PSA & SGC label errors (T206)
 

Most of the errors on PSA & SGC labels are just typos like we all make and they don't really pose a problem for people that are keeping lists for the front/back combos but there are some that do and one of them that has caused an issue in the past and was just brought up again in another thread is a Murray (portrait) that is a Piedmont 350-460 factory 25 that PSA incorrectly labeled a Piedmont factory 42.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ctory%2042.jpg[/IMG]


Here are A list of some of the errors in the PSA & SGC pop reports, the ones in red are those that have caused issues in the past or could cause issues for people following the front/back combos.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...e/img022_1.jpg[/IMG]

Here's an image of the label error on the Spencer

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...el%20error.jpg[/IMG]

Collectors are able to tell the difference of course, but I wish PSA would start labeling Old Judge cards with the correct year, instead of using "1887" for all of them.

Here is one- this card is 100% brown, not black.

Putting another brown Lenox (a tinker bat off), which psa got correct, for comparison. Also included is a black Lenox (a chance portrait), for comparison purposes

This is a very timely and useful thread.

Pat, do you know if the checklists at T206resource are being actively updated?

The Murray Portrait still shows up as a confirmed Piedmont 42 back (which I think is why I had it in my spreadsheet as well)

That checklist has 76 total subjects, and based on what you/Ted said in my other thread, it should only be 72 subjects.

It would be super helpful if each of the checklists on T206resource had a "Last updated" date included....

Hi James, it is but not as often as some of us would like. There is a list of several changes that are supposed to be made I believe that the Murray is one of them but I will check on that.

This is probably the strangest error(s) in either of the pop reports.
There are 4 Harry Steinfeldt portraits with cap Polar Bears in the SGC pop reports.

This thread, and my SweetCap census, are really making me want to start a population report independent from PSA and SGC's shenanigans.

This one isn’t significant to the front/back combos like the ones above, but it gives me a chuckle. They got the series and factory right...just not the advertising brand. Oddly enough, I think I like the card more because of this.

SGC is showing a Doyle Broad Leaf 460 as being graded an SGC 1

I'm 50/50 on cases like that. Doyle With Bat should exist in a BL 460. SGC shows 1 graded. As far as I can tell, its never been sold, so we don't see a scan of it anywhere, but if someone picked it up raw in a collection and had it graded but kept it, its possible it exists.

I really wish SGC would scan their cards they grade. All grading companies should do it, from a quality control perspective.

Not necessarily an error but SGC used to grade blanks numerically.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a7c0c3dd26.jpg

A couple more Label errors

SGC has one Del Howard Old Mill in their pop reports, that combo is unconfirmed and a probable no print.

The other error is a PSA error on a low pop card a Neal Ball NY listed as Cleveland on the label

Attachment 532301

There's also at least one Ball NY old Mill in one of the old flips that don't list the backs.

Attachment 532302