|
Yeah, there has to be a lot of PSA authenticated counterfeit cards out there, would be neat to see them in one thread. I'd wager people would pay more than a PSA genuine card in some cases. Crazy world we live in.
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1603821502
God bless this thread. Such an affirmation of my choice to mostly buy raw, despite all advice otherwise. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would also guess after he talks to PSA we will not hear the details of what took place.:) |
Quote:
|
Hi Dave,
I just got around to reading your post explaining things and wanted to let you know that my own post about believing the card to have been switched was not meant to infer that you were the one who switched it out, but that at some point someone likely did. Sorry if you took it to mean I was questioning your integrity. I never meant to do that. And thanks for posting the explanation. Thanks, Andy |
Scrolling down the thread I just knew that it would be found that PSA graded the card, and so many people here defending or not willing to believe the seller at first. SMH As if PSA has a spotless record, from either a moral or technical standpoint. I'm sure it was graded authentic as an honest mistake, which is crazy, but the way some people act as if PSA is beyond reproach, morally or technically, is beyond me.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ryan's generous offer is probably the better one anyway. |
Quote:
|
My bid of $50 seems to still be the mark inside of this thread. But I don't want the poor guy to be banned from PSA if he won't return it to them.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I mean what is this card? A reprint? A forgery? Yeah, sure PSA thinks it's genuine, but I'd rather call it what it is...a reprint, albeit doctored. It's plenty clear enough in this thread that PSA was fooled by a terrible reprint and did not put reprint on the slab. They were just plain fooled and couldn't detect the card with their expertise. I added the whole slab picture back into the above and edited this in: "Edit: to be clear, the card which is slabbed is identified in the graphic as "PSA Authenticated 1915 Cracker Jack Dover Reprint." This card has been determined to be a Dover Reprint card by this board. PSA deemed it to be a genuine 1915 Cracker Jack card." |
Quote:
|
John, can you post a link to your thread about this in blowout? I cannot find it (I find that site overwhelming and I am dumb- a tuff combination). Thanks
|
Here is the thread for this card by itself.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1420775 I had bumped these two threads about other PSA misdeeds and someone else thought this was worthy of its own thread. https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1419183 Page 3 has the Connie Mack https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1308245 Page 7 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The most obvious part is the white on his shirt is so much whiter than the borders. They should be no difference, as, on the original cards, the white is the lack of any ink on the cardstock.
|
Quote:
|
Thanks John
|
Howdy gang...me again.
Quote:
Sorry for the delay...I was off yesterday, but today I was back to my day job and dealing with the card as I could around real work. Late this afternoon, the VP from PSA called me as promised. It wasn't a very long conversation. He led off with apologies for the situation and to make a long story short, basically said mistakes happen, everyone is human, and so on. He said that he personally was not a grader, just coming from a collecting background. He asked me to email him the full details that I know of my history with the card and pics of the card, which I just did within the last half-hour or so. He said that once he received that, they would be sending me a pre-paid FedEx label to get the card back to them for re-examination to again determine if real or not. He noted that with the overwhelming outcry over the card, that the odds of it being real were pretty low (duh). He said if PSA still deemed to be real, it would be returned to me noting their findings. If determined to be reprint/counterfeit/fake, then I "would be compensated". He didn't go into any detail, and I didn't dig any deeper than that. I asked about timeframe, noting how long it took to go through the process the first time and that I wasn't terribly interested in going back to the tail end of the line. He said it would not go through the normal processing, but would be a priority once received. Who knows...guess I'll see. At this point, I have been contacted here and on ebay by several individuals wanting to buy the card as-is, for various reasons. I appreciate the interest and the stated goals of those that mentioned them, and mean no disrespect to anyone. I personally am more comfortable sending the card back and letting the PSA side of it play out. If for some reason they return the card back still saying it is real, then game on. If they attempt to make me whole and keep the card, so be it. If the card comes back in any other form, I'll just offer it back up for sale with the full story that its been through and let it ride. I do appreciate everyone's help on the board here and will keep in touch as things unfold as long as I am able to do so. There has been no mention of non-disclosure or anything like that, but if one comes along, I'll cross that bridge when I get there. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you all want to play with some pics...here are a couple of original shots that I took of the card before sending it off: https://imgur.com/GcHWZsE https://imgur.com/VGYfNem I also took one more in good light showing the bottom of the card in the PSA case that came out with less reflection from the liner: https://imgur.com/UyiXKKT |
Thank you for continuing to share your story. I'm sure you were initially excited to learn it was deemed genuine to then watch it snowball into this. You've certainly had an interesting dabble into the grading world. I'm sure they'll do what they have to do to get it off the market. That's probably the best thing and can't fault your decision. I'm positive anyone here would only want it as a novelty and keep it at that, but eventually at some point down the road it would be inherited or what have you and cause issues again.
|
Quote:
I would like to have the card but honestly sending it back to PSA would be by far the best for you. Unless you have something in a email from them guaranteeing what you will get if deemed bad you will get little to nothing for all your trouble. That NDA is coming.:D Have a great evening and thank you again for sharring your story. |
I wonder what SGC would pay you for it? Seems like pretty good material for an ad campaign. 😛
|
Thanks for sharing your story.
|
Quote:
Auction to the highest bidder! |
2 Attachment(s)
Grading companies make mistakes - I don't believe it!!
|
Quote:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PSACARDS/ |
Quote:
In this case, however, a clear reprint of a 1915 Cracker Jack ran the quality control gauntlet- nobody noticed the different card stock, the perforated edges, or the fact that the writing on the back is upside down, among several other “smoking gun” tip offs. This means that either (1) PSA lies about quality control and only one person graded this and that person is wholly incompetent to grade 1915 cracker jacks, or (2) three wholly incompetent people looked at this card. Any way you slice it, this is a massive mistake by the self-proclaimed leader and expert of card authentication and the company that tells us to “never get cheated” |
Keying in the wrong year or variation is a mistake.
Slabbing a fake card is gross incompetence. |
Quote:
|
Do not send the card back without working out a financial agreement “if” the deem it fake.
That card will never see the light of day once you ship it to them. Ball will be in their court once they have it in hand. |
Thanks for sharing the story Dave. Wow. Can't make this stuff up. I would never give those crooks the card back to "make you whole". What's that, 40 bucks? I'd much rather just keep the card and tell PSA to go F themselves for the trouble they caused you having to answer too every Tom, Dick and bigger Dick.. Hold it for Ransom. It's all fake anyway, like I've said a million times. But that's just me, Mr. congeniality;) Nobody cares, especially PSA.
|
Agreed, I'd keep it. Start a registry :)
|
Yes, agree... don’t let them have it back. Just not worth it to let them off the hook that easy. The same hook they manage to wiggle off of time and again.
I have never seen a company so corrupt, that continually manages to avoid any negative consequences or loss of business due to their ineptitude. It’s probably worth a few grand for them to get it back, but am guessing their offer will be a tiny fraction of that amount. |
Quote:
|
Ah, the photographs already exist. Maybe put it on a t-shirt for the next National? ;-)
|
I'd auction it off on our very own BST Auction.
|
I think you set up at the next National with just that one card in your case.
|
Quote:
|
The occasional blatant mistake is far less concerning to me than the apparent regular practice of missing, or looking past, vast numbers of altered cards.
|
Grading question--if a baseball card was cleaned/bleached what's the best any bleached card should grade if it appears to be a 5--a PR1 or 5 ?
|
2 Attachment(s)
At least this one is real...just mislabeled
(PSA labeled this one a 1915 CJ but the back clearly shows its a 1914 CJ) |
I wouldn’t trust them. They want to buy back their mistake. I would hang on to it until they actual had some more concrete terms for compensation. PSA hasn’t been known as trustworthy. It’s just my opinion and I hope everything goes well for the owner of said card.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
This is an interesting one. It has a few things going for it. First off, it's graded as a 2. I'd have a hard time with that considering the damage on the back, but that's just an opinion. Ignoring that, yup, it's a 1915 in a 1914 holder as well.
|
1 Attachment(s)
This one needs little introduction as it was posted in another thread previously, but it's hard not to show it again. This one needs little explanation.
|
1 Attachment(s)
This one isn't as bad as the one above, but once again, scissors to the corners. Sure doesn't look natural given the overall condition.
|
1 Attachment(s)
This one jumps out like a sore thumb. The borders on the top, bottom, and left look pretty even. That right edge though, yikes.
|
1 Attachment(s)
This actually is a 1915, but it was put in the holder the wrong direction being a horizontal card. That is a minor mistake.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Pretty common to goof up the horizontals I guess. Wayyyyy too many to show all of them.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Here's one that bugs me with the MC designation because it's cut just fine. It's a printing error, not cutting.
|
PSA's definition of the MC qualifier includes ones where the image falls off the edge or image from another card is visible on this one. I think the slight red at the top left border is why it got the MC. I think based on the blatant registration issues that it should have gotten the OF (out of focus) qualifier instead. But all qualifiers count the same.
|
Some excellent examples of total failure there...
Posts 135, 136 and 137 are all blatantly altered and none should have received a numerical grade. Anyone who thinks that is normal corner wear is dreaming. If a normal person submitted those cards, they could expect to receive nothing other than an "A". Pathetic. |
2 Attachment(s)
This was my very first Cracker Jack...I had to learn real fast the differences between a 1914 CJ and a 1915 CJ
(Mislabeled 1914 CJ...back clearly shows it is a 1915 CJ) |
My prediction on the "offer" is a voucher for another grading.
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
I have seen PSA 1s and 2s look better visually. This is a very bad PSA 5!
Does anyone really think this is a legit 5? Card is way off center, one side is very jagged and the other side looks trimmed. (I do not own this card, it is in someone else's collection) |
Needle sharp corners on one side, dull and rounded on the other side. Major red flag when grading. Wonder why they didn't just trim off the ragged left side too.
|
Could be a very old grade reholdered 3-5 years ago into a hologram flip. Very odd edge wear though.
|
Latest Update...
The card is on its way back to PSA for the rest of the song and dance. Got a follow-up call from their "Chief of Staff" (LOL) yesterday afternoon and she emailed a label for FedEx overnight. Supposedly she is handling the card upon arrival and it is supposed to go straight to their top grader. I forgot his fancy title. She pretty much led off that I didn't qualify for their "guarantee" since I was the one who submitted it. No shock there. Assuming its declared a fake, I get a refund of the PSA fees I paid and she offered me all of a free PSA membership of some sort and maybe a few free grades, all of which I told her was pretty much useless to me at this point. Already sold most of my high-value cards that would have gotten any benefit from that anyways. Pretty much as everyone expected...the price you pay for trying to go the honest route, I suppose. Anyways...that's where it stands. Now back to your regularly-scheduled PSA Screw Up Gallery already in progress! :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If all the original submitter will get is a membership they won’t use, why not:
1- Keep the card as a curiosity OR 2- Auction it here |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
How can shady stuff like this continue to happen? Card collectors keep falling for the same old crap.
|
Quote:
|
Just in case anyone was on pins and needles for PSA's review today, by the time the delivery got routed to the person looking out for it, the grand poobah of grading had left for the day...so that's that until Monday.
|
I hope he's thrown off by the time change and deems it REAL again. That would be bananas! ;-) Nah, that's as likely as it getting through the first time.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:42 PM. |