Help: PSA certification number doesn't match card
 

I seem to be full of queries today, sorry....

I've just won a fairly pricey t206 card from an auction house but in checking out the cert number at the PSA site (a little late in the process) I found that it didn't quite line up. The card in the auction was a t206 Piedmont PSA 3 while the cert listing calls it t206 Sovereign PSA 3. This is a fairly early PSA flip style when the back was not IDed on the front.

Is it not unusual to get a back wrong in their cert listing (especially for old flips)--and so not to be that worried about--or is this a massive red flag waving? I should note that it went for something of a bargain price so it's possible some others were scared off, or not. Also see possibly short?

Should I not go through with paying the invoice due to the cert discrepancy? Thanks.

Most likely a data entry error, but it wouldn't hurt to check with PSA. Presumably the holder and flip look legit.

Which is more likely, that PSA screwed up or that there's an issue with the auction house?

Personally, I would pay the invoice. However, I would only bid with auction houses that stand behind what they're selling. If there was something wrong with the item (tampered holder or fake card/slab, for example) when I received it, there would definitely be a return/refund...and I'd know that was an option before bidding.

Here's the card. Besides the cert issue, it may be a bit short. And one wonders why this would only get a 3.

Because of one reply above I have to ask: Is it that common for the PSA certification list to get a back (or anything else) wrong in its records? Or more of a red flag?

The before and after certs don't even identify the backs. I bet if you looked at other surrounding certs you would find the same thing. I think it's just some idiosyncratic database error. But again, CHECK WITH PSA.

What would PSA know at this point if I talked to them? Rightly or wrongly it went into their system as a "Sovereign" back, long ago, not Piedmont. A human error--or some funny business later by someone? It was not sent to them for the new authentication so they have no new info in recent years.

The fact that the card also looks a little short makes me wonder even more. Or could all be quite innocent...But again, what could PSA tell me now?

I would ask them how it is that in an era when they were not recording backs, why their database reports one, and just see what they say. What's to lose? Nobody here is going to have an answer for you.

Too bad you didn't ask these questions (and "wonder even more") before you bid on (and won) the item.

I'm just looking for answer to the question: in your experience, have you found that PSA rarely, sometimes or often got back (and maybe other info) wrong in its certification records? Or do very few people even check on that when they bid on or buy a PSA card?

The question here is why the database reports ANY back for a card from this era of grading, since the flip does not identify the back and from the surrounding certs, the backs of the cards submitted with this one weren't recorded in the database either. That's what you need to find out. Good luck. Why you are resisting a simple communication with PSA is beyond me.

Have now contacted PSA.

This comes up correctly when I search it. Are you sure you entered it correctly?

Oh I see it’s not a sovereign but says sovereign. I think it somehow got updated from a listing and the incorrect info got added as fact. Wh

Just a guess.

Glyn, why would it get updated (and if so, incorrectly)? It still says Sovereign, not Piedmont. And a previous reply is incorrect: There are in fact a couple of other HOF t206s with certified numbers just before this one that do include back info. Others do not. Inconsistent, but some others do have it in same time frame. I still don't see how and why it should be listed as Sovereign unless 1) card was swapped out later for same card in Piedmont (which also appears a bit short)....or 2) just human error, but if so how often has anyone seen such?

Greg, not sure if this helps but I have a Piedmont 150 Matty that too had an early flip; It now resides in a SGC holder. After reading this thread, I ran a search on the old PSA cert number and it too came up as an Sovereign. Also notice how "short" it looks in the holder; it does the same in the now SGC holder in which they graded as a 2 also. Hopefully this relieves your worries...
https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=13553

thanks, Jason, appreciate it

I'm not positive if this is the same card but years ago I came across a Matty portrait on ebay that also had the second dot in N.Y. (on his jersey) not completely filled in and looked like an "o" just like yours. I do not know if this is a variation or a print flaw but I've never seen another one like it...till yours. Small world or a common flaw, who know??? Either way great pickup!

PSA regularly screws up their flip/card information.
I recommend you submit a message through their customer portal and have them reslab it correctly. They will do it for free if you list it as a "mechanical error". Do a search for "mechanical" on the board and I'm sure you'll find many more threads where PSA has screwed up.