PWCC auction - OJ Bid McPhee

[glynparson]

As per usual the board has the irrational standard of perfection. It must be amazing to be some of you guys who have never made an error. This one seems reasonable to me. I have seen players misidentifies in every single companies holders. You know why? Because these things are done by humans.

[CrackaJackKid]

Originally Posted by glynparson

As per usual the board has the irrational standard of perfection. It must be amazing to be some of you guys who have never made an error. This one seems reasonable to me. I have seen players misidentifies in every single companies holders. You know why? Because these things are done by humans.

Sorry but this is blatantly unacceptable. How many continued errors do we see weekly? Don’t they claim to be “professionals”? SIG-Sloppy inconsistent grading.

[RCMcKenzie]

I dunno. You'd have to know your n172's backwards and forward, or be an ardent Cincy collector to immediately catch this one. Look at 156-1 and 317-3 in the OJ book. I know I didn't catch it until this thread pointed it out.

There are much more glaring tpg errors...like this Steinfeldt on ebay the other day...

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by glynparson

As per usual the board has the irrational standard of perfection. It must be amazing to be some of you guys who have never made an error. This one seems reasonable to me. I have seen players misidentifies in every single companies holders. You know why? Because these things are done by humans.

I get back to my original question. Aren't 3 separate graders supposed to agree on this? Not one of them said -"The name printed on the card doesn't match the handwritten name?".

[RCMcKenzie]

I just got a new pair of reading glasses upped to 2x today, so my eyesight is not the best. I don't see a name on the original card, other than McPhee written in pencil. When I glanced at the listing last week, the image was close enough to the McPhee image that I know, that I didn't notice the missed id, and I look at every OJ auction that comes up. I can name Connie Mack w/o the name-tag, but I think there are many cards that I could not i.d. by the photo alone. Rob

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I just got a new pair of reading glasses upped to 2x today, so my eyesight is not the best. I don't see a name on the original card, other than McPhee written in pencil. When I glanced at the listing last week, the image was close enough to the McPhee image that I know, that I didn't notice the missed id, and I look at every OJ auction that comes up. I can name Connie Mack w/o the name-tag, but I think there are many cards that I could not i.d. by the photo alone. Rob

The cards absolutely are very similar, but you should be able to expect the grading company to get the player right.

I didn’t create the thread to be a “gotcha” - I really didn’t want someone to buy a 50 dollar OJ common under the impression it was McPhee.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by the-illini

The cards absolutely are very similar, but you should be able to expect the grading company to get the player right.

I enjoyed this thread and learned that Fennelley stooping right, and McPhee stooping right look very similar, as if they could almost be the same player from the same photo shoot.

My early experiences with sending cards in to all 3 tpg's were that they really don't know a whole lot about vintage cards. They mostly grade new cards. If they had the OJ book, they could have double-checked like your friend who caught the mistake. I doubt the tpg's have a copy of the OJ book...Rob

[oldjudge]

Rob-The do have copies of the book. They also have a research group that checks new cards. They have contacted me twice in the last year with questions about 19th century discoveries. I actually think they are very thorough in their work. It appears that in this case, however, a few graders got lazy.

[jhs5120]

This is an interesting discussion and makes me think about PSA's process.

One person researches and logs the card.
One person grades the card
The card is encapsulated
One person reviews the grade (QA1)
One person reviews the holder (QA2)

So, in the case of a misidentified card, it appears only two people really check to make sure it's the correct card and label. The grader probably has no idea how the card has been identified and logged. The QA1 person is likely only concerned with whether the grade makes sense and the QA2 person's job is (per the PSA website) "labels have been reviewed for errors, and holders were examined for defects." So QA2 is likely doing a sense check on the label and a quick look to see that the holder isn't damaged. I doubt for some of these obscure identification issues the QA2 person would be equiped to pick up on everything.

[RCMcKenzie]

That's good to hear, Jay. I guess I shouldn't be so quick to sell the tpg's short. I guess they get it right most of the time. I wish they wouldn't give high grades to n172's with sharp corners and faded pictures, but that's a topic for another thread...Rob

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I get back to my original question. Aren't 3 separate graders supposed to agree on this? Not one of them said -"The name printed on the card doesn't match the handwritten name?".

You forgot the guys who complete the Research stage, and also the dudes working in the Quality Assurance 1 and Quality Assurance 2 stage. But to be fair based on what I've read, I think the third grader is only called when the first two differ on grade. Still makes 5-6 people who looked at this card and got it wrong. Here are some more egregious errors:


1888 Allen & Ginter's The World's Champions Second Series - Tobacco N43 #BIED - Billy Edwards [PSA*1*PR]
Courtesy of COMC.com


1888 Allen & Ginter's The World's Champions Second Series - Tobacco N43 #HGCR - H.G. Crocker [PSA*3*VG]
Courtesy of COMC.com


1966 O-Pee-Chee - [Base] #50 - Mickey Mantle [PSA*1*PR]
Courtesy of COMC.com It's shocking how many OPC they label as Topps and vice versa. Vintage Breaks had to return like 20 1971 OPC cards in a row that PSA labeled as Topps.

Not even in 1969 MLBPA set...

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ighlight=mlbpa

Pinholes in multiple PSA 7s...
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=pinholes

I could go on and on. And PSA is considered the Gold Standard...... only because he who has the most gold, wears the gold-colored glasses.

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by glynparson

As per usual the board has the irrational standard of perfection. It must be amazing to be some of you guys who have never made an error. This one seems reasonable to me. I have seen players misidentifies in every single companies holders. You know why? Because these things are done by humans.

Hi Glyn,
I like to pick on PSA, but I have to say, sometimes when I am looking through my eBay listings, I find things that are really screwy. Putting the wrong photo in a listing. Incorrect spelling in the title and many other things. Sometimes I think to myself, what in the hell was I thinking when I posted that listing?

But, it is much more fun to pick on the grading companies than it is to point out my own mistakes. Maybe I should start a "Rick's screwed up eBay listings" thread.

Take care, Rick