Posted By:
MWSlacks writes:
<< Many? What is many? If we see two examples a week on this board, that might be a very, very small fraction of the cards they grade. When we see SGC mistakes (check the archives, they’re there) that might in fact be more troublesome because those errors represent a larger percentage of graded vintage cards. >>
Many would be several hundred PSA mistakes within the last year...perhaps even more. I know for a fact that both Greg (BOTN) and I possess a fairly large assortment of altered/misgraded PSA cards in our own private PSA collections (collections, by the way, that were not difficult to build).
With the exception of several mislabeled cards and an Old Judge that was misgraded, I can't think of very many SGC "problems" in the last year. On the other hand, PSA blunders are nothing short of ubiquitous -- everything from chopped N300s to Gene Hermanski "errors" to laughably small T206s in "8" and "9" holders. And PSA mishaps are not solely confined to grading. Indeed, PSA has developed a special talent for losing expensive tobacco cards and breaking multi-thousand dollar cards out of PSA holders and stiffing customers by sending them back as "altered." Did I mention the fact that PSA still faces a certain $1.26 million liability problem or that the majority owner of CU has a reputation for dubious business practices?
But never mind all that, slacks. You're the only one who is impartial here. I'm quite sure you're right about PSA.