Variations that PSA won't grade...kind of puzzling

olb31

1) 1998 bowman auto "the gold version" Adrain Beltre. When I got it graded they would not show that the version is gold, even though I sent the blue version and the gold version in at the same time. They recognize the 1997 bowman versions (black, gold, blue - think Roy Halladay), but not the 1998 beltre version. they do recognize other 1998 bowman auto versions (gold, silver, blue) though, huh?
2) 1997 bowman Beltre, "no name and no position" variation. Looks just like the 1990 topps Frank thomas. They grade the thomas but not the Beltre, huh? I got one of these cards in an unopened box back in 1997. It was just a common card, but with exactly the same issue. You can look them up on Ebay and find several others. They grade the 1982 "blackless" cards also. Kind of the same thing here.
3) 1977 topps basketball, green and gray backs. They do grade these for all baseball cards (1956, 1958 come to mind). not for basketball cards. The gray back are much harder to find, probably 10% were gray and 90% green, just by my unprofessional searching. But they said they would not recognize it.

Why not label the cards appropriately and the Let the collecting community decide if it's meaningful or not. How much more could it cost to "green or gray" on the label.

Any follow ups?

LarkinCollector

1. That's bizarre.
2. I have a ton of the 'No Foil' 97s that I pulled from packs as well. I put these more in the category of blank front or back Topps cards of the 80s, printing errors not denoted in any guides, so will likely never be recognized by PSA.
3. There are a ton of sets PSA doesn't recognize cardstock/back color differences: 79T FB cream/grey, 60T BB (series 4?) white/grey, 71-72F Globetrotters light/dark to name a few. I just collect them both and maybe eventually enough collectors will realize the scarcity to start paying a premium (other than 60T BB where they're roughly equal quantity with grey backs being slightly tougher IMHO).

PaulMaul

In a lot of these cases what it takes is someone aggressively requesting that the variation be recognized. I know that one particular collector was solely responsible for getting a bunch of wacky packages checklist variations noted. And several others still are not, simply because he didn't ask.

olb31

In my opinion if the Frank thomas is a "error/variation", then the Beltre should be too. I'm an accountant and one of the 5 principles of accounting is consistency and should be a principle of card grading as well. PSA is not being consistent with this one, in my humble opinion.

olb31

Once again, let the collectors/market dictate the card value/collectibility. Capitalism, maybe?

LarkinCollector

I don't disagree with your points. Their consistency is 'squeaky wheel' based

junkwaxgems

@olb31 said:
In my opinion if the Frank thomas is a "error/variation", then the Beltre should be too. I'm an accountant and one of the 5 principles of accounting is consistency and should be a principle of card grading as well. PSA is not being consistent with this one, in my humble opinion.

A few things to consider here. While the 1990 NNOF Thomas is the very definition of a print flaw (not an intentional design/text/stat change), however, it is the epitome of the unobtainable "error" card, a rookie card, nonetheless, of an iconic 90's player, so PSA gives it a pass. You're right, they should maintain consistency in this regard, the same applies to Beckett and SCD, who should also be noting and cataloging all recurring print flaws (print errors that affect a significant portion of the run, aka not stray dots/fish eyes, etc) if they accept the Thomas.

Secondly, for reasons not quite defined anywhere, missing foil print flaws are generally not considered "must have" to E&V and master set builders. I would guess that it has to do with foiling representing modernity and signaling the end of the traditional Topps set. Couple this with the fact that often, missing foil sheets made it out of the factory illegally to be cut up and sold. Their ambiguous and arbitrary origins probably don't help create demand.

I'd wager there are far fewer of your Beltre foil error than the Thomas but these factors will always keep it from being treated the same or even similarly to the Thomas NNOF.

Oh, and PSA is notoriously difficult when it comes to getting variations noted. Like pulling teeth. It's bizarre, really, as adding them to registries will result in more submissions from registry collectors and those looking to capitalize off of them.

bishop

There is not now, nor has there ever been a hobby accepted standard definition of what constitutes a variation as opposed to a recurring print defect. Doubt there ever will be one.