Cards the grading companies got/get wrong

[ullmandds]

It really irks me when there are issues/cards proven by the community(many of us) to not be what they are advertised to be. Here is one such example. The supposed 1934 tour of japan postcard. All evidence I've seen/heard points a much later issue.

Please show other examples where TPG'ers got/still continue to get it wrong.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25561388204...2045&recoPos=2

[EddieP]

1935 Muratti Cigarette , D. Poynton

https://www.ebay.com/itm/31379990195...wAAOSwwIxhv9up

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by EddieP

1935 Muratti Cigarette , D. Poynton

https://www.ebay.com/itm/31379990195...wAAOSwwIxhv9up

yup...there have been a handful of ruth cards over the years that they got wrong.

[bnorth]

I used to own many more from all the major graders.

The card on the left is the correct year and brand but the wrong player.

The card on the right is labeled as the most expensive 1989 Fleer Bill Ripken version the white out. If it really was the white out it would be worth around $900. Since it is the cheapest version actually in the slab if labeled correctly it is a $15 card.

[EddieP]

The 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez. It’s a photo of the bat boy and not Aurelio Rodriguez.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/32525013914...wAAOSwtaJiviS4

[ullmandds]

they finally stopped calling the youths companion marquard a ruth...why havent they stopped with the muratti?

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

they finally stopped calling the youths companion marquard a ruth...why havent they stopped with the muratti?

I believe the newer slabs no longer mention Ruth but there are alot of older slabs out there that do.

[prestigecollectibles]

I've been complaining about this for quite a while. PSA has graded 74 of them according to their pop report. I believe that SGC won't touch this postcard.

Originally Posted by ullmandds

It really irks me when there are issues/cards proven by the community(many of us) to not be what they are advertised to be. Here is one such example. The supposed 1934 tour of japan postcard. All evidence I've seen/heard points a much later issue.

Please show other examples where TPG'ers got/still continue to get it wrong.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25561388204...2045&recoPos=2

[Yoda]

For many years PSA labeled the Weaver Tango Egg with just Weaver's name before they caught on and realized the player was Tinker.

[rhettyeakley]

E122 American Caramel Cards are always misidentified as E121.

[Exhibitman]

Ugh, where do I start?

PSA's work on Latin American issues is abysmal. Often, they write Spanish gibberish. Like this Pele:



1968 Crack Figuritas Deportivas (not "sport"; PSA "Bob" Clemente'd the name) and this particular type of insert card is called a "foto autografiada". It also isn't hand-cut. They came from the pack this way. The backs are puzzles.

SGC plain doesn't know WTF they are doing, even when the submission slip correctly labels the card:



1953 Canadian Exhibits, eh. See that little # by his front foot? The USA cards don't have that.

Then there's the old, bad information that the TPGs never correct. The '1948-52' Exhibit Champions and the '1948' HOF set were issued into the mid-1950s. Here's a page from a 1955 Exhibit catalog:

[Rhotchkiss]

Here is my favorite - PSA authenticated and graded a clear and obvious (for many reasons) 1915 Cracker Jack reprint

[oldjudge]

I know grading Old Judges is tough but the image has to count a little.

[G1911]

The Cracker Jack Mack might just be my favorite for how bad of a reprint it is. And at least 2 of their graders still thought it was real.

That the vast majority of collectors will stay pay much, much more $ for a card in PSA’s slab will never cease to amaze me.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I know grading Old Judges is tough but the image has to count a little.

Maybe the image faded after it was encapsulated? 😂

[oldjudge]

Yah, and the stain by the d in 2d just appeared

[BabyRuth]

full sleeves, short sleeves, details, details

[glynparson]

Most of these aren’t the case of the companies not knowing but simple data entry errors that honestly should have probably been caught on verification but were probably rushed out the door. Mistakes happen and always will. Especially knowing how easy it is to mistakingly hit the wrong thing on a drop down. Now the. Cracker Jack is egregious and an embarrassment and one I can’t figure out how it happened. But most were simple mistakes not actually ignorance. Expecting perfection makes you an idiot. Of course that’s what we should shoot for but it’s an unrealistic expectation. I assure you some people at these companies know more than you unless you are Kevin struss or john rumirez. You aren’t smarter about cards than the best guys at sgc or PSA. Maybe the worst ones but not the best. And maybe certain issues but not cards across all the different eras and sports.

[Rad_Hazard]

This one was pretty ridiculous...

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Most of these aren’t the case of the companies not knowing but simple data entry errors that honestly should have probably been caught on verification but were probably rushed out the door. Mistakes happen and always will. Especially knowing how easy it is to mistakingly hit the wrong thing on a drop down. Now the. Cracker Jack is egregious and an embarrassment and one I can’t figure out how it happened. But most were simple mistakes not actually ignorance. Expecting perfection makes you an idiot. Of course that’s what we should shoot for but it’s an unrealistic expectation. I assure you some people at these companies know more than you unless you are Kevin struss or john rumirez. You aren’t smarter about cards than the best guys at sgc or PSA. Maybe the worst ones but not the best. And maybe certain issues but not cards across all the different eras and sports.

Yes this is more along the lines of what I was looking for!

[Exhibitman]

Well, yes and no. No one expects perfection and errors like the Ripken or 'Alomar' are just errors. But misidentifying cards completely, misidentifying sets, refusing to accept new research, that's just negligence or arrogance. For years, PSA refused to acknowledge the existence of a T220 Silver Border Donovan. Joe O's rationale: we haven't graded one so if we add it to the checklist no one will be able to complete a PSA-graded set. Yeah, that made sense. Ignore the facts you don't like.

They don't have to be perfect, but they do have to try.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Most of these aren’t the case of the companies not knowing but simple data entry errors that honestly should have probably been caught on verification but were probably rushed out the door. Mistakes happen and always will. Especially knowing how easy it is to mistakingly hit the wrong thing on a drop down.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by glynparson

Now the. Cracker Jack is egregious and an embarrassment and one I can’t figure out how it happened.

A preponderance of the available evidence would suggest that 2 of their graders could not tell a Dover reprint from a real one.

Originally Posted by glynparson

But most were simple mistakes not actually ignorance. Expecting perfection makes you an idiot.

I don't think anyone expects perfection. Most of the ones in this thread are just amusing data entry errors, there are numerous far more serious examples of incompetence (or corruption), starting with the very first card in their system, a trimmed PSA 8 Wagner fraud.

Originally Posted by glynparson

Of course that’s what we should shoot for but it’s an unrealistic expectation. I assure you some people at these companies know more than you unless you are Kevin struss or john rumirez. You aren’t smarter about cards than the best guys at sgc or PSA. Maybe the worst ones but not the best. And maybe certain issues but not cards across all the different eras and sports.

This is largely the problem. PSA rests on an appeal to authority, that they are experts specially able or talented and their seal of approval and grade on a card thus is justified in creating multipliers of value. And yet they've certified hundreds or even thousands of trimmed cards from a single fraud ring (PWCC's) alone, they've certified the most obvious of fakes like Dover Connie Mack's, they misidentify many cards and sets (to cite one of many examples, they still don't know seem to know the difference between T218 and T219 and consistently grade one as the other), PSA 8's become PSA 10's seemingly at random, their foundational card is an altered fraud, etc. and so on and so forth. One doesn't have to nitpick or dig far to find tons of examples, and this is being fairly generous by only accusing them of incompetency. They are inconsistent, often misidentify, frequently miss or simply ignore (at best) altered cards, and occasionally grade the most ridiculous of fakes that are not even good fakes.

An appeal to authority while having these problems rings especially hollow. Whether "some people at these companies" know more than peons like me is, of course, utterly irrelevant. A claim or statement is true or false based on the merits of itself, not of the person making it. We don't even know who is actually grading a card, even if an appeal to authority was valid.

[murphy8276]

PSA's clear "consistency" when misgrading the 1986 Fleer Sticker Kareem Abdul Jabbar as minsizerq...

That card is hands down the most "minsizerq" card in all of grading. There is not one card that consistently gets denied more times than that one does. That should tell PSA all it needs to know---that a factory cut is factory cut. PERIOD.

Cut short from the factory = authentic and should have a number grade.

[here2havefun]

I collect Topps Venezuelans. It's not uncommon to see US issue cards that have been slabbed and ID'ed as Venezuelan on Ebay.

Much less common is seeing VE cards slabbed as US issue. I know someone in the Venny FB group recently found a Yaz rookie, in a BVG holder, that was a Venezuelan (and I assume he bought it for cheap hah).

[sflayank]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/19506196220...mis&media=COPY

[G1911]

A classic

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

The Cracker Jack Mack might just be my favorite for how bad of a reprint it is. And at least 2 of their graders still thought it was real.

That the vast majority of collectors will stay pay much, much more $ for a card in PSA’s slab will never cease to amaze me.

Same.

Originally Posted by G1911

Agreed.



A preponderance of the available evidence would suggest that 2 of their graders could not tell a Dover reprint from a real one.



I don't think anyone expects perfection. Most of the ones in this thread are just amusing data entry errors, there are numerous far more serious examples of incompetence (or corruption), starting with the very first card in their system, a trimmed PSA 8 Wagner fraud.



This is largely the problem. PSA rests on an appeal to authority, that they are experts specially able or talented and their seal of approval and grade on a card thus is justified in creating multipliers of value. And yet they've certified hundreds or even thousands of trimmed cards from a single fraud ring (PWCC's) alone, they've certified the most obvious of fakes like Dover Connie Mack's, they misidentify many cards and sets (to cite one of many examples, they still don't know seem to know the difference between T218 and T219 and consistently grade one as the other), PSA 8's become PSA 10's seemingly at random, their foundational card is an altered fraud, etc. and so on and so forth. One doesn't have to nitpick or dig far to find tons of examples, and this is being fairly generous by only accusing them of incompetency. They are inconsistent, often misidentify, frequently miss or simply ignore (at best) altered cards, and occasionally grade the most ridiculous of fakes that are not even good fakes.

An appeal to authority while having these problems rings especially hollow. Whether "some people at these companies" know more than peons like me is, of course, utterly irrelevant. A claim or statement is true or false based on the merits of itself, not of the person making it. We don't even know who is actually grading a card, even if an appeal to authority was valid.

Very well said!

[JollyElm]

Here's a relatively amusing one. PSA gave it a 'PD' qualifier instead of an 'ST,' so I always assumed it was just a data input error? The coffee (or whatever) permeates both sides of the card. No print defects involved, just some clumsy oaf hurriedly reaching for his remote and knocking his half-caff/decaf over into his box of cards, I imagine...


1973schmidtrc615PSA8PDa.jpg1973schmidtrc615PSA8PDb.jpg


Good news is after some back and forth, they agreed to reholder it at their expense, and now it has the proper stain qualifier attached.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On the nonsports side, their identification and dating of many issues is simply atrocious, and the frustrating part is they won't listen to corrections. It has consequences in that segment too, as just one example PSA insists on dating a certain Michael Jackson card as 1969 when it was in fact issued in 1973, with the result that people call it a RC and command a huge premium from unknowing buyers when in fact he has earlier issues.

Other examples and there are hundreds.

Cards of Elvis dated 1950, 5 years before his debut.

A set dated 1930 which includes Frank Sinatra.

A set dated 1935 of movie stars, discussing on the backs films issued 1938 and later.