So is it a 6, a 7, or a 9? Only your TPG knows for sure

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...key-1727578478


https://i.imgur.com/LRU3exf.jpg


http://www.milehighcardco.com/1954_n...-lot43068.aspx

[oldjudge]

I'm sure the MHCC winning bidder will be happy about that one. Strong price for an old 6.

[barrysloate]

Outrageous. How can anyone have faith in third party grading anymore?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Wonder if they separately graded the bottom of the card that got trimmed off...

[Promethius88]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I'm sure the MHCC winning bidder will be happy about that one. Strong price for an old 6.

So what am I missing here? In the MHCC auction it was in an older 9 holder and now it appears to be in a newer holder as a 6. I can't tell the date on Worthpoint as I'm not a member. If I get this right, it went from SGC 7 to PSA 9 to PSA 6. Am I wrong?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

So what am I missing here? In the MHCC auction it was in an older 9 holder and now it appears to be in a newer holder as a 6. I can't tell the date on Worthpoint as I'm not a member. If I get this right, it went from SGC 7 to PSA 9 to PSA 6. Am I wrong?

The Mile High holder is newer too, pre-lighthouse version, expand the scan and you will see the hologram.

[swarmee]

The first PSA holder Cert #241... shows the first generation hologram flip on the front. The second one #248... appears to show it as a PSA 9 without the hologram flip.

Two possible reasons, even if it's the same card:
1) Submitted by a bulk submitter where they may have been using old stock flips (without hologram).
2) The early hologram flip did not always scan properly depending on the scanner setting/angle of the flip. I have seen multiple cases where the scan of a card with the hologram flip did not show the hologram.

These cards were all serial numbered by the manufacturer, kind of like a raffle ticket. So it is highly unlikely they would have duplicated serial numbers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The first PSA holder Cert #241... shows the first generation hologram flip on the front. The second one #248... appears to show it as a PSA 9 without the hologram flip.

Two possible reasons, even if it's the same card:
1) Submitted by a bulk submitter where they may have been using old stock flips (without hologram).
2) The early hologram flip did not always scan properly depending on the scanner setting/angle of the flip. I have seen multiple cases where the scan of a card with the hologram flip did not show the hologram.

These cards were all serial numbered by the manufacturer, kind of like a raffle ticket. So it is highly unlikely they would have duplicated serial numbers.

Save the scan and enlarge it the hologram is there on the 9.

[Promethius88]

Here they are.

[Peter_Spaeth]

.

[Promethius88]

Lol, it's still early here for a Saturday but I'm not seeing it. Is this one of those illusion things they post on Facebook where some people see things and others don't?

[Promethius88]

Ok, ok.....I had to move the screen on my laptop back and for to see it. Thank you Peter!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

Lol, it's still early here for a Saturday but I'm not seeing it. Is this one of those illusion things they post on Facebook where some people see things and others don't?

https://www.psacard.com/cert/24839336/

[ajg]

Great work guys. Where is the card when it was a PSA 8? Maybe we should crack all the graded cards and just start again.

[swarmee]

Coming soon to a grading competition near you.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Coming soon to a grading competition near you.

Best laugh of the day, so far!

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

https://www.psacard.com/cert/24839336/

There is one example of this card in PSA's registry.

One. That's it.

And PSA has graded a total of 121 Mickey Mantle New York Journal Americans since opening their doors in 1991. 121 examples in about 28 years. That's a little over 4 examples, on average, they grade per year.

Not one that comes across their desk(s) all that often, agreed?

They keep population data, which is made public. Surely, they must keep more information in house to help guard against fraud, right? These cards have a unique, factory printed numerical identifier at the bottom. If I'm a grader for PSA, and this card comes to me for grading, this card that PSA gets every three months, on average, I'm documenting that factory printed numerical identifier in our database, so the next time that another example of the card comes in, that database can quickly be referenced.

"This Mantle with serial number 290586 came through two years ago and was graded a 6. I'm about to give it a 9. Maybe I need to take another look, because either Stevie Wonder graded it the first time, or some card doctor has altered this card to receive a higher grade."

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Or, am I crazy?

If they're keeping any kind of data on the cards they grade beyond the final 1-10 designation, how does this happen?

[swarmee]

Actually, Joe Orlando has stated in the past that every card coming into PSA gets a fresh look, even if it is a 1/1 superfractor, when resubmitted raw or for crossover/review. If they only get ~30-50 seconds to grade a card in the first place, do you think they're going to voluntarily spend an additional 30 seconds to query their database for possible previous grades of the same card?
Should they? Yes. Do they? No.

There are a lot of their processes that they've promoted over time that they should be fixing at this point. One of which is to reject all submissions by known card doctors, which includes Brent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would imagine that a lot of their revenue comes from crack out and resubmits. I doubt they want to discourage that in any way.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would imagine that a lot of their revenue comes from crack out and resubmits. I doubt they want to discourage that in any way.

Many think half grade grades are a money grab too.