Show professionally graded cards that you consider inadequately graded or in error.

[swarmee]

The T206 "Honus" you show is no longer in the pop report, FWIW.

Some of those early grades are gifts, some are probably due to chemical treatments returning years after the card was slabbed.

My biggest grading issue has been cards that deserved the MK qualifiers that did not get them:

Three red marker drawings got a straight PSA 5?

Pencil writing on the back of this Ty Cobb HOF postcard and it got a straight PSA 4. MK is supposed to be one of the qualifiers that you cannot get removed, even if you request No Qualifiers.

[Stampsfan]

This might end up being the longest thread in the history of Net54.

[GeoPoto]

3601412_12521368_1[1].jpg

3601412_12521368_2[1].jpg

[bnorth]

Here are 6 PSA got WAY wrong. The first picture has a PSA 9 and a PSA 7. The 9 is mislabeled, it has the cheapest of the error versions actually in the slab but it is labeled as the most expensive. The 7 is counterfeit just like the 2 PSA 8s pictured and the 2 PSA 9s. Yes it is fairly easy to get a counterfeit card into a PSA slab. I won't out the gentleman because I think he is a member here. He has an amazing collection of 89 Fleer Bill Ripken error versions all in PSA slabs. He has so many cards with alterations so obvious Stevie Wonder could see them but PSA slabbed them with a # for him.

For those that don't understand printing. Those counterfeit Ripken cards are 10X as hard to counterfeit than a 50s card with white borders.

[steve B]

I don't think one would be harder than another because of the borders or lack of borders. But I wouldn't mind hearing the reasoning behind that.

If those are a few of the cards with the large TM or R symbol, I was able to examine one firsthand, and it was really a puzzle.

Short version
It didn't have most of the traits of fakes from the 1990's. In some ways it could be said to have none of the common ones.

But it was- for a 1989 Fleer, definitely non-standard

It DID have several traits that made me lean away from thinking it was fake. Subtle stuff that at the time would require work most counterfeiters didn't/wouldn't do. At least one of those things was not typical for 89 Fleer. I'm still not certain what to think of it.

Just after, I bought a few non- error versions as a small lot. Mostly because they had clear differences on the back of one card. And all of them are just fine.


In the end, I suppose the "fake" label is the easiest, the card is atypical in several ways. But where they aren't ways that are typical for someone making a fake card, I don't think that's 100% certain.

My suspicion is that those particular fakes were done in-house at one of Fleers printers. Maybe legitimately as a "special" for HSN or shop at home.
Fleer is of course long gone, and I'd assume their records got thrown out, so we will probably never know.
It's not a totally crazy notion, the big shopping networks and at least some retailers did get special stuff from other manufacturers, and UD both reprinted their own cards, and faked stuff they were the licensed printer for.

[steve B]

I think this one got a generous grade, I wouldn't have gone much above a 2. Not that I'm unhappy with the grade it was given....


This one has a light crease starting at the top center and going almost to the center of the card. Probably from being removed from a plastic page.




I also have a few like this, when I see 50's and even the occasional 60 with rounded corners I get a fleeting moment of annoyance.

[tedzan]

Acquired this card several years ago. I thought it did not deserve an "A".
But, it didn't cost me much (so I cannot complain).






Anyhow, I recently, cracked it out....and, submitted it to SGC

.




This time they graded it a "60".....





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve B

I don't think one would be harder than another because of the borders or lack of borders. But I wouldn't mind hearing the reasoning behind that.

If those are a few of the cards with the large TM or R symbol, I was able to examine one firsthand, and it was really a puzzle.

Short version
It didn't have most of the traits of fakes from the 1990's. In some ways it could be said to have none of the common ones.

But it was- for a 1989 Fleer, definitely non-standard

It DID have several traits that made me lean away from thinking it was fake. Subtle stuff that at the time would require work most counterfeiters didn't/wouldn't do. At least one of those things was not typical for 89 Fleer. I'm still not certain what to think of it.

Just after, I bought a few non- error versions as a small lot. Mostly because they had clear differences on the back of one card. And all of them are just fine.


In the end, I suppose the "fake" label is the easiest, the card is atypical in several ways. But where they aren't ways that are typical for someone making a fake card, I don't think that's 100% certain.

My suspicion is that those particular fakes were done in-house at one of Fleers printers. Maybe legitimately as a "special" for HSN or shop at home.
Fleer is of course long gone, and I'd assume their records got thrown out, so we will probably never know.
It's not a totally crazy notion, the big shopping networks and at least some retailers did get special stuff from other manufacturers, and UD both reprinted their own cards, and faked stuff they were the licensed printer for.

We will have to agree to disagree. I did read your "report" and completely disagreed with everything in it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

We will have to agree to disagree. I did read your "report" and completely disagreed with everything in it.

I'm still on the fence after a few years, and very open to the cards being fake. At any rate, they don't belong in holders labeled as the error version, maybe not at all

It was a while ago, and I don't recall if I ever sent the second half of the detailed report. I can't find it on my computer, so I may not have finished it and sent it.

The part I do know I sent was the technical info. Thickness, how the cardstock and inks reacted to both long and shortwave UV and maybe a few other things, for a fake, a real one, and a couple control cards If I remember correctly, a glossy and an update and maybe something Canadian.

I'd love to discuss any of it in detail. Maybe outside this thread, as it's not really the right place.

Lets just say most fakes are pretty obvious and show the same signs of the same sort of sloppy work. These are a bit different.