Can someone explain the grading on this card?

[ullmandds]

how can you "assume" these are clerical errors...

[Fred]

When you say "clerical" errors, do you mean "typos"? The person types a "2" by accident (instead of a "1") and then proceeds to type the rest of the numerical description incorrectly? Never thought of that... I guess it happens often...

[scotgreb]

Not necessarily assuming it's a clerical error -- just my best guess -- and offering my opinion that it's more common than some might think.

By clerical error, I mean something as simple as a keying error. It could also be that two of the same issue were being graded at the time and the cards or flips were inadvertently switched. I see cards in incorrect holders (wrong description) all the time.

Regarding keying errors, I recently had two PSA 1s returned to me that clearly were not consistent with PSA 1 condition. In fact, they were closer (IMO) to PSA 10. Just for kicks, I cracked and resubmitted. One came back PSA 10 and the other PSA 7. In this case, my only logical conclusion was that the grades were simply mis-keyed. This has changed my thinking somewhat when I see a card that appears obviously misgraded.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

Regarding keying errors, I recently had two PSA 1s returned to me that clearly were not consistent with PSA 1 condition. In fact, they were closer (IMO) to PSA 10. Just for kicks, I cracked and resubmitted. One came back PSA 10 and the other PSA 7. I this case, my only logical conclusion was that the grades were simply mis-keyed. This has changed my thinking somewhat when I see a card that appears obviously misgraded.

Or, maybe, they did it so that you would pay them for their opinion twice.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

... Regarding keying errors, I recently had two PSA 1s returned to me that clearly were not consistent with PSA 1 condition. In fact, they were closer (IMO) to PSA 10. Just for kicks, I cracked and resubmitted. One came back PSA 10 and the other PSA 7. ...

Please post before and after scans of the PSA 1s (before) and PSA 7 / PSA 10 (after). As crazy and unbelievable as that sounds, I'm certain you took detailed scans.

[scotgreb]

Before and after scans . . . note that I upgraded my scanner in the meantime.

[scotgreb]

Following is the link to the original discussion on the PSA message board


http://forums.collectors.com/message...yword1=psa%201

Edited to add that I'm not trying to make this a bash PSA thread -- PSA cards are the foundation of my collection

I'm just pointing out a possible explanation of certain grading inconsistencies that some may not have considered.

[ruth-gehrig]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

Before and after scans . . . note that I upgraded my scanner in the meantime.

Wow that's crazy!

[GehrigFan]

I checked out the back scans, and I think PSA meant to put those grades on them. I've been looking at a lot of T206 Cobbs in 1-3 grade lately, just doing research, and I've found that PSA *really* takes the backs into account, especially paper loss. I've found cards that appear 6+ on the front but paper loss on the back brought it to a 1. The 1 in question here does have bad staining on the back.

Please note, I'm not defending their grade, and actually believe the 2 and 1 should be flipped. Just offering one opinion that PSA gives a lot of weight to the back on T206's. Personally, I'd still rather have a nice front/bad back than anything with a corner chunk missing!