Still trying to wrap my head around this one

[Snapolit1]

So the card is mistakenly labelled as the far rarer 1914 CJ, when it is really the more common 1915. So you are paying a premium for the error by PSA on the flip? No sure I've seen this attempted before.

Mistakes by a grading company. The next collecting frontier.

Rather unbelievable of course that all these years later PSA could still f*ck up a CJ.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/115151182096

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

So the card is mistakenly labelled as the far rarer 1914 CJ, when it is really the more common 1915. So you are paying a premium for the error by PSA on the flip? No sure I've seen this attempted before.

Mistakes by a grading company. The next collecting frontier.

Rather unbelievable of course that all these years later PSA could still f*ck up a CJ.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/115151182096

WOW that is really messed up. And an uneducated buyer or collector or investor will overpay for the mistake
On the flip side I give the Seller credit for clearly spelling out the error/mislabel. They announce the mistake in clear and bold lettering

Never a dull moment in the Next Collecting Frontier

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Rather unbelievable of course that all these years later PSA could still f*ck up a CJ.

Weren't they the ones that graded a reprint CJ that still had visible perforations around the edges from whatever sheet it was torn from?

EDIT: Found it. https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=290964

[Seven]

Originally Posted by BCauley

Weren't they the ones that graded a reprint CJ that still had visible perforations around the edges from whatever sheet it was torn from?

EDIT: Found it. https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=290964

Yes and to answer your question, Steve, so many of these "investors" just buy the slab now, and won't care. Because PSA is infallible to many that have no idea behind the corruption of the grading companies or how flawed they truly are.

[obiwan1129]

Saw a PSA slab a few years ago for an Orbit Gum pin. I think it was labeled on the slab as "Babe Herman" but was really a "Billy Herman" pin. I might have that backwards. It was listed for a while, but appears to have sold. Not sure if the seller tried to get it reslabbed or not.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by obiwan1129

Saw a PSA slab a few years ago for an Orbit Gum pin. I think it was labeled on the slab as "Babe Herman" but was really a "Billy Herman" pin. I might have that backwards. It was listed for a while, but appears to have sold. Not sure if the seller tried to get it reslabbed or not.

They have slabbed all "Big 4" T206 cards inaccurately before as well, right? Including a Heinie Wagner graded as a Honus?
I have seen multiple N43s listed as N29s by mistake.

1888 Allen & Ginter's The World's Champions Second Series - Tobacco N43 #BIED - Billy Edwards [PSA 1 PR]
Courtesy of COMC.com

And 1980s baseball pins of Mickey Mantle listed as 1969 despite him not even being in the set? They've done that too.

Sometimes for fun I go through the APR tool and grab a common card like a Jordan chrome and see how many are listed as the wrong parallel (refractor instead of base, cards from different years mistaken since most of his cards were #23...). With how many quality control and research steps they claim to take and how long they sit there in purgatory, they're hysterically incompetent. And now they're sending PSA 9 Jordan rookies to the wrong submitter... geesh.

[jchcollins]

I believe BVG once encapsulated a fake ‘67 Seaver. It happens. I mean yes, it’s ridiculous, but given the scale and volume that all of the big 3 operate on, they make LOTS of mistakes. Every single day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snapolit1]

People make mistakes all the time. As do I. But there is such a simple way to tell CJ issues apart it's a little inexplicable to me that this could happen more than once in a blue moon.