Show professionally graded cards that you consider inadequately graded or in error.
 

Attachment 358275

Attachment 358276

Attachment 358277

Attachment 358278

Attachment 358279

Attachment 358280

Attachment 358281

Attachment 358282

Attachment 358283

Ducky Medwick ; 1934 Gold Medal Foods Basic 12
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...EDWICK_NEW.JPG

...no argument on the number grade but AARRGGHHH on the mis-identification by two different professional organizations ; the card is a 1934 Gold Medal Premium from Wheaties. Now I need to find one in a Beckett holder so I'll have the trifecta.

..

The T206 "Honus" you show is no longer in the pop report, FWIW.

Some of those early grades are gifts, some are probably due to chemical treatments returning years after the card was slabbed.

My biggest grading issue has been cards that deserved the MK qualifiers that did not get them:
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1968...9664&size=zoom
Three red marker drawings got a straight PSA 5?
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1939...zoom&side=back
Pencil writing on the back of this Ty Cobb HOF postcard and it got a straight PSA 4. MK is supposed to be one of the qualifiers that you cannot get removed, even if you request No Qualifiers.

This might end up being the longest thread in the history of Net54.

Not sure if you meant to include "undergraded"
 

Attachment 358319

Attachment 358320

Here are 6 PSA got WAY wrong. The first picture has a PSA 9 and a PSA 7. The 9 is mislabeled, it has the cheapest of the error versions actually in the slab but it is labeled as the most expensive. The 7 is counterfeit just like the 2 PSA 8s pictured and the 2 PSA 9s. Yes it is fairly easy to get a counterfeit card into a PSA slab. I won't out the gentleman because I think he is a member here. He has an amazing collection of 89 Fleer Bill Ripken error versions all in PSA slabs. He has so many cards with alterations so obvious Stevie Wonder could see them but PSA slabbed them with a # for him.

For those that don't understand printing. Those counterfeit Ripken cards are 10X as hard to counterfeit than a 50s card with white borders.

I don't think one would be harder than another because of the borders or lack of borders. But I wouldn't mind hearing the reasoning behind that.

If those are a few of the cards with the large TM or R symbol, I was able to examine one firsthand, and it was really a puzzle.

Short version
It didn't have most of the traits of fakes from the 1990's. In some ways it could be said to have none of the common ones.

But it was- for a 1989 Fleer, definitely non-standard

It DID have several traits that made me lean away from thinking it was fake. Subtle stuff that at the time would require work most counterfeiters didn't/wouldn't do. At least one of those things was not typical for 89 Fleer. I'm still not certain what to think of it.

Just after, I bought a few non- error versions as a small lot. Mostly because they had clear differences on the back of one card. And all of them are just fine.


In the end, I suppose the "fake" label is the easiest, the card is atypical in several ways. But where they aren't ways that are typical for someone making a fake card, I don't think that's 100% certain.

My suspicion is that those particular fakes were done in-house at one of Fleers printers. Maybe legitimately as a "special" for HSN or shop at home.
Fleer is of course long gone, and I'd assume their records got thrown out, so we will probably never know.
It's not a totally crazy notion, the big shopping networks and at least some retailers did get special stuff from other manufacturers, and UD both reprinted their own cards, and faked stuff they were the licensed printer for.

I think this one got a generous grade, I wouldn't have gone much above a 2. Not that I'm unhappy with the grade it was given....
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=13911

This one has a light crease starting at the top center and going almost to the center of the card. Probably from being removed from a plastic page.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=7872


I also have a few like this, when I see 50's and even the occasional 60 with rounded corners I get a fleeting moment of annoyance.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=2593

We will have to agree to disagree. I did read your "report" and completely disagreed with everything in it.

I'm still on the fence after a few years, and very open to the cards being fake. At any rate, they don't belong in holders labeled as the error version, maybe not at all

It was a while ago, and I don't recall if I ever sent the second half of the detailed report. I can't find it on my computer, so I may not have finished it and sent it.

The part I do know I sent was the technical info. Thickness, how the cardstock and inks reacted to both long and shortwave UV and maybe a few other things, for a fake, a real one, and a couple control cards If I remember correctly, a glossy and an update and maybe something Canadian.

I'd love to discuss any of it in detail. Maybe outside this thread, as it's not really the right place.

Lets just say most fakes are pretty obvious and show the same signs of the same sort of sloppy work. These are a bit different.

Acquired this card several years ago. I thought it did not deserve an "A".
But, it didn't cost me much (so I cannot complain).

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sHandx50_1.jpg




Anyhow, I recently, cracked it out....and, submitted it to SGC

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ngsHand50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sHand50xbx.jpg




This time they graded it a "60".....

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ningsSGC60.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Trimmed?
 

Great photo image but to me the side and bottom borders look to be a bit small....maybe slight trimming? What do you think?

Mothers Bread and Mino
 

Two I used to have...the Wagner batting is a Mother's Bread and the throwing is a Mino...Jerry

A little tuesday morning T206 humor for you tobacco card aficionados out there :)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-ec2BrU8AEedl0.png

That's pretty much the normal American Beauty. Except for how nicely it's centered. Most are skinny and sometimes a bit short, but way off center percentage wise.

How about ones they won't grade?

http://luckeycards.com/pf52frojoyruth.jpg

Pretty sure this one should have received a Authentic grade.

This one just arrived yesterday, Ben.

Can you tell from the scans if it is real or not? (I should have done more homework prior to purchasing! :()

That one looks good. There are a ton of fakes out there of that card and its variations. Some guy in Iowa started printing(home printer) them up a couple years ago but they are very easy to tell they are fake in hand.

The ones I posted are fake but done with a real printing press. The biggest give away is the thinner card stock, the very obvious second generation photo, and the recropping of the photo.

PSA has stopped grading the high quality fakes i posted. SGC and Beckett has always rejected them as counterfeit.

Thanks Ben. :)

I purchased it from a reputable seller so I assumed it was real but after reading your post, I wasn't so sure anymore.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c3a7e89b_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...774e4a91_b.jpg


This one is easy. Spot the error

Leaf!!

grade
 

Wow,
collectors pay these people to do this !! ??

I recently owned a small lot of Armour coins where 6 of them were mislabeled by PSA.

Each one was labeled 1959 Armour Coins when they should have been 1960 Armour Coins.

I am not the original owner and did not notice the mistake until I started selling these at my eBay store.

Nothing surprises me anymore when I hear these crazy stories about grading companies.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1973...15bf&size=zoom
Looks like it's been through a washing machine. Plus its tab is torn off. Not sure how this got anything but a Poor/Authentic.
There's not even a cut-out area for the missing tab in the gasket.