Whoops! Wonder how many times PSA has done this?
 

While browsing some of the PSA registry master sets I found this error.

This is mistakenly labeled as a "numbered" panel. There are only 3 legitimate graded numbered panels with Clemente. So this error inflates the perceived population by 33%. I alerted the owner by posting on their set page and PSA through their customer service page.

Got me to thinking, I wonder how many more errors like this are out there? Probably doesn't move the needle much on items with a high supply, but on items like this it could really make a difference. I hope the owner didn't purchase it as the numbered test.

More than we would like, which is enough to make you mad enough to chew nails and spit rust if you’re a hard core set registry goon like me.

A couple of examples come to mind from my Mays collecting:

A Mays 1963 Topps PSA 9 labeled as 1962. Naturally, 1962 is much more difficult to find than 1963 when it comes to high grades.

A Mays 1953 Topps reprint PSA 9 labeled as an actual 1953 Topps PSA 9.

The best part is that PSA refuses to update their database unless the owner sends in the card for relabeling. In the case of the 1953 reprint, I spent $50 to buy it just to send it in and correct the pop count. But since the 1963 wasn’t mine (so I couldn’t send it in), they wouldn’t correct their database.

Shouldn’t that panel also have gotten an ‘Authentic’ grade rather than a numerical grade because the dotted line isn’t showing all the way around, mainly on the left side of Freehan?

Yes, it should also be AUTH.

PSA is abysmal when it comes to "mechanical error"s like this. Just do a search for PSA mechanical error on google and you'll find thousands. I report a whole bunch from their APR page and some of them do get corrected in the Pop report without them being sent it. Just depends on how obvious the mistake is.

There were multiple instances of even base Mickey Mantle Topps cards with the same number being listed in the wrong set. For example 1964 Topps #50 being listed as 1966 Topps #50.

lol
 

Knowing their customer service, : hypothetically of course "if" they ever responded it might go something like this

..... after sending your concerns to our R&D team and our head grader, they responded "Clearly this is a Numbered version as you can see on the Bill Freehan it is #26 duly noted in the top left corner of that card! Please do not waste our time in the future with such trivial matters."

:eek::D

Here's a Canadian Imposter
 

I defer to our Exhibits experts and perhaps these were once all lumped together, but I think PSA misclassed this one. "Made in the USA" does make it tricky:

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1693219147

YEP! This is a 1953 Canadian Exhibit card

And I have seen reprint Exhibit cards graded as originals!

Another example
 

Here is one from my own collection, which I bought years ago... this is actually a 1980's reprint someone trimmed the "Reprint" mark on the back of the card and then submitted it to PSA.

Here's a pretty embarrassing one. Mistaking a $100 card for a $2.5 million card.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1567550

Then there's the time they mislabeled N43 large format Ginters as N28s.

Or the time they graded 1980's Mickey Mantle pins as 1969 MLBPA when he wasn't even in the original set.

Or the time that they graded cards with pinholes as PSA 7s.

Or the time...

If fixed, this mistake goes from a pop 101 to a pop 3...tough to understand how this got missed.

That is inexcusable.

Happens all the time.

This happens too often with Venezuelan Topps cards. Usually labeling US issues as Venezuelan. Here's one example, there's a few in this thread: https://twitter.com/VenezuelaTopps/s...58004602798081

There were like 10 consecutive 1990 Topps Frank Thomas cards graded as Tiffany.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1990...&size=original
1990 Topps - [Base] #414.1 - Frank Thomas [PSA 8 NM‑MT]
Courtesy of COMC.com
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1990...&size=original
1990 Topps - [Base] #414.1 - Frank Thomas [PSA 8 NM‑MT]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Qc 1 & qc 2?
 

But in all seriousness, this is quite disturbing.

Based on my collection, it is a rare occurrence to have PSA mis-identify a card.

I also have a 1970 OPC Munson RC graded by SGC that has been improperly identified as a Topps card. IMO, far easier to mistake the 70 OPC for a 70 Topps card, than to mistake a 74 OPC card for a 74 Topps card based on the backs.

Out of the 8500 +/- pre-80 PSA cards in my collection, the Crowley is the only mis-identified PSA card via the flip. I have only 150-175 SGC cards in my collection. So having 1 out of 175 misidentified is a significantly higher percent than 1 of 8500.

On my end, it is more common to have the database versus the flip be incorrect.

I have 2 PSA cards that have the correct flip, but PSA has categorized the card incorrectly in their database which loosely translates to I am not able to add these cards to their respective registry. One of these cards is currently at PSA to have their database fixed so that it matches the flip and I can add the card to my registry. The 77 Hostess Lynn's flip is correct, but the database identified the card as a 77 Hostess Twinkies, which it is not. PSA has removed the current cert # and have yet to assign a new cert #.

Then I would say you're the exception. I have personally viewed hundreds to thousands of PSA "mechanical errors" while browsing message boards the last 10 years or cards for sale on eBay or COMC. Some are more innocent, some are absolutely ridiculous.

The search "mechanical error" on Google for Blowout, Net54, and Collectors.com (PSA message board) gives like 800 total threads.

Back when I submitted to PSA, I probably received 20 mechanical errors myself in the 300 or so cards I submitted. But then, I'm normally an oddball collector. Then I probably sent in 5-10 more cards that I purchased that had mechanical errors.

Based on the high numbers of mechanical errors you have observed while reading threads, it seems that you may be the exception based on your own personal submission experiences.

Let's say that with each of the 800 threads you mention from your google search on this topic there are an average of 5 mech errors mentioned in each thread. This would mean that 4000 mech errors have been publicly outed via threads....this aligns with the 100s to 1000s you mention having viewed across various boards over the past 10 years.

According to PSA's site, for ONLY baseball, basketball and football cards, PSA has graded just shy of 42 million cards. So, quick math tells us that 0.0095% of these cards have had mech errors, based on posts you have observed. In my collection, 0.0118% of my PSA cards have mech errors by comparison.

Your percent, based on your submissions of odd -ball items, is 6.7%.

Again, seems you may be the exception.

Least he didn't say "hundreds of thousands" then his steller reputation on the boards would be in jeopardy

Not quite the same, but almost as good
 

Just got my 2-card order back from PSA today.

Opened the Clemente and thought...Man, considering what rough condition this piece was in, that's a solid grade for this card. PSA 3 baby!!!

These graders have clearly learned to be more generous and forgiving when it comes to grading Jell-O complete boxes...

And then I looked at McCovey, and I suddenly realized what happened on the grading floor.

Now I just need to find someone who will buy the Clemente solely based on the holder...

/facepalm

Yeah, definitely a grade swap "mechanical error". Reminds me a little of the guy who submitted a few EX-MT Montana rookies and PSA sent them both back as PSA 10s. Once word got out that PSA was giving 10s for cards that were centered 70/30, they requested them back from the submitter to give 6s or whatever.

Add: Is the McCovey worth more as a full box or as a PSA 10 cut? It looks like you could cut it down perfectly.

HA.

No way I would ever cut it down. Even if I thought I could get a perfect grade by cutting it down, there’s just no way I would destroy a high quality complete box. Complete boxes are just too impossible to find to go slicing them up. This piece should be worth a lot more to the right buyer. And if it’s not now, then someday it should be. But first I’ll be enjoying it in my collection for the next few decades.

Besides…there’s bound to be some print or surface issues on the card itself that would lower the grade.

I realize it was a thought exercise, not that you would actually considering cutting down a full box.

Absolutely.

I understand there are parallels in the book world, like with books full of drawings or maps. Often they are worth more when you peel them apart and sell off the individual images instead of keeping them together.

Of course, when everyone starts doing that, then you end up with the few remaining complete books being worth a whole lot more!