TPG Goof: Someone needs fired

[swarmee]

PSA has graded 8 other black Conlon Hank O'Day cards and five of the "Burgundy" type.

Another question: how did it get a PSA 5.5 rating with the paper loss on the front in UMPIRE?

[steve B]

That could just be debris on the scanner. I've redone a lot of scans because of stuff I didn't spot.


Has anyone checked the numbers around that one? I can see someone maybe sending in both the Conlon and an N172 if there's a registry for that, maybe hof master set? And then while they're slabbing the flips get mixed up. Maybe there really is an N172 out there slabbed as a Conlon?

More amusing than bothersome, unless I owned them. Then I'd be pretty annoyed. Nearly as annoyed I get at the now common mixing of tenses. (Not that I'm any sort of superstar in the grammar dept.......)

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

IMO anyone suggesting someone should be fired over one inconsequential mistake is being hypocritical and ridiculous. Give me a break. Find out what happened, talk to the person, sure. But fire them? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, or something like that.

[mybuddyinc]

No one needs to get fired over this one

They just need to write: "I do know the difference between a T205 and T206" 100 times on the chalk board.


12x.jpg

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Yikes! That's a very blatant mistake and not only one person screwed up, but arguably at least 7 people in the later part of the grading operation missed this too. Reading this article below, one would think that at least one of the eight or nine people handling the card would have caught this obvious error - a 1887 card with a glossy finish? The most disturbing thing is that the "Verification Stage (2) Person" is supposed to catch these types of errors.

The Sticker Stage Person
The Spec Department Person
At least two, maybe three Grading Persons
The PSA Labeling Department Person
The Sealing Department Person
Verification Stage (1) Person
Verification Stage (2) Person

http://www.psacard.com/Services/PSAGradingProcess/

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Yikes! That's a very blatant mistake and not only one person screwed up, but arguably at least 7 people in the later part of the grading operation missed this too. Reading this article below, one would think that at least one of the eight or nine people handling the card would have caught this obvious error - a 1887 card with a glossy finish? The most disturbing thing is that the "Verification Stage (2) Person" is supposed to catch these types of errors.

The Sticker Stage Person
The Spec Department Person
At least two, maybe three Grading Persons
The PSA Labeling Department Person
The Sealing Department Person
Verification Stage (1) Person
Verification Stage (2) Person

http://www.psacard.com/Services/PSAGradingProcess/

Do you really believe they go through that many stages? It's more believable to me that 1.) one grader looks at a card and eyeballs it for a couple of seconds and assigns a grade and 2.) the card is labeled and encapsulated. Note that the majority of people working at PSA probably are not experienced in the hobby in any way, shape or form?

[nolemmings]

How much do you have to know about baseball cards to know that a card which is clearly marked "1916" on its front was not issued in 1887?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Do you really believe they go through that many stages? It's more believable to me that 1.) one grader looks at a card and eyeballs it for a couple of seconds and assigns a grade and 2.) the card is labeled and encapsulated. Note that the majority of people working at PSA probably are not experienced in the hobby in any way, shape or form?

I agree with you. Your assessment of PSA's grading process is more likely closer to reality than what is cited in that article.