Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatorade
https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...rading-process
I would assume that PSA isn’t using their Genamint AI technology for grading these cards yet. PSA says “It will also provide unique card identification – or “card fingerprinting” – by identifying the exact card in order to track provenance, resubmissions, condition changes and other attributes over time.” Genamint software, at a minimum, should be able provide a little bit more consistency when it comes to labeling Ad on Scoreboard vs Ad Partially Insured. It should also be able to prevent any of the error cards being labeled as Ad Completely Blacked Out and conversely any of the common cards/non-errors being labeled as Ad on Scoreboard/Ad Partially Obscured. The inconsistency and mislabeling are continuing with cards graded very recently with too much frequency to be an actual result of AI technology.
There isn’t a more relevant card to show that the Genamint AI software technology works than the 1989 Fleer Marlboro errors. It makes me excited about the future proper grading of these cards. If PSA is able to fingerprint an exact card, the changes made by Fleer to the error cards should be both easily traceable and also quantifiable with their software. PSA is telling us that they have the technology to grade the cards properly, so at some point why wouldn’t we expect them to get it correct?
|
IF and that is a very big if they can "fingerprint" each card at best they might be able to pick out cards that have been resubmited.
To me this card and the slight tint differences will never be listed by each variation because of the very slight tinting differances. The Bill Ripken to me is the perfect card because there are very distinct differances in them.