PSA grade head scratcher

[LKeeler]

Thanks guys! I agree totally. I hate to fudge up the pop reports, but I guess I will continue to play the game

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by LKeeler

Thanks guys! I agree totally. I hate to fudge up the pop reports, but I guess I will continue to play the game

You crack the card out of one holder and then state that you hate to fudge up the pop reports. Can you spell hypocrisy? Have you told the guy with the SGC 40 Wagner that your SGC 50 copy no longer exists? I doubt it.

[ullmandds]

Don't make Frank mad...you won't like Frank when he's mad!

[LKeeler]

[Don't make Frank mad...you won't like Frank when he's mad!r exists and ask if they would make the correct update. To me that seems more than fair, but I may be wrong.


+1

[E93]

I would call/email Joe Orlando with the attached scans ask if something happened to the card because a PSA 2 does not make sense - looks like a borderline 5.
JimB

[scotgreb]

Luke -

Not sure how you prepared the submission but if you specified "no qualifiers" and PSA deemed there to be a mark -- your PSA 2 might have really been a PSA 4(MK). Just a thought.

Scott

[LKeeler]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

Luke -

Not sure how you prepared the submission but if you specified "no qualifiers" and PSA deemed there to be a mark -- your PSA 2 might have really been a PSA 4(MK). Just a thought.

Scott

Thanks Scott. You have a point. Never thought of that.

[Piratedogcardshows]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

Luke -

Not sure how you prepared the submission but if you specified "no qualifiers" and PSA deemed there to be a mark -- your PSA 2 might have really been a PSA 4(MK). Just a thought.

Scott

I agree with this statement.There is what appears to be stray ink on the back in the left margin.

[LKeeler]

Originally Posted by Jason

I agree with this statement.There is what appears to be stray ink on the back in the left margin.

Thanks Jason. Yeah, I thought that it was perhaps some bleeding through from the front, but perhaps it is stray ink that is considered a qualification. Hmmm

[LKeeler]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

Luke -

Not sure how you prepared the submission but if you specified "no qualifiers" and PSA deemed there to be a mark -- your PSA 2 might have really been a PSA 4(MK). Just a thought.

Scott

Ding, ding, ding. This appears to be the winning answer! PSA was very quick in responding to my inquiry so kudos to good customer service.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by LKeeler

Ding, ding, ding. This appears to be the winning answer! PSA was very quick in responding to my inquiry so kudos to good customer service.

I thought that marks on cards were qualifiers that could not be removed from the flip for PSA.

[LKeeler]

Originally Posted by E93

I would call/email Joe Orlando with the attached scans ask if something happened to the card because a PSA 2 does not make sense - looks like a borderline 5.
JimB

Thanks Jim. That's the gist of what I was wondering!

[JasonD08]

Just resubmit it will probably come back a 5.

[glynparson]

I have NEVER been allowed to get a card to have no qualifier if it had ink or pencil on it when requesting no qualifiers and i have been submitting since 1993. They are not supposed to grade a card without the qualifier for MC or MK and surely they would normally drop it more than 1 grade. Did you remove the mk? otherwise i honestly think you either got lucky or are full of it? Also They do not qualify cards graded authentic. only numerical grades 1 to 9 can receive qualifiers.

[LKeeler]

Thanks again for everyone's input. The card should arrive today, and may be for sale, lol.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by glynparson

I have NEVER been allowed to get a card to have no qualifier if it had ink or pencil on it when requesting no qualifiers and i have been submitting since 1993. They are not supposed to grade a card without the qualifier for MC or MK and surely they would normally drop it more than 1 grade. Did you remove the mk? otherwise i honestly think you either got lucky or are full of it? Also They do not qualify cards graded authentic. only numerical grades 1 to 9 can receive qualifiers.

The only thing that matters here is that you've been submitting to PSA since '93....I'm sorry you had to admit that I feel your pain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[4815162342]

Here's a little card with a mark and no MK qualifier: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2012/2.html

[Il Padrino]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

The only thing that matters here is that you've been submitting to PSA since '93....I'm sorry you had to admit that I feel your pain

I'm just curious as to why that would matter at all?

Each card should stand on its own despite how many cards you have sent in previously and/or if you've ever sent in a single card prior to. If you are implying otherwise then that conveys a message that goes against the very reason for grading... "hey good customer, we'll bump all your grades...".

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Il Padrino

I'm just curious as to why that would matter at all?

Each card should stand on its own despite how many cards you have sent in previously and/or if you've ever sent in a single card prior to. If you are implying otherwise then that conveys a message that goes against the very reason for grading... "hey good customer, we'll bump all your grades...".

The point he is making is that he has been submitting cards to PSA for a very long time, and their entire policy during that time was to put the MK qualifier on the flip regardless of whether the submission was specified as "No qualifiers." Obviously, PSA has made mistakes in forgetting the qualifier like in the Wagner in the above post, but my correspondence w/ PSA has also been that they are always SUPPOSED to use the MK or MC qualifier if the card has these attributes.