Post your most painful PSA "rejects"

cravetopps

probably happened to all of us at one time or another. Got these from an ebayer who "disappeared" shortly after I received my great news.



Can someone tell me what the issue is with the '56 Mantle? I am curious to have one of the experts here point out the obvious.

mikeschmidt

Without seeing the card, PSA deemed it was a reprint...anything but an original.

They're not always right about that, but I would say they tend to be 95+% of the time.

stown

<< <i>Can someone tell me what the issue is with the '56 Mantle? I am curious to have one of the experts here point out the obvious. >>



That '56 even hurts me because I need one for my set.

I've heard numerous rumors of fakes out there and I guess it's true. Never seen one before and if you don't mind, could you please provide a bigger scan? Perhaps others with more knowledge and experience can offer their insight (which would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance )

MikeyLikesIt

Why can't the '65 be slabbed with an "MC" qualifier?

cravetopps

frankhardy

Wow, I love the timing of this thread. I am in negotiations (if I can call it that) with PSA about these 2 cards. They say that the cards are to fragile to holder. They said that they are afraid that the slabbing process will further damage the cards. They said that the "vibrations" from the sonic process will damage them. I pleaded with them. I am supposed to hear back from them tomorrow. All I want is for the cards to be slabbed as at least "authentic".

The first is a T206 Ty Cobb. No explanation needed.

The second is a very, very rare T216 Peoples Tobacco (Virginia Extra's back; thin paper variation) Wild Bill Donovan. PSA has yet to grade a Donovan, and only 58 total Peoples Tobacco cards.

These cards are rough, but I would love them to be slabbed.

I am keeping my fingers crossed till tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath.

frankhardy

Ouch, that 56 Mantle scares me. I didn't realize that there were any counterfeits of that one. I have one on my desk now getting ready to be shipped to PSA. Anyway to tell the difference?

markj111

I bought a really sharp 64 Mantle about 20 years ago. When I had it graded two years ago, it came back trimmed. The dealer I bought it from is still in business, but I figured the statute of limitations had run out. The 61 I bought at the same time came back as an 8.

cravetopps

Here's the back....

jojowest

I also had a 65 Mantle come back miscut. When I held it up to other cards it was slightly larger however I thought they would grade it as it is ever so slightly larger. Maybe this is a common problem in the 65 set. My card is in great condition and I thought it had a good chance at an 8. Also had a 57 Mantle come back evidence trimming.

SoonerCowboy

Don't have a PSA but I have an SGC Staubach Rookie miscut and a BGS 1971 Unitas "signs of coloring".

lawnmowerman

It bothered me that this came back un-authentic. One thing I know is Emmitt auto's and this one is real without a doubt.

As a second option I had to send it to James Spence and SGC. It looks great in their slab though.

earlycalguy

<< <i> >>



the photo area of the Mantle does not seem to be made up of pixels. normally on a good scan like that you can see the dots in the photo but i don't see any dots on that mantle. would be a sign of it being fake.

does a flashlight show thru the cardstock?

Estil

I thought PSA did grade miscut cards, but used the "MC" qualifier...?

earlycalguy

<< <i>I thought PSA did grade miscut cards, but used the "MC" qualifier...? >>



the 65' shown is a factory miscut. the card is not a perfect rectangle. the right edge is not straight. those are not normally holdered.

the mc qualifier is a rectangle but normally is just a bad cut and you can see the beginnings of the next card on the sheet.

fiveniner

<< <i>I thought PSA did grade miscut cards, but used the "MC" qualifier...? >>



They do providing that they are within standard size of card.They consider a miscut as being a card that is undersized,oversized or an abnormal cut they will not holder these type.If you have a card that is standard size that is centered 100/0 or part of another card appears on it then they will holder it give it a grade with the qualifier miscut.

1960toppsguy

Just resubmit it it one or two more times, it will find it's way into a holder . . .

stown

<< <i>the photo area of the Mantle does not seem to be made up of pixels. normally on a good scan like that you can see the dots in the photo but i don't see any dots on that mantle. would be a sign of it being fake.

does a flashlight show thru the cardstock? >>

tennesseebanker

If the 56 Mantle is fake it is a darn good one. One so good that you would probably need to look through a loupe to see the print pattern to tell if it were fake or not.

Fabfrank

I also had a 65 Mantle come back miscut. When I held it up to other cards it was slightly larger however I thought they would grade it as it is ever so slightly larger.
Slightly larger and slightly smaller cards is one issue I think PSA needs to rectify.
For example. 2000 SP Authentic football is notorious for being slight ly larger than the average card size. Most of these cards are encapsulated in PSA holders with the "baggy insert"
Now, 1993 Upper Deck Rookie Exchange Set cards are slightly smaller than the average card. The 6 card set was obtained from Upper Deck as a mail in when you pulled the Trade card from a pack.
PSA graders are knowledegable enough to spot trimmed cards, but in the case of these undersized cards (which are not trimmed), they get returned as not being standard size.
Well if PSA can slab the slightly larger card, why not slab the slightly smaller card? Especially if they know it hasn't been trimmed!

jradke4

frank, too bad we cant just send them the ploy bag the set came in. then they would have a hard time saying it was trimmed. what do they do about all the different sizes for the 89 Pro-Set cards. That has to be a tuff one to sort out to submitt.

Fabfrank

jradke- ProSet has got to be a nightmare. But that's my point. The graders are good enough to spot the difference between trimmed and un-trimmed cards. If the card is not trimmed, holder it.

cravetopps

the 56 is fairly transparent to light but seems thicker than the 65, for example. I fairly bright pattern is visible on the side of the card away from the light source. The 65 is relatively opaque, on the other hand, with minimal light visible.

jradke4

frank, i agree with you. how is it the submitters problem when the factory cant cut the same deminsions. they give qualifiers for factory miscuts in terms of register and centering why not size. I got a 1999 favre stadium club eyes of the game refractor card back that wasnt slabbed because it was cut to small, not trimmed. i didnt even notice until i got it back and compared it to some other cards and it came up short. thankfully i found another one cheap and checked the size first this time.

cravetopps

the 65 mantle is 2 9/16X3 9/16th. that probably explains why they didn't holder it possibly?

frankhardy

Well, I just got the bad news. They will not holder the T206 Cobb and the T216 Donovan. They said that the machine that fuses the slabs together creates a sonic boom. The sonic boom could desintegrate the 2 cards. URGH!

ldferg

frank,
sorry about the holdering ordeal.

the 56 mantle and the 72 staubach look to have 'bowed' or 'wavy' edges. maybe this is why they are not holdering them.

rise2it

Sonic Boom?!?!?!?!?

Wouldn't you like to live on that street....

jamesgotpoorman