E95 Plank--PWCC auction
 

I waited for this auction to end, but I certainly hope that the winner of this lot does not mind an altered card for $700 (despite their claim that it is undergraded)--just look at his uniform--or gets his/her money back:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E95-Phi...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

This is very disappointing, as I pointed this issue out to the seller no fewer than 4 times, and they said they would "look into it."

This is as much a TPG issue as it is an auction issue and is sad, IMO. The auction should have been cancelled or at least edited. I don't like to see anyone taken advantage of, ever.

Bri@n.D.y.n.l.a.c.h.t

Wowsers!!!:eek:

Talk about putting the "A" in Plank!

I will confess to not seeing it at first, but once I did, well...I am speechless. This scares me honestly in that I am making the effort to learn prewar and begin collecting it. Education about what I am considering buying goes into that. Part of that education is not a blind reliance on TPGs. In the past, like a lot of collectors, there have been probably a few times that I didn't do my homework because a card was in a TPG slab, and I let them do my work for me. I could have been burned as a result, and I would have deserved it. Delving into prewar has forced me to really try and "know" the cards. This is a Grade A example of why.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I assume this is what it is suppose to look like, even though it's another PSA graded one?

heavens to Betsy!

E95 Plank-PWCC auction
 

Yes, Irv. Nice card!

While it is true that a buyer should know what a card looks like before he/she plunks down $700, not everyone is born knowing what this card should look like, except maybe Leon (hi, Leon).

But this does not, IMO, excuse someone like the seller who has literally handled thousands of pre-war cards. Just sayin'.

Bri@n.D.y.n.l.a.c.h.t

Outstanding Plank with wonderful eye appeal for the grade. Boasts EXMT centering with well formed corners for the grade. The color and focus are deserving of a much higher grade. Deserving of attention.

I see the staining and the letter A, but I don't understand exactly why you are saying it is altered. Do you mean it should have an (st or mk) qualifier? I am curious for my own edification. Here is a side-by-side of the card you are referring to (left) with Irv's card.

Brian, I got the picture from PSA's own site. I wish the card were mine! :D
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/ba...ie-plank/15673

Orlando, either it is an extremely rare variation that I have never seen before (now that WOULD be cool), or the 'A' was put there on a card that looks like Irv's version. I have the card myself.

It doesn't look much like the real logo.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E95-PHI...sAAOSw6YtZWDVs

If you scroll down in the link I posted, you can view past sales. Although not 100% conclusive, I suppose, no other card has that "A" on his chest.
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/ba...ie-plank/15673

So is the proper grade MK or AUTH?

If it were a variation it would be known.

If it had been graded with "MK", I think that would be accurate, I guess. But one could make the argument for "Auth", too. Please don't get me started on grading issues.....
Brian

Personally I think it might be a "variation", it doesn't look like someone
drew that on there to me. I haven't found an A's logo that looks like
it yet but here are some different ones in the T206 set,
Attachment 279257
Attachment 279258
Attachment 279259
Attachment 279260

I think it is a faint stamp mark.

im starting to agree that this "a" was likely not drawn in...maybe a stamp...or who knows maybe some form of variation?

also...I'm not so versed with this particular card to have noticed the "A" shouldn't be there at first glance...I had to look at comparables.

It does look like a stamp, and that is why the card should have a qualifier.
Just hope the "winner" of that card reads this thread and gets his/her money back.

There appears to be something (ink or whatever) in the same color above and to the left of the letter A. I don't think the factory printed it that way.

The card does look nicer than a 3, assuming there are no faint creases or anything we can't see in the scans.

Maybe it was submitted as a "no qualifier" card, so instead of getting a PSA 5 (MK), it got a PSA 3?

I probably would've graded it a 4, but wouldn't be the ugliest 5 I've ever seen by any stretch.

I suppose it's plausible, but I tend to think PSA would not give that card a 5 based on the corners.

I didn't think you could request "no qualifiers" on cards with marks?

Stamp +1

Ah, not sure, so you certainly could be right....

(MK)
 

I thought - at least at some point in the past - that there was an option to have the card graded without a qualifier. Here's another example below, with a pencil mark on the right border:


https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...-hugh-jennings

Looks like a PSA 3 (MK) or PSA 4 (MK). Possibly it's a straight 3 because of a "no qualifier" request, but I think with that much corner wear and with the stamp being as subtle as it is it's more likely they just missed it. Wouldn't bother me much either way, as I like period stamps on my cards; but I guess if no one else does I could get the card cheaper than $700.

Nope

Isn't it amazing how much mystery and fog surrounds what these grading companies do, to the point that really knowledgeable people on this board who have been collecting for years don't understand exactly how these guys grade. Incredible. Great business model they've built.

Judging by CLCT's stock performance and PSA's market dominance I would say it is a pretty good business model.

To me it looks like the 'A' was applied by a stamp.

Brian

that explanation from the grading company is clear to me--clear as mud....

It's possible that it was judged a 5(MK) that was requested "No Qualifiers"; PSA reserves the right to leave qualifiers if they are egregious. However, we have had cases where pencil written numbers were still on the back of Mickey Mantle cards with no MK designation, and recently I graded a 1968 Topps card with obvious marker on the front and it got no MK designation, just a straight PSA 5.
It should have.

The other thought I had on this would have been a wet sheet transfer, but based on the gallery on oldcardboard.com, no other card in the set has a similar A. It does have the look of a stamp (because of the red color to the top left that resembles the corner of a stamp block). However, the placement of the stamp to me is just so good, that either the kid who owned it wanted to show he was on the Athletics, or it is a super-rare variation that will be worth thousands now that it's been found.

Personally, I think it would be quite interesting to examine it under a 16X loupe to see if the "A" is consistent with the card's other printed characteristics (the glass is half-full?).

Just sayin'.

Best wishes,

Larry

I always thought this would have graded higher but whomever submitted it (before I got it) chose not to have the MK hence the 2.5. The little check mark on the back, near the bottom right side, is hard to miss?:confused:

http://luckeycards.com/pr319ruth2a.jpg

Very nice card from my perspective, Leon. Congrats on it!

Highest regards,

Larry

Nice card, Leon.
The big difference, Leon, is that I WOULD buy your card with a mark (and a LOWER grade than the aforementioned Plank card in the original post), if it were for sale, but I would not buy the altered Plank that received a higher grade. Just sayin'...

There is still some confusion about requesting no qualifiers. Please read post #29. It is a screen shot from PSAs website, "there are certain qualifiers that PSA will not remove such as MK."

It's right there in black and white. You cannot request no qualifiers when the card has a mark. If you see a card that has a mark but has no MK qualifier, PSA simply overlooked the mark.

Nice card, Leon. PSA missed the check mark. As for the card itself, it has several minor creases to warrant the grade of 2.5. The proper grade would have been PSA 2.5 MK

There are no half grades with qualifiers. Either one or the other. Here is the marked card that PSA just gave a straight 5.
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1968...&size=original
1968 Topps - [Base] #66.1 - Casey Cox (Yellow Team Name) [SGC*20]
Courtesy of COMC.com

As you can see, it has red scribble marker on the jersey and "blood tears" in both eyes. I was floored when it popped as an unqualified card. I think their website is wrong, and they do downgrade cards to remove MK qualifiers.

Tell that to PSA...

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/FqEAAO...VE/s-l1600.jpg

Kind of like there's no half grades with qualifiers, huh?

Lots of misinformation in this thread. I blame it all in PWCC :rolleyes:

The second they decided you could get a 1 with a qualifier but not a 10 with a qualifier they undercut their entire explanation for the qualifiers' purpose.

A 1.5 Fair is not actually a half grade in their opinion.

https://www.psacard.com/resources/gr...andards/#cards

Click on the box about half-point grades. It states "For example, there will not be cards graded PSA NM-MT Plus 8.5 OC or PSA EX-MT Plus 6.5 PD since the half-point is reserved for high-end cards within each grade."
So a 2.5(MK) is not possible, and actually won't fit on their Pop Report charts the way they're laid out, since there are separate fields for + (half-grades) and Q (qualifiers). However, since 1.5 FAIR gets its own column, it is not actually a half-grade and therefore, I guess, PSA allows qualifiers on them.

Why are we justifying the grade of PSA 3? I don't care how nice it looks. It has been tampered with and deserves an Authentic and nothing else

There are no creases or wrinkles that I can see under magnification. Try another answer please. Personally I think whomever submitted it got it done without the MK and a lower grade because of it. I know what their site says...

Look at the back. Right above "GEORGE" is a crease. Everything below "GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON" has many spider wrinkles.

A PSA 2.5 is accurate given the creases. I'm not knocking the card. I would love to own it. But it is graded accurately.

Let's stick with SGC, it makes so much more sense -- 50 55 60 70 80 82 84 etc.

Admittedly there are some wrinkles (none go through both sides so to me they are wrinkles but they are there)..... still not sure about the check mark and why it still received a 2.5? Is a 2.5 card with a check mark still a 2.5?

Failed attempt at sarcasm. SGC still lists the numeric 10 point grade on the flip (e.g. 55 = 4.5, 60 = 5, 70 = 5.5, etc) so what's the difference?

Don't you have another PWCC bash thread to start?