How often do you think PSA/SGC mix up the grades on two cards in a submission?

[Luke]

So, I got these two cards recently. Both were obviously in the same submission. They do have back stamps, but the grades shouldn't be affected by the MK designation, you wouldn't think.

I can't think of any reason for these grades unless the grader just mixed the two cards up. I'm sure it happens sometimes. I wonder how often.

Lindaman is closer to a 4 than a 2 imo. And I can't see how Oldring is a 3, even on the best day.

I'm just posting this for fun, and maybe to some good stories. But what do you guys think?

[glynparson]

Those are the correct grades Psa will generally always note the mk.

[Joshchisox08]

IDK Luke the only thing I could think of is the Numerical stand point the top of the Vive looks about the only thing you can gripe about but otherwise the surface/spider wrinkles on the Oldring are the only thing. I would have give 3's to both.

[Luke]

They may be the correct grades, but it is extremely hard to tell why. Lindaman has zero creases and Oldring has a bunch. Both are pretty clean otherwise. The grader would have a hard time convincing me that he had a solid reason for grading Oldring higher.

[Jobu]

Lindaman is pretty badly off-center, if that costs points then maybe because they couldnt give it OC and MK they gave it the MK and hit the grade for the OC because they couldnt include it as a quialifier?

[steve B]

Isn't PSA more strict on centering and a bit more lenient on light creases even in groups?

That might explain it.

Personally I'd have given them both 2s, I always understood a creased card as no better than G unless the rest was amazing.

I've sort of benefitted from SGC giving one card of mine that I thought should be a 30 a 40 so I can't complain too much. (Sort of since it's an expensive card I'm not selling so no real benefit yet)

Steve B

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by steve B

Isn't PSA more strict on centering and a bit more lenient on light creases even in groups?

That might explain it.

Personally I'd have given them both 2s, I always understood a creased card as no better than G unless the rest was amazing.

I've sort of benefitted from SGC giving one card of mine that I thought should be a 30 a 40 so I can't complain too much. (Sort of since it's an expensive card I'm not selling so no real benefit yet)

Steve B

That's because SGC IMO does a hell of a better, and more consistent job than PSA. Why PSA appears to be the king of grading is beyond my comprehension.

[Luke]

Ah that's a good point Bryan. Centering top-to-bottom doesn't bother me at all and I didn't even notice. You really don't see any OC qualifiers for a t206 that looks like Lindaman though do you? I've seen plenty of MC, but it usually is because the text is cut off at the bottom.

[Pat R]

I would consider the Oldring a low end 3 at best and maybe the Lindaman a solid 3 (whats the spot on his left cheek ?)

[Luke]

Pretty much what I think about them. I'd probably give Lindaman a 3.5 and Oldring a 2. That mark is a print mark of some sort. Definitely not dirt or tobacco or anything post-production.

[Griffins]

Pretty safe to say they mixed these two up.


The real '54 (the narrower one) should be a 4. The '55 a 5.

[darwinbulldog]

Well, there was that one time...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ighlight=swamp

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I would consider the Oldring a low end 3 at best and maybe the Lindaman a solid 3 (whats the spot on his left cheek ?)

A deer tick

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

A deer tick

Hey! I resemble that (re)mark!

[1880nonsports]

but while it obviously does happen - in none of the above examples do I think that's the case. They all look to be within the expected tolerances given the overall quality of the services the TPG's render.
I would suggest a clear example would be a submission including ONLY two cards in which the chasm between grades was greater than a single grade - or an admission extracted under the heat lamps from a teenaged grader by one of this site's couch bound litigators.