Whoops! Wonder how many times PSA has done this?

[hcv123]

While browsing some of the PSA registry master sets I found this error.

This is mistakenly labeled as a "numbered" panel. There are only 3 legitimate graded numbered panels with Clemente. So this error inflates the perceived population by 33%. I alerted the owner by posting on their set page and PSA through their customer service page.

Got me to thinking, I wonder how many more errors like this are out there? Probably doesn't move the needle much on items with a high supply, but on items like this it could really make a difference. I hope the owner didn't purchase it as the numbered test.

[raulus]

More than we would like, which is enough to make you mad enough to chew nails and spit rust if you’re a hard core set registry goon like me.

A couple of examples come to mind from my Mays collecting:

A Mays 1963 Topps PSA 9 labeled as 1962. Naturally, 1962 is much more difficult to find than 1963 when it comes to high grades.

A Mays 1953 Topps reprint PSA 9 labeled as an actual 1953 Topps PSA 9.

The best part is that PSA refuses to update their database unless the owner sends in the card for relabeling. In the case of the 1953 reprint, I spent $50 to buy it just to send it in and correct the pop count. But since the 1963 wasn’t mine (so I couldn’t send it in), they wouldn’t correct their database.

[Cliff Bowman]

Shouldn’t that panel also have gotten an ‘Authentic’ grade rather than a numerical grade because the dotted line isn’t showing all the way around, mainly on the left side of Freehan?

[swarmee]

Yes, it should also be AUTH.

PSA is abysmal when it comes to "mechanical error"s like this. Just do a search for PSA mechanical error on google and you'll find thousands. I report a whole bunch from their APR page and some of them do get corrected in the Pop report without them being sent it. Just depends on how obvious the mistake is.

There were multiple instances of even base Mickey Mantle Topps cards with the same number being listed in the wrong set. For example 1964 Topps #50 being listed as 1966 Topps #50.

[vthobby]

Knowing their customer service, : hypothetically of course "if" they ever responded it might go something like this

..... after sending your concerns to our R&D team and our head grader, they responded "Clearly this is a Numbered version as you can see on the Bill Freehan it is #26 duly noted in the top left corner of that card! Please do not waste our time in the future with such trivial matters."

[GeoPoto]

I defer to our Exhibits experts and perhaps these were once all lumped together, but I think PSA misclassed this one. "Made in the USA" does make it tricky:

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1693219147