![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yikes - that's pretty misleading. Interesting though - let us know what the response is if you send it back to PSA.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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'... 1973schmidtrc615PSA8ST.jpg 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!!!"
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() Last edited by JollyElm; 02-06-2021 at 06:00 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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?
__________________
Actively building a 1953 Bowman Color PSA Registry Set (Currently 150/160) and attempting a 1947 Tip Top Bread Set. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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!!
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-08-2021 at 04:18 PM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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?
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
mistake | hcv123 | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 0 | 02-14-2018 09:49 PM |