Can someone explain the grading on this card?

[Koufax32fan]

I am sitting in a meeting all morning so I decide to play around on eBay for a few minutes. While looking for Mathewson T206 cards, I found the following listing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-T206-Christy-Mathewson-Port-PSA-2-0396-Piedmont-150-/310411709717?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item4845facd15#ht_2800wt_898

I know I am relatively new to Net54, and relatively new to T206, but how does a card that is missing paper front and back, and missing an entire corner, get graded a 2?

I want to be clear that I am not being critical of the seller. In fact, the seller has listed several similar cards in PSA 1 holders. See, for example:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-T206-Christy-Mathewson-Port-PSA-1-6292-Piedmont-150-/130919022217?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item1e7b61be89#ht_2865wt_898

I have read a few threads here and am even more convinced that it is important to buy the card and not the grade. In this situation (the PSA2), do people think this is an appropriate grade? Not being an "expert", I woudl have graded this card as Authentic. Just wondering what others think.

[btcarfagno]

Chipped, dirty, paper loss...looks like that grader had a bit too much egg nog. I agree that Auth would have been the way to go. I would take that 1 in your other photo over over the 2 any day, twice on Sunday.

Tom C

[midwaylandscaping]

I would take the 1 also. Better eye appeal all around

[GoldenAge50s]

Levi just paid a little more for THAT one, that's all!

[rgpete]

They forgot to pick up their eyeglasses at Walmart

[ullmandds]

PSA is infallible...if they say its a 2...it's a 2.

[pawpawdiv9]

Could been submitted at the same time, PSA put them in the wrong holders

[bnorth]

Ok I will be the jerk.:eek: The PSA1 was submitted by a normal submitter and the PSA2 was submitted by 4 Sharp Corners.:rolleyes: Just kidding we all know PSA does not give top submitters better grades.

[D. Bergin]

Well, there's a picture right there. Anybody who bids on just the number deserves what they get IMO.

[glynparson]

The 2 is over graded.

[MattyC]

Well, there's a picture right there. Anybody who bids on just the number deserves what they get IMO.

+1

It always baffles me...how a subjectively generated sticker has the magical ability to make some grown men blind.

[Brian Van Horn]

My guess is the grader had a little too much eggnog, saw two of the card and graded it based on the number of images he saw.

[doug.goodman]

He should get Dmitri Young to resubmit it if he wants a "10".

[auggiedoggy]

PSA is infallible...if they say its a 2...it's a 2.

:rolleyes:

[2dueces]

Should have graded a PSA 3. 3 out of 4 corners are present. :)

[WhenItWasAHobby]

What I find most telling about those scans is that neither card has sold in the past 5 years and will likely be many more years to come.

[Fred]

What? Nobody's heard of the saying that "a pictures worth a thousand words". Perhaps it crossed over from GAI (originally a 4 and knocked down to a PSA2).

[Leon]

What I find most telling about those scans is that neither card has sold in the past 5 years and will likely be many more years to come.

I might have to rib Levi about this next time I see him. He's always a good sport about stuff. He's got stamina in displaying his cards, that's for sure. Reminds me of when I bring part of my collection to the National and put astronomical prices on them.....they aren't for sale and that is the best way to get people to quit asking how much for that doggy in the window :).

To answer the first question. That 2 is not a 2.

[scotgreb]

In my opinion, clerical errors account for most of the obvious PSA mis-grades -- as opposed to inconsistencies in an otherwise subjective grading process.

[ullmandds]

how can you "assume" these are clerical errors...

[Fred]

When you say "clerical" errors, do you mean "typos"? The person types a "2" by accident (instead of a "1") and then proceeds to type the rest of the numerical description incorrectly? Never thought of that... I guess it happens often...

[scotgreb]

Not necessarily assuming it's a clerical error -- just my best guess -- and offering my opinion that it's more common than some might think.

By clerical error, I mean something as simple as a keying error. It could also be that two of the same issue were being graded at the time and the cards or flips were inadvertently switched. I see cards in incorrect holders (wrong description) all the time.

Regarding keying errors, I recently had two PSA 1s returned to me that clearly were not consistent with PSA 1 condition. In fact, they were closer (IMO) to PSA 10. Just for kicks, I cracked and resubmitted. One came back PSA 10 and the other PSA 7. In this case, my only logical conclusion was that the grades were simply mis-keyed. This has changed my thinking somewhat when I see a card that appears obviously misgraded.

[doug.goodman]

Regarding keying errors, I recently had two PSA 1s returned to me that clearly were not consistent with PSA 1 condition. In fact, they were closer (IMO) to PSA 10. Just for kicks, I cracked and resubmitted. One came back PSA 10 and the other PSA 7. I this case, my only logical conclusion was that the grades were simply mis-keyed. This has changed my thinking somewhat when I see a card that appears obviously misgraded.

Or, maybe, they did it so that you would pay them for their opinion twice.

[4815162342]

... Regarding keying errors, I recently had two PSA 1s returned to me that clearly were not consistent with PSA 1 condition. In fact, they were closer (IMO) to PSA 10. Just for kicks, I cracked and resubmitted. One came back PSA 10 and the other PSA 7. ...


Please post before and after scans of the PSA 1s (before) and PSA 7 / PSA 10 (after). As crazy and unbelievable as that sounds, I'm certain you took detailed scans.

[scotgreb]

Before and after scans . . . note that I upgraded my scanner in the meantime.

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc348/scotgreb/4914b153-627e-4217-ad16-29b5c5a168b6_zps6ea516f0.jpg http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc348/scotgreb/ONeil86FPSA10_zps24093fec.jpg

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc348/scotgreb/mccovey64wheatiespsa1_zps2d29f57d.jpg http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc348/scotgreb/McCovey64WheatiesPSA7_zps7808d6dd.jpg

[scotgreb]

Following is the link to the original discussion on the PSA message board


http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=11&threadid=886688&highlight_key=y&keyword1=psa%201

Edited to add that I'm not trying to make this a bash PSA thread -- PSA cards are the foundation of my collection :)

I'm just pointing out a possible explanation of certain grading inconsistencies that some may not have considered.

[ruth-gehrig]

Before and after scans . . . note that I upgraded my scanner in the meantime.

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc348/scotgreb/4914b153-627e-4217-ad16-29b5c5a168b6_zps6ea516f0.jpg http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc348/scotgreb/ONeil86FPSA10_zps24093fec.jpg

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc348/scotgreb/mccovey64wheatiespsa1_zps2d29f57d.jpg http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc348/scotgreb/McCovey64WheatiesPSA7_zps7808d6dd.jpg

Wow that's crazy!

[GehrigFan]

I checked out the back scans, and I think PSA meant to put those grades on them. I've been looking at a lot of T206 Cobbs in 1-3 grade lately, just doing research, and I've found that PSA *really* takes the backs into account, especially paper loss. I've found cards that appear 6+ on the front but paper loss on the back brought it to a 1. The 1 in question here does have bad staining on the back.

Please note, I'm not defending their grade, and actually believe the 2 and 1 should be flipped. Just offering one opinion that PSA gives a lot of weight to the back on T206's. Personally, I'd still rather have a nice front/bad back than anything with a corner chunk missing!

[lug-nut]

"Levi just paid a little more for THAT one, that's all!"

I hate to say it but he gets a lot of love from PSA, I bought a PSA 3 Napoleon T207 about 6 months ago that was unsealed at the top, I cracked it open and sent it to SGC. They promptly told me it was trimmed...which is was. I'll never do business again with him.

Sorry if this breaks the rules but I hate dishonest people.

[glynparson]

No way, I have actually submitted thousands of cards through Levi when I worked for him. I did not receive any better grading than when I submitted on my own. Levi may be able to get a review quicker and possibly free, especially if he gets a grader of death inovice, but I am sick of people on this board making baseless claims. Also one card is hardly a scientific study. If you are insinuating Levi sold you a card in an obvious cracked out holder again I'll have to say I do not believe you. Levi and I may have had a falling out but I NEVER saw anything close to that level of fraud in working for him for several years. I have had cards not cross from EVERY major grading service due to a trim job being missed. This does not mean Levi got a break nor does it mean PSA was fraudulent. As long as we have humans envolved in the process at any level their will be errors we are not perfect creatures.