PSA Mistake- Graded Exhibit reprints on ebay

[steve B]

Just curious, why not have them reslabbed as 70's reprints which is what they are. Lots of the collectors sets and earlier reprints from that era are getting some interest. Certainly not as much as originals, but I do think they're collectible on their own if they're properly identified

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by steve B

Just curious, why not have them reslabbed as 70's reprints which is what they are. Lots of the collectors sets and earlier reprints from that era are getting some interest. Certainly not as much as originals, but I do think they're collectible on their own if they're properly identified

Steve:

Good point. There probably will be some interest in collecting 70's & '80's reprints; however, the image is not as clear as on an original Exhibit. It becomes more apparent when you compare the two side by side.

[HRBAKER]

I agree, good job/outcome by those involved (Scott/seller). However, it is incredulous that these were graded in the first place.

[keithsky]

I don't by the statement of PSA just made an honest mistake. I don't see how PSA could miss that. One card maybe yes. 10 cards NO. There are only 2 sides to a card, front and back and if the guy looking at it is supposed to be experienced then he should have caught that. Your paying for there knowledge not there guess. If he or she doesn't know then there should have been another person looking at it to confirm. If you can't rely on these third party companies to be more acurate then what good is it. Sure they have alot of things to look at but that is no excuse. Hire more people or hire people that are experienced in certain areas like Exibits. We need to start holding these companies accountable

[bosoxphan]

Originally Posted by keithsky

I don't by the statement of PSA just made an honest mistake. I don't see how PSA could miss that. One card maybe yes. 10 cards NO. There are only 2 sides to a card, front and back and if the guy looking at it is supposed to be experienced then he should have caught that. Your paying for there knowledge not there guess. If he or she doesn't know then there should have been another person looking at it to confirm. If you can't rely on these third party companies to be more acurate then what good is it. Sure they have alot of things to look at but that is no excuse. Hire more people or hire people that are experienced in certain areas like Exibits. We need to start holding these companies accountable

Sounds like they were accountable and reimbursed him for the value of the cards. They were the ones left holding the bag, as it should be, it was their error.

[HRBAKER]

Rightfully so, it was their bag. When you are the self-proclaimed industry leader you've got to do better than that, IMO. These are very well known fakes/reprints.

[keithsky]

What I was saying in my last post basicly is if a grading company misses one card here or there that is acceptable and mistakes happen most definitly. But when you look at 10 and miss everyone of them that shouldn't be accepable by any company. If you bought 10 items from a store and all 10 were bad would you accept that as being the norm. Not me. It's great that PSA made good but does that make it all better? Maybe in some views maybe not in others. Everyone has there views and this is just mine.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by keithsky

We need to start holding these companies accountable

How would you suggest "we" do this? Questionable grades by PSA and other grading companies are routinely posted on Net54. Flat-out errors also are pointed out, as was this one.

In this case, PSA contacted the owner and said it will attempt to make its errors right.

So instead of talking in generalities, what would you like to see done to hold "these companies accountable"?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by steve B

Just curious, why not have them reslabbed as 70's reprints which is what they are. Lots of the collectors sets and earlier reprints from that era are getting some interest. Certainly not as much as originals, but I do think they're collectible on their own if they're properly identified

Although ESCO did legitimately reprint some cards (1948 HOF) in the early 1970s, the problem is that they aren't authorized reprints (like the 1948 HOF reissue) but were created anonymously to cheat collectors. They, like Broders, have basically no collectible value; I paid a few bucks for a full run primarily to use as autograph bases.

[sportsamerica]

I thought PSA did have 2 graders grade, and if a difference a 3rd came in to resolve. So what this would mean is at least 2 graders missed this reprint issue

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Although ESCO did legitimately reprint some cards (1948 HOF) in the early 1970s, the problem is that they aren't authorized reprints (like the 1948 HOF reissue) but were created anonymously to cheat collectors. They, like Broders, have basically no collectible value; I paid a few bucks for a full run primarily to use as autograph bases.

The cards being anonymous does make a difference, and they certainly aren't worth much, but it's still a set that could be collected on its own merits or lack of merits. In stamps, some groups of forgeries are avidly collected, sometimes ending up worth more than the originals. Nope, I don't think that's going to be the case here.
I don't really buy the unlicensed =no value argument. Most of the old sets we collect are probably unlicensed, or were at the time. And I know of at least one newer set that wasn't licensed, but hasn't been stigmatised by that label. I also believe that many 70's collector sets wouldn't pass current licensing standards, but were fine in their own time. I do also collect broders, but usually only if they're part of a collection, or are very cheap.

[pwilk17]

I sold this exhibit on ebay while ago and the buyer returned it for a refund claiming it was a reprint. I have attached a scan of the front and the back. Can someone please confirm that this is in fact a reprint and the year it was issued. Thank you - Appreciate it!

[Exhibitman]

That Mantle looks good but it is hard to say 100% from a scan. Maybe you should send it to PSA

Perhaps instead of "unlicensed" or "Broder" I should have said "reprinted without the owner's permission." To me that is the key distinction that makes the reprints not worth collecting.

[pwilk17]

Thank you Exhibitman - it just seems like a lot to pay $6 US grading + shipping for a card that is worth maybe $20-$30.

[smtjoy]

I agree the Mantle looks good.

I have had people say that to get a return when they might not have been happy with the condition or maybe felt it was trimmed (not saying that was the case with your Mantle). Ebay always sides with the buyer when you say its a reprint vs they dont when its just your unhappy with the condition.