PSA rejects my Adley auto - how can I get this card

[RustyGreerFan]

I recently submitted an Adley like this one (below) and PSA said they wouldn't grade it. Here's there exact reply:

"I understand your desire to know why we were unable to grade your card. I apologize for any stress this may have caused. In order for a card to be authenticated and graded by PSA, there needs to be a checklist made available to verify the authenticity of the card before we can grade it. At this time, the manufacturer of the card has not released a verifiable checklist to match the card you submitted. The card you referenced in your email was graded in error. The published checklists for this set do not mention the Gold Mini Diamond Refractor."

Does anyone have experience dealing with something like this? Is it possible for me to do something to make the card official enough for PSA to grade it? I assume by contacting Fanatics/Topps, but I don't know what to say. Any ideas/help appreciated.

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by RustyGreerFan

I recently submitted an Adley like this one (below) and PSA said they wouldn't grade it. Here's there exact reply:

"I understand your desire to know why we were unable to grade your card. I apologize for any stress this may have caused. In order for a card to be authenticated and graded by PSA, there needs to be a checklist made available to verify the authenticity of the card before we can grade it. At this time, the manufacturer of the card has not released a verifiable checklist to match the card you submitted. The card you referenced in your email was graded in error. The published checklists for this set do not mention the Gold Mini Diamond Refractor."

Does anyone have experience dealing with something like this? Is it possible for me to do something to make the card official enough for PSA to grade it? I assume by contacting Fanatics/Topps, but I don't know what to say. Any ideas/help appreciated.

The one time this happen to me, I had to wait a bit (~1 month) for the product to be loaded into their system. I would wait it out and resubmit.

Edit - or if you can find the checklist from Topps, Beckett, etc. you can submit it to PSA.

[hermanotarjeta]

That’s really frustrating. Isn’t that a 2023 card?

[slogue2]

I would absolutely push back on that. They didn’t have any issues grading mine last year, or any of the numerous other Mini Diamond autos from 23 Finest that are littered on eBay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by slogue2

I would absolutely push back on that. They didn’t have any issues grading mine last year, or any of the numerous other Mini Diamond autos from 23 Finest that are littered on eBay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That other Corbin is RDA-CC while yours is only CC.

[boxbuster7]

holy hell psa is so stupid

[towerymt]

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...ographs/243342

RDAAR Adley Rutschman Pop 7?

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by towerymt

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...ographs/243342

RDAAR Adley Rutschman Pop 7?

Looks different. The quoted RDACC has a pop of 1.

https://www.psacard.com/cert/84476271/psa

Variety/Pedigree RK DSGN VAR AU-GOLD MINI-DIA

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

holy hell psa is so stupid

Is it PSA's fault though? If you look at the checklist, the gold mini-diamond parallel isn't on it. That doesn't explain how one slipped through, but honestly it does feel like they shouldn't be authenticating cards that the manufacturer doesn't acknowledge.

[mc1]

2023 Topps Finest Finest Rookies Design Variation Autographs
Gold Mini Diamond

Looks like besides the Carroll they also graded a Michael Harris II (RDAMH). Those were graded by mistake, according to them.

Are these cards on a checklist or not? If they arent on an official checklist they are going to give you a hard time.

[slogue2]

Originally Posted by NYRE2PECT

That other Corbin is RDA-CC while yours is only CC.

I get that. I don’t think it should matter though. Auto checklists exist for the Rookie Design Variation (OP’s card) and the Finest Autographs (mine). If they’re fine grading over 50 of the Finest Auto Mini-Diamonds, per the Pop Report, one can surmise they’d be okay with grading the Rookie Design Variation as well, even if the CL of the Mini-Diamond variety wasn’t officially released by Topps.

Edit: I don’t know all the rules of the grading and authentication. Just seems silly that they’d draw a line on the Rookie Design Variation Auto and not the Finest Auto.

[boxbuster7]

it is just about common sense - ain't no way those cards are fake

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by mc1

2023 Topps Finest Finest Rookies Design Variation Autographs
Gold Mini Diamond

Looks like besides the Carroll they also graded a Michael Harris II (RDAMH). Those were graded by mistake, according to them.

Are these cards on a checklist or not? If they arent on an official checklist they are going to give you a hard time.

That's the key. Find them on a Topps, Beckett, etc. checklist and submit that to PSA as a request to add (iirc).

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by slogue2

I get that. I don’t think it should matter though. Auto checklists exist for the Rookie Design Variation (OP’s card) and the Finest Autographs (mine). If they’re fine grading over 50 of the Finest Auto Mini-Diamonds, per the Pop Report, one can surmise they’d be okay with grading the Rookie Design Variation as well, even if the CL of the Mini-Diamond variety wasn’t officially released by Topps.

Edit: I don’t know all the rules of the grading and authentication. Just seems silly that they’d draw a line on the Rookie Design Variation Auto and not the Finest Auto.

I hear you, and totally get it, but the checklists are normally king.

[slogue2]

Originally Posted by NYRE2PECT

I hear you, and totally get it, but the checklists are normally king.

Yeah that makes sense. Feel bad for OP in this situation when one seems to have been given the thumbs up and different subset gets the no go treatment.

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by slogue2

I get that. I don’t think it should matter though. Auto checklists exist for the Rookie Design Variation (OP’s card) and the Finest Autographs (mine). If they’re fine grading over 50 of the Finest Auto Mini-Diamonds, per the Pop Report, one can surmise they’d be okay with grading the Rookie Design Variation as well, even if the CL of the Mini-Diamond variety wasn’t officially released by Topps.

Edit: I don’t know all the rules of the grading and authentication. Just seems silly that they’d draw a line on the Rookie Design Variation Auto and not the Finest Auto.

They aren't drawing a line at the type of auto, it's the fact that Topps didn't put it on the official checklist. Yes it's obviously a real card, but if they don't follow the checklist, then they authenticate cards that don't exist (which they've done before).

None of this is obviously a perfect science, but Topps is the one that needs to fix this by updating what they have provided.

[RustyGreerFan]

Does anyone have an idea of what number I should call or what department I should look for?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by no10pin

They aren't drawing a line at the type of auto, it's the fact that Topps didn't put it on the official checklist. Yes it's obviously a real card, but if they don't follow the checklist, then they authenticate cards that don't exist (which they've done before).



None of this is obviously a perfect science, but Topps is the one that needs to fix this by updating what they have provided.

There is no gold mini diamond on the checklist for either of them. So yes, they are drawing the line at type of auto.

The checklist has gold wave and gold refractors for all the auto sets, and not a single mini diamond. Has anyone seen a gold wave? Regardless, the fact that PSA has graded so many mini diamonds, it's crap that OP is being treated differently.

https://www.beckett.com/news/2023-to...aseball-cards/

Just do a Ctr-F search for "diamond." They don't exist for ANY auto set.

[tyrith]

The other thing to keep in mind is that it isn't PSA saying they won't grade the card. This is a specific grader following Topps procedure in a specific way. There are all sorts of unlisted parallels on checklists - Upper Deck does this all the time, and plenty of those cards are in PSA slabs. But a different grader could just as easily encapsulated the thing.

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

There is no gold mini diamond on the checklist for either of them. So yes, they are drawing the line at type of auto.

The checklist has gold wave and gold refractors for all the auto sets, and not a single mini diamond. Has anyone seen a gold wave? Regardless, the fact that PSA has graded so many mini diamonds, it's crap that OP is being treated differently.

https://www.beckett.com/news/2023-to...aseball-cards/

Just do a Ctr-F search for "diamond." They don't exist for ANY auto set.

Ah, i didn't realize they missed those too.

Seems pretty easy to make a list of what was put into the product, but I guess when there's 117 parallels, it makes it a chore.

[slogue2]

Originally Posted by no10pin

They aren't drawing a line at the type of auto, it's the fact that Topps didn't put it on the official checklist. Yes it's obviously a real card, but if they don't follow the checklist, then they authenticate cards that don't exist (which they've done before).

None of this is obviously a perfect science, but Topps is the one that needs to fix this by updating what they have provided.

I definitely get that. I'm sure it's just a big ole nuisance to OP who wants their card graded, and sees a bunch of other Gold Mini-Diamond Autos graded, but now has to try and get an updated checklist unearthed 1 year after the initial release.

The surprise of those golden treasure boxes was amazing last year. It's just unfortunate Topps didn't release an updated checklist after the initial surprise of these Gold Mini-Diamonds being part of the set.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by tyrith

The other thing to keep in mind is that it isn't PSA saying they won't grade the card. This is a specific grader following Topps procedure in a specific way. There are all sorts of unlisted parallels on checklists - Upper Deck does this all the time, and plenty of those cards are in PSA slabs. But a different grader could just as easily encapsulated the thing.

Graders dont deal with Research & ID or encapsulation. Those are all different stages.

[Rooftop]

Put it in a one touch and forget about. Quit wasting your money on grading.

[tmoore_25]

Not to hijack the thread but that is not the first error by PSA. PSA's response doesn't make any sense though. They say the card has to be listed on the checklist. Well, in my case, the 2013 Allen & Ginter extended minis #351 - 400 that come out of the RIP cards are listed on the checklist. There is only one parallel to those, and they are wood minis that are 1/1 but not annotated on the card. Yet, PSA will not grade my wood mini.

If your argument is that it is because they are not hand numbered, that won't hold up. They have graded the extended wood minis that aren't numbered from other years.

After messaging with "wood minis" here, he provided me with this info for all the extended wood minis throughout each year. I added in parenthesis if any of the non-numbered had been graded:

2006 - Foil numbered with hologram
2007 - Foil numbered with hologram - not wood backed like 1-350
2008 - not numbered (3 graded)
2009 - not numbered (2 graded)
2010 - not numbered (1 graded)
2011 - not numbered (0 graded)
2012 - not numbered (1 graded)
2013 - not numbered (2 graded) SAME YEAR AS MINE
2014 - not numbered, and cards are darker than 1-350
2015 - hand numbered
2016 - hand numbered
2017 - hand numbered
2018 - hand numbered - the only 50 that made the pack out.
2019 - hand numbered
2020 - not numbered
2021 - hand numbered
2022 - hand numbered
2023 - not numbered

Even with that info, PSA has still not responded to my two attempts to try to gain an answer as to why they won't grade the non-numbered 1/1 minis.

[PeteD]

" The card you referenced in your email was graded in error " But we took you money anyway.