fake m101-5 Wheat gets by PSA
 

I was unaware PSA would knowingly holder a trimmed card and mark it as such, but they still blew it, for the card is not authentic:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-M101-5-...item1c316166f9

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1916-M101-5-S...1ng~~60_57.JPG

Grading
 

I think grading companies do the best they can for what it is. I only send in cards for grading that I want to sell. Half the time they mess up the series, not to mention the grade. It's not like McKee and Klein and Sloate are sitting over there at a desk waiting to expertly grade these cards. For $10 a card it's some college girl who has been brushed up on the general idea.

Nice catch Todd, btw SGC and BVG both holder trimmed cards as well.

Matt,

I am not an expert on the m104 etc cards , but I do collect them some. I think when you see a space between the picture and the frame it's a fake.

You are correct. There is a PSA graded fake Ruth in the detecting alterations and reprints section.

You are correct sir
 

That's right. A gap like that between frame and photo is the tell-tale sign. A real Wheat would show his entire throwing hand and arm with a very small space to the border.

I just didn't want anyone here to get burned by banking on PSA in this instance. I was also turned off by the auction title, for a "1916 m101-5 Sporting News Zach Wheat RC PSA 7", which is clearly false. The "card" is a reprint, is not a Sporting News (m101-5 never has a Sporting News back), is not his rookie card, and is not a PSA 7. Other than that he got it right; oh wait, since it's a reprint it is also neither an m101-5 nor from 1916. Guess he comes up empty on this one.

Yet another example of why people should buy the card and not the holder!

Here are a couple of Wheats to compare.

Love this forum
 

Learned something new :)

Maybe cracked case?
 

I'm just throwing this out there, but perhaps it used to be a real Hornsby then someone cracked the case open and resealed it with this fake? Or is that not even possible with that particular casing?

It happens more often than you think. A former card shop owner in a town south of where I live was busted for taking real T206 Cobb cards out of their PSA cases and replacing them with printed copies he made

I think we're bashing PSA for a card that was holdered years ago, and that we've probably already complained about multiple times. Yes, it's a reprint, but unless an owner cracks it out we are probably going to see it here many more times over the years.

Why do you think this card was holdered years ago? I can tell you that I have followed these cards diligently for years and I have never seen this Wheat, so it is not a card that "we've probably already complained about multiple times".

PSA should probably contact the owner to see if they can get it out of their holder. I will send them a message. From there it's their call. Obviously, if the holder hasn't been compromised, they made a mistake. And not to make light of it, It isn't the first or last mistake from any reputable grading company. If I were them, I would try to find out who personally graded it and give them some remedial training.

The cert still checks out for this one: http://www.psacard.com/Cert/21267674/

I believe the cert for the Ruth that was mentioned does not.

Todd, I wasn't taking a shot at you - I was going by the holder design, which I thought was an old one. If PSA is still holdering this same style of M101-5 reprint, then they certainly deserve to be complained about again.

No problems Scott. I really wasn't out to bash PSA either. There are so many of those threads over the years and I pretty much stay out of them (fish in a barrel)--PSA is what it is. I just wanted to point out the problem to those on the board who don't collect m101s but who might want to pick up one for type. This example would be a nice addition if it were real and available cheap. Following PSA's blessing in this case would be a mistake.

Personally, I wonder if the submitter deliberately asked that it be graded Authentic trimmed, although he indicates otherwise in his listing. That way maybe someone at PSA thought it was an honest guy not trying to put one over on them about the trim and just wanting it authenticated, and they didn't give it much of a look.

We talked about these reprints so much in the past that they now stick out for most of us, like a sore thumb - and I don't even collect M101-5's and haven't seen one of these reprints since the old days.

Although all the grading companies make errors, there are a few reprints that should be on some sort of 'reprint' master list that PSA uses to train their new-hires. These really should never get through.

I agree 100%.

Great point and idea, Scott!