I’ve noticed a number of PSA graded error cards that do not have the name of the error printed on the PSA label. Why is this? Does the error not have a name that would fit neatly on the label? Does a particular type of error have to be submitted to PSA a certain amount of times before they give these errors a name? Is PSA simply missing errors frequently?
What’s gucci?
Bruh, you been posting some interestin ass threads recently lol. Keep em comin! In regards to your question, i would mostly think its because some errors arent in large enough quantities to validate it as a legitimate noted error. Until it reaches a certain point, itd just be a coincidental print error, which would be extraneous to label.
If you fight for it with loads of documentation you may get it designated.
Grey stamp, thin/thick stamp 1st ed. base and those inverted WB stamp errors probably lots more
Gucci is a luxury clothing/accessory brand or maybe a rapper
I’m glad PSA doesn’t recognise every “Tom, Dick and Harry” when it comes to errors.
PSA need to be able to document the errors, so good luck getting enough evidence. Myself and other have tried numerous times to get certain other TCGs graded by PSA with mountains of documentation and proof of legitimacy with no luck.
Lol but seriously @kmw what gucci are you talking about?
PSA needs the error brought to their attention or they won’t acknowledge the error on the label. When you submit, note the error under the player name field or the variety field. Also, some mass produced errors just aren’t recognized at all by PSA. I’ve compiled a few lists.
Mass produced errors that are recognized by PSA:
Mass produced errors that are not recognized by PSA:
Now getting a previously unacknowledged error to be recognized by PSA? I don’t know how to do it. Hope I helped.
What’s interesting is they’ll designate different holo variations for newer cards. Ex: Legendary Treasures Charizard Cosmos holofoil
It’s hard to troll someone when your username is “Shizzlemetimbers.” heh 
I think some of these would be solid additions! Including some of the newer errors like the dragonite roaring skies.
However, the ink smears and especially square cuts probably won’t and shouldn’t make the cut. Anything that can be easily forged should stay away from third party authentication. That is one of the main reasons why they came to exist. A lot of flippers back in the day would “color”, or “trim” cards to make them appear more “mint”. PSA is the most strict in relation to denying hand cut or colored/inked cards. BGS lets through more hand cuts, and KSA lets through even more.
Anyway, No damage ninetales and some of the recent notable errors I would love to see validated by PSA. With enough documentation and physical examples it can happen.
I’ve always felt psa should recognise the no damage ninetales and the inverted WB stamp errors. The others you have mentioned I’m not so sure about other than maybe the ink dot stoice and the smear gyarados from rocket comes to mind too.
@smpratte The square cuts for sure shouldn’t be recognized. No way of knowing if they were cut at the factory. I do understand the problems with authenticating ink smeared error cards but a few of them are so prominent. The hitmonlee ink smear is a great example of this. There’s always a few on ebay.
Maybe PSA should designate the ink errors with the PD qualifier? ahhhh who knows…
@woolsluk smear gyarados?
It’s the team rocket one and the stamp so smeared. I tried to find it hut now I think I’m just making shit up as I can’t find it.
Do they recognize this error?
Actually, there is a way (or two) to tell if they were factory cut. Anybody who would like verification can pm me and arrange to mail theirs to me and I’ll let you know. No charge, just pay shipping.
It’s hard to explain how to tell, though I won’t explain anyway 
In fact I just emailed PSA a week ago about adding the “Missing [or ‘No’] Damage Counter” Ninetales to the registry since I have sent a few in to get graded. I honestly really curious what they say given the evidence I supplied them with… so we’ll see.
Personally I’ve always thought the cards that are true errors from the should be denoted as opposed to those that have printing defects.
For example the following are simply “errors” (distingished by graphical and text related variations):
You said you sent in a “few”. How many? Maybe I can help.
I sent three in total. If you can help that would be wonderful and of course welcome!
For the no damage error should it not be as simple as showing them a graded example with the damage then show them as many ungraded/graded examples as possible with no damage or do you have to be able to say where is was available etc before they would consider recognising it?