Oh my?!?!?

[nebboy]

Double down on the (((Oh My)))
Psa should be renamed PAS (((Piece-A-S@#*)))
for that one

[bnorth]

$185.85 shipped is a whole lot too much for me or I would love to own it.

[ALR-bishop]

Looks better than a 6 to me

[bnorth]

Had to go dig this one out. I believe that PSA 6 would look amazing beside my PSA 5 1953 Topps George Spencer.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Looks better than a 6 to me

That was my first thought too.

[G1911]

This is the quality of expert authentication and analysis most pay large premiums for.

[Bill77]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Looks better than a 6 to me

I was going to say what's worse the obvious mistake or the grade.

[seanofjapan]

Grade might be due to the surface gloss on the back being a bit less shiny than normal, a problem that the 1953 Topps set is notorious for.

[JollyElm]

Here's a real one listed on eBay beneath the one posted above (for anyone who doesn't realize what's going on here)...

1953lopat.jpg

[bobbyw8469]

In the seller's defense, the case appears to be an older style case, so I doubt they sent it in for grading themselves. The condition doesn't match the card. There appears to be some frosting on the bottom of the case, so maybe someone wanted to see if they could "get over" on this card shop?? I find it hard to believe a grading company would make that huge of a mistake.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

In the seller's defense, the case appears to be an older style case, so I doubt they sent it in for grading themselves. The condition doesn't match the card. There appears to be some frosting on the bottom of the case, so maybe someone wanted to see if they could "get over" on this card shop?? I find it hard to believe a grading company would make that huge of a mistake.

LOL, it is PSA if there is a mistake to be made they have done it multiple times. Plus there have been easily 100 examples similar to this posted on this forum over the years.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

In the seller's defense, the case appears to be an older style case, so I doubt they sent it in for grading themselves. The condition doesn't match the card. There appears to be some frosting on the bottom of the case, so maybe someone wanted to see if they could "get over" on this card shop?? I find it hard to believe a grading company would make that huge of a mistake.

If that is the case then someone had to switch the flips, that 1953 reprint measures 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" and fits snuggly in that casing, a real 1953 measures 2 5/8" x 3 3/4".

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

In the seller's defense, the case appears to be an older style case, so I doubt they sent it in for grading themselves. The condition doesn't match the card. There appears to be some frosting on the bottom of the case, so maybe someone wanted to see if they could "get over" on this card shop?? I find it hard to believe a grading company would make that huge of a mistake.

I looked at that....but, the PSA case is for a standard sized card (as the 53 Archives are). There was no swapping on this one.

More interesting is are the cards submitted before and after...the card right after this one is a 1953 Kiner PSA 7. On either side of these two cards more modern type stuff.

ETA, Cliff, as always, is a couple of keystrokes ahead of me.