN 97 JOHN PODRES N/A 6
12 90538754 1955 BOWMAN 158 GIL HODGES N/A 5
13 90538755 1955 BOWMAN 130 RICHIE ASHBURN N/A 6
14 90538756 1955 BOWMAN 242 ERNIE BANKS N/A Not Holdered, Re-Colored
15 90538757 1955 BOWMAN 46 MICKEY VERNON N/A 5
16 90538758 1955 BOWMAN 213 GEORGE KELL N/A 5

PSA claiming I have 16 stars in my common submission???, updated with &quot;stars&quot; hahahah

Comments

PSA claiming I have 16 stars in my common submission???, updated with "stars" hahahah