Another inexcusable PSA screw up - they graded another reprint!

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Leon

Isn't there supposed to be more than 1 person inspecting cards at PSA? If that is the case then more than 1 person needs re-evaluating or a pink slip.

I am not sure. I am not a submitter and really dont know how PSA works. But I suspect the cost to grade a T206 CY Young EPDG is at least $100. And for that, the submitter (hell the hobby) deserves a "grader" who can spot a reprint from a real 110-year old card.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I suspect the cost to grade a T206 CY Young EPDG is at least $100.

This is why I truly believe that someone at PSA is taking money under the table for favorable grades. I've said it for years, I'll continue to say it.

Nobody in their right mind is going to spend $100 or more hoping to just slip one past the graders. If you're going to spend that kind of money on something that's fake (or been altered), you have to know you're expecting something in return.

FWIW, the cert number no longer appears in their database, so at least they removed that. Unfortunately, that doesn't remove the card from circulation.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

FWIW, the cert number no longer appears in their database, so at least they removed that. Unfortunately, that doesn't remove the card from circulation.

They've also removed the certs for the next 2 sequential numbers - 5067056 & 50670567, but all other numbers in that sequence (before and after) show to be active.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

This is why I truly believe that someone at PSA is taking money under the table for favorable grades. I've said it for years, I'll continue to say it.

Nobody in their right mind is going to spend $100 or more hoping to just slip one past the graders. If you're going to spend that kind of money on something that's fake (or been altered), you have to know you're expecting something in return.

FWIW, the cert number no longer appears in their database, so at least they removed that. Unfortunately, that doesn't remove the card from circulation.

I think it's more likely that the submitters are submitting out of a genuine lack of knowledge. That's exactly what happened with the CJ Mack. The submitter really didn't know much about CJ's but submitted it to get PSA's "expert" opinion. He was very open to sharing everything about his submission. It was 100% PSA's mistake.

I'm sure that I'm not quoting it correctly but this axiom applies. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I am not sure. I am not a submitter and really dont know how PSA works. But I suspect the cost to grade a T206 CY Young EPDG is at least $100. And for that, the submitter (hell the hobby) deserves a "grader" who can spot a reprint from a real 110-year old card.

Would love to see a scan of the Doyle in its PSA holder, Ryan. Could you post one? Can't imagine what it costs to have a million dollar card slabbed by PSA. Could you shed some light?

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

Would love to see a scan of the Doyle in its PSA holder, Ryan. Could you post one? Can't imagine what it costs to have a million dollar card slabbed by PSA. Could you shed some light?

I don’t have a pic of it handy, but I think there is a pic of it in my registry set. I am not going discuss submitting the card and that’s the last question I field on
me and my cards. Let’s please keep the focus on the topic - PSA can’t tell a t206 reprint from the real thing. I bet PRO would have gotten that one right!

[conor912]

At least it doesn’t have perforations.

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I don’t have a pic of it handy, but I think there is a pic of it in my registry set. I am not going discuss submitting the card and that’s the last question I field on
me and my cards. Let’s please keep the focus on the topic - PSA can’t tell a t206 reprint from the real thing. I bet PRO would have gotten that one right!

Fair enough. Your uneasiness to discuss how your actions with PSA contradict your criticism of them is totally understandable.

Congratulations, by the way, on your ranking on PSA's T206 registry.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

Fair enough. Your uneasiness to discuss how your actions with PSA contradict your criticism of them is totally understandable.

Congratulations, by the way, on your ranking on PSA's T206 registry.

One can be a vocal critic of the things they do wrong, which is plenty, while also pointing out the things they do right, which is their registry. I just wish there was a new registry player in town that would accept both PSA and SGC so folks who appreciate that sort of thing could have an option.

[FrankWakefield]

I think that fake T206 Young portrait is on modern (post WW II) paper, and it would fluoresce if illuminated with a black light.

I'd like to think that they never slab a card until after they have hit the card with black light... but that presupposes that they'd know how to turn on and off the black light, and what to look for while shining ultra violet light on a card. A first grader could do it, if they could keep their hands grime free... maybe a PSA grader could be taught.


Truthfully, maybe some of you guys should consider gradually giving up on graded cards, registries, and such.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I think that fake T206 Young portrait is on modern (post WW II) paper, and it would fluoresce if illuminated with a black light.

I'd like to think that they never slab a card until after they have hit the card with black light... but that presupposes that they'd know how to turn on and off the black light, and what to look for while shining ultra violet light on a card. A first grader could do it, if they could keep their hands grime free... maybe a PSA grader could be taught.


Truthfully, maybe some of you guys should consider gradually giving up on graded cards, registries, and such.

Many people can't work for very long with UV. Enough exposure without protective eyewear can cause long term damage.
I wouldn't expect a grading company to use UV more than occasionally.

[Jcosta19]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

One can be a vocal critic of the things they do wrong, which is plenty, while also pointing out the things they do right, which is their registry. I just wish their was a new registry player in town that would accept both PSA and SGC so folks who appreciate that sort of thing could have an option.

I think VCP is working on a registry like this that encorpprates the major grading companies.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Jcosta19

I think VCP is working on a registry like this that encorpprates the major grading companies.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I heard that too, hope they roll it out, it would be a nice option.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

Fair enough. Your uneasiness to discuss how your actions with PSA contradict your criticism of them is totally understandable.

Congratulations, by the way, on your ranking on PSA's T206 registry.

Thanks Bill. Best of luck to you.

[tedzan]

This situation is reminiscent of the rash of "re-backed" T206's that occurred 22 years ago.

Circa 1999 - 2000, a bunch of T206's were in circulation that were being sold on Ebay (and at Shows) that were FAKES.
These T206's were very professionally altered, and these cards (initially) fooled many collectors, and even the Grading Co's.
Fortunately, there were some of us T206 collectors who instantly recognized that these T206 cards were fakes because their
front / back combos were impossible

Here is a list of some the examples of these FAKES.....

Matty (portrait) with a red HINDU back (PSA and SGC graded)

Matty (portrait) with a SOVEREIGN 460 back (PSA graded)

Green Cobb with a red HINDU back

Green Cobb with a CYCLE 350 back

Johnson (pitching) with BROAD LEAF 350 back

Johnson (portrait) with BROAD LEAF 350 back




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by tedzan

This situation is reminiscent of the rash of "re-backed" T206's that occurred 22 years ago.

Circa 1999 - 2000, a bunch of T206's were in circulation that were being sold on Ebay (and at Shows) that were FAKES.
These T206's were very professionally altered, and these cards (initially) fooled many collectors, and even the Grading Co's.
Fortunately, there were some of us T206 collectors who instantly recognized that these T206 cards were fakes because their
front / back combos were impossible

Here is a list of some the examples of these FAKES.....

Matty (portrait) with a red HINDU back (PSA and SGC graded)

Matty (portrait) with a SOVEREIGN 460 back (PSA graded)

Green Cobb with a red HINDU back

Green Cobb with a CYCLE 350 back

Johnson (pitching) with BROAD LEAF 350 back

Johnson (portrait) with BROAD LEAF 350 back




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Only thing that is similar to the Young situation is that these are all T206s and none should have been graded otherwise the grading of this very obvious reprint is really in a class by itself.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Only thing that is similar to the Young situation is that these are all T206s and none should have been graded otherwise the grading of this very obvious reprint is really in a class by itself.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying ?

First of all, I stated that this "Young (EPDG)" card is "reminiscent" of what occurred 22 years ago. I did not "compare" it to those cards.

Furthermore, there was a serious flaw back then, when both PSA and SGC graded some of those re-backed T206 cards.

In any event, both situations reveal a possible serious problem with the Grading of T206 cards. It's a complex set of cards which require
knowledgeable graders grading them.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.