PSA Mistake- Graded Exhibit reprints on ebay
 

Hi all, not sure where to start but on ebay currently are a group of High Grade Exhibits graded by PSA that are reprints. Not sure what can be done but I dont want anyone burnt buying these. First off I am a collector of exhibits and a group of them were reprinted in the 1970's, the reprinted cards used different paper stock and the cards were on Grey or White stock not the usual cream/tan stock. You can also tell by the photo quality which is much less than the orginal. Here is a photo of two fakes with an orginal stock (Doby) in the middle -

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n...itexamples.jpg

Here are the auctions with the fakes, I had the seller send me a scan of the backs as I suspected they were fakes, seller has no idea and is trusting PSA's grading of them-

Scan from seller-
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n...taaronback.jpg



http://cgi.ebay.com/1947-1966-EXHIBI...item2ea8b087f9

http://cgi.ebay.com/1947-1966-EXHIBI...item2ea8b09d0a

http://cgi.ebay.com/1947-1966-EXHIBI...item2ea8b0a007

http://cgi.ebay.com/1947-1966-EXHIBI...item2ea8bb0325

http://cgi.ebay.com/1947-1966-EXHIBI...item2ea8b093ac


I understand that mistakes happen but this is a pretty big one in my eyes and I hope something happens with it.

Scott

I posted this on the CU boards to make them aware also.

Good eye! I would never had suspected them just from the front of the cards the back of the cards are a dead givaway.



Looking for an Exhibit Salutation of Johnny Rizzo!

Here is the reply I got from the seller-


Scott,

I respectfully disagree with your assessment for the following reasons:

1) The cards were purchased in the late 1970s/ early 1980s by me (the reprints were issued sometime during the 1990s)

2) According to the SCD Standard Catalog the reprints are "too white" on the back (the cards I'm selling clearly do not have a white back).

3) Not only has PSA confirmed their authenticity, but two of the cards were also accepted by an auction site as authentic for their December auction.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Mike

I doubt the auction site gave them a second look once they were slabbed. Perhaps Mike should let the auction house know and get them to look them over.

unfortunately
 

Unfortunately HIS reasons don't hold water. It's like saying .....well, since PSA graded them AND an auction house accepted some for an auction then they must be real. That is a potentially false statement. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I remember buying a ton of exibits back in the late 70's and early 80's and they all had the "cream" colored backs. It was generally a given that anything that didnt have these types of backs were reprints. I know grading companies make mistakes but its a very well known general rule in the hobby that anything but non-cream colored backs are reprints. I dont want to bash PSA but..................

I'm definitely with Scott on this one - I believe they're fake also. Note: I'm not an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Graded Exhibits
 

I collect Exhibits also and definitely agree with Scott. Most seller of Exhibits do not post images of the backs of cards - which is the only way I know of to detect reprints - unless you have a hi res scan. Good eye Scott.

Graded Exhibits
 

Whenever I see a fake Exhibit, it always seems to be one of about a dozen players, including Mantle (The close-up pose), Ford, Mays, Aaron, Musial, the Yankees team card, Fox, Spahn, Reese and a few others. Does anybody have a complete list? I think I've seen it here before ...

I was wondering where private Vanderbilt went to work after being discharged from the army.

Nice work Scott, though I'll bet this suicidal seller will keep it running.

Well after trading emails and linking this thread the seller has pulled the auctions. He seems to be a very nice guy and is doing the right thing.

He is taking this up with Joe at PSA and I will be interested to see how they handle it. The seller has invested a lot of time and effort in listing these cards and sending two off to Memory Lane for there Dec auction, time to see how PSA handles it.

Ohh and Chris you are right on the list, I'm pretty sure I owe you the list from another thread, I will post it when I get home later.

Good catch Scott! It made me run to check out my Red Sox Exhibits and they are all cream colored backs. Here is a Dom D and the back. And I do think the seller is doing the right thing.

I was the seller of the cards in question. First off, I'd like to thank smtjoy for all of his assistance. I really appreciated the fact that he contacted me and helped me to understand the situation (vs. someone else who took a more accusatory and nasty approach).

Here's the chronology of what happened:

- I had 10 Exhibit cards graded by PSA and they received grades ranging from 6 to 9 (I've had a sizeable sports card collection for many, many years, but I am certainly no expert on Exhibits, as I only had a handful of them from when I purchased them in the late 70s/ early 80s).

- When PSA authenticated them (the "a" in PSA does stand for authenticators, right?!), I decided to sell them on EBAY. I sold two cards on EBAY last month, and had 6 more up for auction to end later this week. I also had two highly-graded cards slated for a December auction with a reputable sports card auction house.

- SMTJOY sent me an e-mail expressing his concern that PSA made a mistake and that the cards may not be legitimate. I sent him a scan of the back of the card, and he said that legitimate Exhibit cards should not have a gray back. By the way, I had only scanned the front of the Exhibit cards for the auction because the back was blank and I thought there would not be any reason to show the back of the card (obviously, I was wrong on that one!).

- I called the auction house to tell them that the two cards I gave them for their December auction which were both graded PSA 9's may not be legit.

- SMTJOY and I exchanged e-mails and I was impressed with his knowledge of Exhibit cards.

- I took down all six EBAY auctions based on the information SMTJOY gave me. Being a buyer, not a seller for the vast majority of my life, I view things through a buyer's perspective. There is no way I would want to sell anything that was bogus, regardless of whether it was authenticated by PSA or not.
I have been a part of this hobby for the past 40 years, and my EBAY reputation is impeccable (not a single blemish on my record in 10+ years).

- I received a call from PSA before I even had the opportunity to call them first. They caught wind of the situation and reached out to me. The representative of the company could not have been more forthright and apologetic. The situation was handled in a very professional manner. PSA accepted responsibility, accountability, and blame for what happened, and could not have handled it any better. No excuses, no weaseling, no "blame game," just an admission that they made a mistake and wanted to rectify it.

Here's a breakdown of the 10 Exhibit cards that were incorrectly graded by PSA:

6 cards on EBAY - taken down. Fortunately, none of them had bids.

2 cards - sold on EBAY last month--- I contacted both buyers, explained the situation, and told them they would be reimbursed.

2 cards with auction house --- I spoke to the auctioneers again, and they agreed to remove the cards from the auction and send them directly to PSA.


In the final analysis, what this all proves is that the hobby community could help one another, especially when it comes to keeping the hobby "gene pool" pure. SMTJOY did everyone a great service.

As for PSA, I'm philosophical about the whole thing. Hey, they messed up. I'm sure it's not the first time and I know it won't be the last time. I believe it was an honest mistake, but I was quite impressed with the way they assumed responsibility for their mistake and did not try to pawn their mistake off on someone else. It was actually quite refreshing in this day and age of people always trying to avoid responsibility. PSA isn't perfect, but neither are we. At least they tried to work together with me towards a resolution.

Sure, I'm disappointed that the cards were not legit and I'm going to be out a lot of money (especially since I've been out of work for quite a while now). Still, I want to make money the honest way, and if I have to rip people off to get it, then I don't want it.

When all is said and done, all 10 Exhibit cards that were graded incorrectly by PSA will be sent back to PSA and removed from circulation. That resolution is the result of knowledge, and SMTJOY'S willingness to be a part of the solution, and not the problem.

OK here is the list of reprinted exhibits-

Dark Grey-

Aaron
Berra (Yogi version)
Campanella
Ford (pitching version)
Fox
Hodges (B on Cap)
Mantle (No White outline version)
Mays (Batting)
Musial (Kneeling)
Newcombe (Dodgers on Jacket)
Reese (ball visable version)
Snider (B on Cap)
Spahn (B on Cap)
Williams (#9 not showing)

White cardstock, all of the above plus-
1956 Dodgers
1956 Yankees


They are on ebay so beware when buying any of these cards. I always ask the seller what color the backs are? White or Tan/Cream or Grey? Most sellers have no idea what they should be so this is a good way to find out. Here is a listing on ebay now of the reprints (seller looks to be be selling a bunch of them)-

http://cgi.ebay.com/Whitey-Ford-Exhi...item518dc73386

good catches and good outcomes. There are indeed two varieties of fakes and both are as clear as day to anyone with any expertise in the issue.

Just curious, why not have them reslabbed as 70's reprints which is what they are. Lots of the collectors sets and earlier reprints from that era are getting some interest. Certainly not as much as originals, but I do think they're collectible on their own if they're properly identified

Exhibits
 

Scott, thanks for the list ...

This is what the hobby should truly be about, collectors such as Scott and Mike who took a bad situation and have fixed it to the best of their combined abilities.

No name-calling, etc.... and also PSA stepping up to rectify the situation.

Very refreshing.

RC

Nice job by everyone involved.

-Al

Isn't it at least a little bit alarming that PSA slabbed 10 exhibit cards that are universally known to have been reprinted on gray cardboard in the early 80's? I don't collect exhibits, but even I knew that....not only that, but I won a stack of exhibits from Hunt auctions a few years back that had about 5 or 6 of the reprints in it and immediately upon inspection of them I could tell they were not period.

I'm sorry, and I know that PSA does a large volume, but you pay for their service and when stuff like that gets through it makes me think the stuff that is a bit harder to detect is probably slipping through as well. They should not have anyone working for them that is not well versed in this hobby.

nice outcome
 

That was a nice outcome and showed a lot of integrity with the seller in this situation. I will save my other thoughts for another thread. I don't want to tarnish what Scott and the seller did, which is very comendable on both sides. Great job guys......:)

Collecting '70's & '80's Reprints
 

Steve:

Good point. There probably will be some interest in collecting 70's & '80's reprints; however, the image is not as clear as on an original Exhibit. It becomes more apparent when you compare the two side by side.

All's Well That .....................
 

I agree, good job/outcome by those involved (Scott/seller). However, it is incredulous that these were graded in the first place.

I don't by the statement of PSA just made an honest mistake. I don't see how PSA could miss that. One card maybe yes. 10 cards NO. There are only 2 sides to a card, front and back and if the guy looking at it is supposed to be experienced then he should have caught that. Your paying for there knowledge not there guess. If he or she doesn't know then there should have been another person looking at it to confirm. If you can't rely on these third party companies to be more acurate then what good is it. Sure they have alot of things to look at but that is no excuse. Hire more people or hire people that are experienced in certain areas like Exibits. We need to start holding these companies accountable

Sounds like they were accountable and reimbursed him for the value of the cards. They were the ones left holding the bag, as it should be, it was their error.

How would you suggest "we" do this? Questionable grades by PSA and other grading companies are routinely posted on Net54. Flat-out errors also are pointed out, as was this one.

In this case, PSA contacted the owner and said it will attempt to make its errors right.

So instead of talking in generalities, what would you like to see done to hold "these companies accountable"?

Rightfully so, it was their bag. When you are the self-proclaimed industry leader you've got to do better than that, IMO. These are very well known fakes/reprints.

What I was saying in my last post basicly is if a grading company misses one card here or there that is acceptable and mistakes happen most definitly. But when you look at 10 and miss everyone of them that shouldn't be accepable by any company. If you bought 10 items from a store and all 10 were bad would you accept that as being the norm. Not me. It's great that PSA made good but does that make it all better? Maybe in some views maybe not in others. Everyone has there views and this is just mine.

I wonder how they grade their graders? Like if they miss a certain % they are discarded?

I believe SGC has two people grade the card independently to arrive at the grade; I would hope that would greatly minimize mistakes like this. If PSA doesn't have that practice, then perhaps they should adopt it; if they do have that practice that means two of their professional graders missed this...

Matt when I took my trip up to SGC for my T205 johnson and others to be graded they had 3 graders look at the cards before arriving at a final grade. They were very attamint about having this many guys there because they wanted to make sure the grade given was accurate. Maybe not all the time but I know for sure this time they did. Although SGC is not perfect and sometimes more leanient than we expect I do believe they have the best process. 2 guys grade the card. If one is different than the other a third is used to decide. Some higher profile cards are graded by 3 people before a grade is given. Maybe this is why there are less problems "so to speak" than with PSA. Until things change I will continue to use SGC for everycard I grade. I will say kudos to PSA for stepping up to bat on this one but the bad still outweighs the good IMO. I also believe that PSA does use 2 graders before a grade is given. As time goes they are sure to get better, or get run out of pre-war grading over this kind of simple mistakes.

Although ESCO did legitimately reprint some cards (1948 HOF) in the early 1970s, the problem is that they aren't authorized reprints (like the 1948 HOF reissue) but were created anonymously to cheat collectors. They, like Broders, have basically no collectible value; I paid a few bucks for a full run primarily to use as autograph bases.

I thought PSA did have 2 graders grade, and if a difference a 3rd came in to resolve. So what this would mean is at least 2 graders missed this reprint issue

The cards being anonymous does make a difference, and they certainly aren't worth much, but it's still a set that could be collected on its own merits or lack of merits. In stamps, some groups of forgeries are avidly collected, sometimes ending up worth more than the originals. Nope, I don't think that's going to be the case here.
I don't really buy the unlicensed =no value argument. Most of the old sets we collect are probably unlicensed, or were at the time. And I know of at least one newer set that wasn't licensed, but hasn't been stigmatised by that label. I also believe that many 70's collector sets wouldn't pass current licensing standards, but were fine in their own time. I do also collect broders, but usually only if they're part of a collection, or are very cheap.

Looking for Opinion on 1947-66 Mantle Exhibit
 

I sold this exhibit on ebay while ago and the buyer returned it for a refund claiming it was a reprint. I have attached a scan of the front and the back. Can someone please confirm that this is in fact a reprint and the year it was issued. Thank you - Appreciate it!

That Mantle looks good but it is hard to say 100% from a scan. Maybe you should send it to PSA :)

Perhaps instead of "unlicensed" or "Broder" I should have said "reprinted without the owner's permission." To me that is the key distinction that makes the reprints not worth collecting.

Thank you Exhibitman - it just seems like a lot to pay $6 US grading + shipping for a card that is worth maybe $20-$30.

I agree the Mantle looks good.

I have had people say that to get a return when they might not have been happy with the condition or maybe felt it was trimmed (not saying that was the case with your Mantle). Ebay always sides with the buyer when you say its a reprint vs they dont when its just your unhappy with the condition.

Mantle Exhibit
 

I agree with Adam (Exhibitman) that it looks good.

I got a Mantle once out of one of those Exhibit 10cent Cellos that pop up now and then, and it looked just like the one above.

My Mantle looks exactly the same, not a rp IMO.

Reprint or Fake?
 

Sometime between 1975-1980 at a meeting of the St. Louis Cards Collector's Club (which would evolve into card shows) I ran across a table that had several different mint non-sport Exhibits complete sets. When I commented to the dealer/collector about the great condition he gave an explanation that might be relavent to this discussion. The gentleman's name was P.M. (I'll just use initials for this forum) from southern Illinois. He was a regular at the meetings and always had great a inventory of 1950's and early 60's cards. He explained that he had purchased the Exhibit Supply Co. and had recently printed the Exhibits displayed on his table. I specifically remember him stating, without me asking that these were actually Exhibit cards, but not old cards. I asked if he was able to pick up any old baseball Exhibits. He answered that did not recieve any old cards at all. So, these non-sports were declared modern reprints and not printed as fakes with the intent to cheat anyone. Had this happened after the reprinting of the 1933 Goudeys in the early '80's it might have caused more of a stink. The awareness just wasn't there at the time.

I didn't know P.M. beyond our occasional table discussions and have not seen him for many years, but he was well liked and apparently respected among the group.

Is it a fair assumption that the baseball Exhibits in this discussion had he same origin?

BTW- I didn't buy any of the Exhibits as I was spending my $ on '33 Goudeys. Once in a while I get it right.

Can someone please look at back of this Exhibit?
 

Does it look real? It has a high graded PSA, yeah there is some staining around the edges and the lower back, but does it look "cream-colored"?

I'm worried about buying a fake.

Looking from the back it looks real but which front is it?

Stan musial (batting)...i'm kind of new to exhibits. maybe this wasn't the target of any reprints?

Musial batting was not reprinted so its good, his kneeling is the one to look out for.

I just stumbled across this thread doing some research. Pulled a bunch of these out of a collection. You can add Elston Howard to this list for future reference.

Glad "Archive" can come in handy once in awhile.

I purchased these years ago, likely 30+, and from what I have learned about these on here about their backs, (very white) they are also reprints.

I have had the same thing happen, though not held quite as long, with other cards and it's never a great feeling.

Exhibit Reprints
 

Hi Gang:

Just stumbled across this old thread. Don't know how I missed it.

I would like to add a few things. First, as Dave mentioned you can add the Elston Howard to the gray back checklist.

I do not have Howard in the white back nor the Berra in the gray back. I wonder if they were switched? Can anyone confirm a white back Howard and/or a gray back Berra?

There is also ANOTHER white back set. Checklist is below:

Aaron
Adcock dark signature
Ashburn Cubs
Banks Portrait
Bauer NY on cap
Burdette pitching side view
Colavito batting
Drysdale glove at waist
Ennis
Fox
Jensen
Mathews name correct
McDougald Printed in U.S.A.
Sievers Senators lt. Bkgrd
Spahn M on cap
Torgeson plain uniform
Vernon batting
Woodling white signature
Zernial black signature

19 is a strange number for a set so there may be more out there. Or maybe I have one card from the other white back set mixed in.

These are all over ebay so you may want to check your cards of the above to be sure you do not have white backs.

Example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1947-66-Exh...p2047675.l2557

And PSA is STILL MisIDing these. Another member here bought a Team Card off ebay that was graded by PSA recently and when he got it, it was white back. Perhaps he will share info in a follow up post.

Fred