Another inexcusable PSA screw up - they graded another reprint!
 

Inexcusable from the self-proclaimed industry leader. It’s one thing to miss alterations, which really they should not miss. But grading a REPRINT t206 cy young portrait EPDG, is pathetic. This on the heels of the reprint 1914 Cracker Jack Mack PSA graded.

Come on PSA!!

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...1#post17453176

Psa
 

I'll jump on the pile! PSA is lousy, there's a deal with Beelzebub somewhere
that keeps them alive. Trent King

Yeah, it is pathetic, but I'm also not surprised, even a tiny bit. The CJ Mack permanently changed my opinion and future expectations.

Stunning

Here are the pictures from Ebay. Not as good as some, better than others.

Perhaps Leon is interested...I think he is collecting T206 Hall of Famers with extra big borders.

Brian

Ryan,

Did you cross over your T206 Wagner from an SGC to a PSA holder?

$3,700 - my goodness.

I wonder how many times this card will change hands before it gets freed from that holder.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14408450916...p2047675.l2557

I did not. I did cross a Joe Doyle Nat’l and I took a 0.5 grade downward adjustment to do it. I did it bc I wanted maybe the only 100% complete T206 set registered somewhere, and PSA has a great registry (I certainly give them that).

That said, whether I crossed a singular card or not is irrelevant to the fact that there is zero excuse for PSA being incapable of distinguishing a t206 reprint from a real t206. And they charge a lot of money!! And it was not any card, it was a rare back, T206 Cy Young. This is not some chump card. I mean who is looking at these things??!!!

Why can’t they have vintage experts looking at vintage cards? Or at least someone with experience looking at $5k cards?

-

I bet if this Cy Young EPDG was perforated around its perimeter like the Cracker Jack Mack, PSA would have bumped that "2" to at least a "4".

Ryan, this one is unbelievable, wow. I mean, at first glance, from across the room, with one eye closed, you can immediately sense the card is way "off".

Why don’t they have other graders there to doublecheck?

looks short too

So, are you saying this is common with PSA?

:cool::D:eek:

Especially for having such relatively wide borders.

Just wait, PSA is so messed up even SGC is going to go downhill...

They Could Grade Quilted Northern Toilet Paper as 1909 S71 Silks and the masses would still send them cards. People are Hooked on PSA Because as long as their slabbed items sell for the most they will get the most business.

Next

And people would buy those "silks" as well just because they're in a PSA slab.

Just goes to show you that marketing and sales trumps all

That card shown is a really poor fake. A 6 yr old could tell it's fake. But all wide borders are not fake...

https://luckeycards.com/t206young.jpg

Oh, I get it. My comment was made because:

1. The fake card has very wide borders
2. The card also measures quite a bit short

The two conditions are mutually exclusive. A T206 with wide borders shouldn't leave that much room within the holder.

Does anyone remember the Nolan Ryan newspaper clipping that got graded?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/284321050560

Isn't there supposed to be more than 1 person inspecting cards at PSA? If that is the case then more than 1 person needs re-evaluating or a pink slip.

Because then they would have to double their already exorbitant fees.

The head of the grader distribution department saw that it was a "Young" card, so he sent the card to a young grader.:D

Well, someone got cheated (Never Say Never, haha)

Hopefully the "winner" gets wind of this thread or the one on BO, and can get proper recourse. But I'd give it only a 50-50 chance at this point. :(

My guess is that the holder is not a standard T206 holder, but larger, hence the space. I bet that card is more likely larger than a real T206.

I am not sure. I am not a submitter and really dont know how PSA works. But I suspect the cost to grade a T206 CY Young EPDG is at least $100. And for that, the submitter (hell the hobby) deserves a "grader" who can spot a reprint from a real 110-year old card.

This is why I truly believe that someone at PSA is taking money under the table for favorable grades. I've said it for years, I'll continue to say it.

Nobody in their right mind is going to spend $100 or more hoping to just slip one past the graders. If you're going to spend that kind of money on something that's fake (or been altered), you have to know you're expecting something in return.

FWIW, the cert number no longer appears in their database, so at least they removed that. Unfortunately, that doesn't remove the card from circulation.

They've also removed the certs for the next 2 sequential numbers - 5067056 & 50670567, but all other numbers in that sequence (before and after) show to be active.

Would love to see a scan of the Doyle in its PSA holder, Ryan. Could you post one? Can't imagine what it costs to have a million dollar card slabbed by PSA. Could you shed some light?

I think it's more likely that the submitters are submitting out of a genuine lack of knowledge. That's exactly what happened with the CJ Mack. The submitter really didn't know much about CJ's but submitted it to get PSA's "expert" opinion. He was very open to sharing everything about his submission. It was 100% PSA's mistake.

I'm sure that I'm not quoting it correctly but this axiom applies. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

I don’t have a pic of it handy, but I think there is a pic of it in my registry set. I am not going discuss submitting the card and that’s the last question I field on
me and my cards. Let’s please keep the focus on the topic - PSA can’t tell a t206 reprint from the real thing. I bet PRO would have gotten that one right!

At least it doesn’t have perforations.

Fair enough. Your uneasiness to discuss how your actions with PSA contradict your criticism of them is totally understandable.

Congratulations, by the way, on your ranking on PSA's T206 registry.

One can be a vocal critic of the things they do wrong, which is plenty, while also pointing out the things they do right, which is their registry. I just wish there was a new registry player in town that would accept both PSA and SGC so folks who appreciate that sort of thing could have an option.

Thanks Bill. Best of luck to you. :p

This situation is reminiscent of the rash of "re-backed" T206's that occurred 22 years ago.

Circa 1999 - 2000, a bunch of T206's were in circulation that were being sold on Ebay (and at Shows) that were FAKES.
These T206's were very professionally altered, and these cards (initially) fooled many collectors, and even the Grading Co's.
Fortunately, there were some of us T206 collectors who instantly recognized that these T206 cards were fakes because their
front / back combos were impossible

Here is a list of some the examples of these FAKES.....

Matty (portrait) with a red HINDU back (PSA and SGC graded)

Matty (portrait) with a SOVEREIGN 460 back (PSA graded)

Green Cobb with a red HINDU back

Green Cobb with a CYCLE 350 back

Johnson (pitching) with BROAD LEAF 350 back

Johnson (portrait) with BROAD LEAF 350 back

http://i.imgur.com/JiH0X.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I think that fake T206 Young portrait is on modern (post WW II) paper, and it would fluoresce if illuminated with a black light.

I'd like to think that they never slab a card until after they have hit the card with black light... but that presupposes that they'd know how to turn on and off the black light, and what to look for while shining ultra violet light on a card. A first grader could do it, if they could keep their hands grime free... maybe a PSA grader could be taught.


Truthfully, maybe some of you guys should consider gradually giving up on graded cards, registries, and such.

I think VCP is working on a registry like this that encorpprates the major grading companies.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Only thing that is similar to the Young situation is that these are all T206s and none should have been graded otherwise the grading of this very obvious reprint is really in a class by itself.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying ?

First of all, I stated that this "Young (EPDG)" card is "reminiscent" of what occurred 22 years ago. I did not "compare" it to those cards.

Furthermore, there was a serious flaw back then, when both PSA and SGC graded some of those re-backed T206 cards.

In any event, both situations reveal a possible serious problem with the Grading of T206 cards. It's a complex set of cards which require
knowledgeable graders grading them.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Hey Ted, is there a possibility that the group you posted is where the rebacked (fake front, genuine, but impossible back) Wagner came from as well?

I heard that too, hope they roll it out, it would be a nice option.

Psa
 

FWIW I have seen more than one Exhibit card reprint graded by PSA as an original!

Hi Scott

It may have been. However, I haven't seen that Wagner card. I did see some of the "re-backed" cards I listed above.
Actually, I prefer tot refer to them as "Re-Fronted" cards. I contacted a gentleman in our town, who is a Professional
paper restorer. Back in 2000, I showed him a bunch of T206's and he told me that the process is to carefully remove
the front of the T206 card and paste a new front onto the "shaved" T206 card with the rare back.
I hope I clearly described the process of Re-Fronting.

Take care ole friend.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Here's an image of the card in question. Pretty much the same ludicrous reprint front and the card that started this thread, and, unless I'm mistaken, an impossible back.

https://cdn.sportscollectorsdaily.co...bb-Edwards.jpg

There are a few hand cut PD150 Wagner's.


Attachment 466756

Don't know why I was thinking this was an impossible back. Must be misremembering something I read.

Good to see a legit Wagner with the same back... sorta.

Many people can't work for very long with UV. Enough exposure without protective eyewear can cause long term damage.
I wouldn't expect a grading company to use UV more than occasionally.