Will PSA Correct This Mistake???
 

I know that approaching PSA about removing a (wrongfully given) PD qualifier from one of your cards leads down a long and winding road to the middle of Frustration Junction, but what happens when they unquestionably mislabeled a card? Will they change the label for you (at no cost)?

Here is the card in question. An otherwise beautiful (great corners and centering) Mike Schmidt rookie card that clearly has a large stain on it (I upped the contrast, etc., to really bring it out), muddying up the wonderful 'rookie' (guess they forgot about his 1972 card) Ron Cey...

Attachment 426389Attachment 426390

The (very old) label has it as a print defect (PD) and not as a stain (ST). Does anyone have experience in this area? The card is available for trade, as I'm not looking to sell it or anything, but at some point I need the label to be accurate. Right now, a normal person would think, "Okay, if that's not a stain, then something must've happened with the ink during the printing process, so there's nothing really amiss." But, it is truly a stain (unless I am somehow wildly missing something), as you can see it on back as well.

On a side note, the seller was quite forthright with me. He didn't try to convince me it was anything other than a stain, and we chatted and I made an offer on it knowing full well what I was in for.

If I approach PSA with this (and they actually respond), are they going to say something to the effect of, "Well, if it says 'PD' on it, then clearly the grader recognized that area as a print defect, so we won't change it." Or will they actually see that the card was LITERALLY mislabeled and change it to a PSA 8 ST??

Any hope of a proper resolution?? I just want accuracy.

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm not looking for any sort of regrade. I just want the 'PD' to be correctly updated to 'ST.'

Thanks!

Email them with a request for Mechanical Error and see what they say. None of us can answer this for you.
They might require you to pay the reholder fee, or they might do it for you for free. Shouldn't make any difference to the value.

Yikes - that's pretty misleading. Interesting though - let us know what the response is if you send it back to PSA.

Well, lookie here!!

PSA actually took my issue seriously and worked to fix the label in a timely manner. Not going to lie, I put a lot of effort into imploring them to do the right thing, but it went relatively smoothly and now the card has been 'corrected'...

Attachment 439277

Of course, the 'value' was hurt by this undertaking, because I assume if forced to decide, collectors would much rather own a card with a 'natural' 'PD' than an 'ST,' but now it is honestly graded (and looking much better in the new slab)...and pretty sweet otherwise, I do declare.

So the answer to my original question, "Will PSA Correct This Mistake???" is a resounding, "Yes, Ma'am!!!"

Impressed....
 

I am impressed they took your seriously. I am 5-10 emails in with no response asking PSA to correct an error on some reprint cards they graded at real.

Any tips for how you got them to respond?

The basis of my e-mails was to really drive home the point that the blatant mistake really made them look bad (especially with all of the negative attention they're getting with the trimming scandals), plus I employed the term "literally" over and over again to point out that the label was literally wrong. That it wasn't simply an opinion that the card didn't deserve a 'PD' qualifier, but that it was literally stained. Don't know if those tactics will work in your situation, but they were certainly helpful (I believe) with mine. Just stress how bad it makes them look, and that more and more people on the chat boards are really getting frustrated by the fact PSA doesn't seem to care about the ridiculous mistakes they seem to regularly make.

Good luck!!

Must admit, I'm impressed with your resolve to get the grade right over and above having the card be worth more, LOL.

But that's a true collector right there. There is something really cool about a card you know is properly graded that ties in the card itself to the hobby and grading standards and all that - even if the card itself may not be particularly high grade. You are the "Von Clausewitz" of collecting, LOL.

Is it possible the stain that is so obvious now was a result of bad soaking or bleaching, and it didn't look like that when it was submitted?

At some point I'm either going to trade or sell the card, so there were definitely personal benefits involved in getting them to correct it, most notably that it will save me a lot of future grief going back and forth with someone looking to get the card. Now it is what the label says it is.

On a side note, someone here was trying to trade for it (with the ridiculous, obligatory offer of commons and such) and they slipped up and very much implied that they were looking to flip it (as a 'PD' and ignoring the fact it's a stain) for a nice profit. I politely declined.

I really, truly doubt it, as the card looks normal in all aspects as is. There are no signs of bleaching and such. Occam's razor tells me PSA accidentally entered 'PD' instead of 'ST.'

I've been surprised though to see vintage cards with milder staining than that still pull straight PSA 5's or so. To me any type of noticeable staining is not "Excellent".

Cool story and update. Tenacity wins.

I really have no experience with soaking, but I wonder if that would soak out? Seems like a water stain. I certainly wouldn't try it with THAT card...that's a very nice card. My 73 Schmidt RC has corners like razors...and is OC as hell...lol. I've always wanted to upgrade that card...

Now how do they explain a card with a stain like that being an 8?

I'm not a coffee stain aficionado by any means, but the card itself sans stain is nearly perfect. However, your point is definitely valid. Haven't researched it, but I imagine that most if not all PSA 8 ST cards suffer from wax/gum residue, and not from some idiot spilling his Dr. Pepper all over it while reaching for the remote.

Same question could be asked of this card, how can a card with multiple pen marks on the front be a "7"

It’s kind of deceptive - they are saying that those cards are 7 and 8 quality sans or “but for” the ink or the stain. Same way as a PSA 8 (OC) is a card that is an 8 in all but centering. (Which of course is not an 8).

Personally I think calling that Maris a 7 (MK) is bad and kind of a cop out; the “MK” is usually thought of as indicating an errant pencil mark on the back or something. Blue print on the front that is super obvious is way worse than that. To me that’s nowhere close to a NM card, I don’t care how nice the corners or surface is otherwise.

But sadly per PSA’s definition, I think it’s accurately graded. [emoji53]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do agree, but break the Maris card or the Schmidt card out of their cases and raw both would grade much lower, as low as Poor.

Even sadder with the Maris card is that it would rate as a "5" on the registry....should be a "1".

Just as wrong would be the Schmidt card equaling out to a "6" on the registry.

Agree. PSA qualifiers do serve a purpose, but I think they confuse more people than they enlighten anymore in 2021. For example, the most common qualifier, OC, is meant to tell a potential buyer squinting at a bad scan on ebay that "Hey, this card would be an 8 if not for the centering", instead of leaving the buyer to wonder if that card with the sharp corners is only OC, or did it get a straight PSA 5 because it has some surface wear or something else funky and hidden going on in addition to the centering problem - which of course both would totally be possible on a straight PSA 5.

What PSA was not counting on when laying things out this way 25+ years ago, was that many collectors don't like OC cards to start with - and even more will shun any type of qualified cards regardless. The qualifier might actually serve to help someone like me who may go after an otherwise "8" card with 75/25 centering, but especially with centering - many collectors never quite properly understand how it is on a sliding scale, and a card with "worse centering" (i.e. the aforementioned 5...) can get a "straight" grade while the 8, being held to a tighter standard - gets the qualifier. Then move into what we are showing here tonight, 7 and 8 grade cards with other confusing qualifiers that work just the same way as OC - and things are even worse.

It would be much more straightforward to call the Maris a 1 and the Schmidt RC a 2 or (maybe?) a 3, fully considering their worst flaws - rather than dancing around them with the qualifiers. As those cards in a normal auction will of course sell for much lower prices than anything close to a true 7 or an 8 - it just gets buyers to the point quicker.