Opinions please!! How do you explain this grade?

TubaPete

I have submitted many, many cards to PSA and have learned to temper my expectations in recent years, but this one, which just came back this week, is really baffling. Here are three Tiger Woods 2011 Upper Deck National Sports Collectors Convention Redemption cards . . .



How do you explain the 5? What am I missing?!?!

saucywombat

Likely a wrinkle on the back

TubaPete

The back is as pristine as the front!?

_EagleEyeKid_

Hard to say by looking at the pics. What's that white scratch-like crud on his collar?

Likely scenario:
1) Miniscule surface wrinkle somewhere.
2) PSA hates you.

Desert_Ice_Sports

A 5 that looks like that is always due to a tiny wrinkle someplace on the card.

2dueces

@Desert_Ice_Sports said:
A 5 that looks like that is always due to a tiny wrinkle someplace on the card.

+1

craig44

would either be a tiny wrinkle or scratches on the surface

miwlvrn

Two possibilities:

A: a scratch on the surface that you missed.

B: a mech error on the grading label such that the text specified on the grade portion of the label does not represent the grade assigned by the grader. This absolutely does happen, unfortunately more frequently than people realize. There have been a few instances documented on threads on this board, and I've had a couple myself.

So of course, the best advice is to examine it again closely yourself, w/ loupe if it helps, and then re-sub if it still looks like it deserves higher.

doubledragon

In the scan, it does appear to have some type of marks on his collar area. I'm willing to bet that is the problem.

Walt_Altmen

Scratch under the Nike swoosh.

Jimmy_Commonpants

Those "scratches" look like they are on the slab as the the one graded PSA 9 has a similar mark a few inches above the swoosh. I'd be curious if the submitter/op can verify.

IMO, "this" is the one instance where I believe a submitter is owed an explanation by the grader - when you expected a 9 or 10 and it comes back five grades lower. It shouldn't be that hard or time consuming for a note to be made to the file.

remedylane

@Jimmy_Commonpants said:
Those "scratches" look like they are on the slab as the the one graded PSA 9 has a similar mark a few inches above the swoosh. I'd be curious if the submitter/op can verify.

IMO, "this" is the one instance where I believe a submitter is owed an explanation by the grader - when you expected a 9 or 10 and it comes back five grades lower. It shouldn't be that hard or time consuming for a note to be made to the file.

I think a grading report should be common place for ALL grading companies. Even If Its something you had to pay extra for. It seems there is that parental attitude of "because I said so" with the grading companies.

PROMETHIUS88

The idea of a grading report for every single card is crazy. Should it be offered at a cost for select, high end cards....sure, I'll buy into that. But the time involved would back up turn around times so much more to even offer that on higher $$ cards. Have we all had cards that we felt should have graded higher....yep. Are there cards that are submitted multiple times before they finally get a higher grade....also yep. But I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the time when a card comes back lower, and in this case much lower than expected, there was something missed by the submitter. I know I use good light and a 16x loupe and still miss something from time to time. When I get it back I usually can find what I missed.
The other factor that we tend to overlook is that although the TPC's have their grading standards, grading is and always will be subjective when done by humans.

Desert_Ice_Sports

A small scratch wouldn't reduce a grade from a 9-10 down to a 5... Must be a wrinkle somewhere.

LarkinCollector

I'll put money on a surface wrinkle on the front, at least this was the cause of every mystery 5 I was expecting a 9/10 on. With the glare from the photo and small size, I can't find it. Do you have access to a CCD scanner?

If there's no hidden wrinkle ...

Jimmy_Commonpants

@PROMETHIUS88 said:
I know I use good light and a 16x loupe and still miss something from time to time. When I get it back I usually can find what I missed.

This is a good example of what I mean - if the "flaw" can only be seen with a 16x loupe, then an explanation is warranted.

A simple note like "Grader notes faint ripple on front, approximately one half inch from bottom left-hand corner; visible with 10x or higher loupe" would be sufficient. Then there is no mystery.

If a card has an obvious crease, pen mark etc.. I don't think an explanation is needed. But when something is only visible good with magnification, I think it should be pointed out to the submitter.

1951WheatiesPremium

Grades have been very tough lately.

Not just you and I, either. I’m considering going on a little submission hiatus until things normalize a little as many things are coming back with these exact same issues.

My theory is it’s related to all the new graders who are hesitant to hand out high grades. It would make sense to teach in an attitude of ‘when in doubt, go low’ as the alternative no doubt cheapens the brand considerably. Seems most people are happy to resubmit cards that have been overgraded (6 getting a 3) considerably while the market is truly offended by subpar 10’s.

Better to create buying opportunities and value than create outrage and cheapen the brand.

Logical for PSA but a bit of a tough take for the submitter of the card.

DBesse27

I’m sorry but I don’t buy the take by some that you got screwed. In my experience, and that of the majority of people on this thread, a minuscule surface wrinkle is usually the reason an otherwise mint card receives a 5. It can be very hard to see, and by definition it doesn’t show on the other side of the card, but I’m betting it’s there. It sucks, but a lot of us have been there.

Walt_Altmen

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Grades have been very tough lately.

For some. For others, not so much.

PROMETHIUS88

@Jimmy_Commonpants said:

@PROMETHIUS88 said:
I know I use good light and a 16x loupe and still miss something from time to time. When I get it back I usually can find what I missed.

This is a good example of what I mean - if the "flaw" can only be seen with a 16x loupe, then an explanation is warranted.

A simple note like "Grader notes faint ripple on front, approximately one half inch from bottom left-hand corner; visible with 10x or higher loupe" would be sufficient. Then there is no mystery.

If a card has an obvious crease, pen mark etc.. I don't think an explanation is needed. But when something is only visible good with magnification, I think it should be pointed out to the submitter.

Lol, I'm getting older and my eyes are worse, hence the loupe. I didn't need it just a few years back. But, I still don't believe that should be the responsibility of the TPG. There has to be a point where we take responsibility for what we submit. If we can find it when we get the card back, we probably could have found it before we submitted it.

lawnmowerman

@TubaPete said:
I have submitted many, many cards to PSA and have learned to temper my expectations in recent years, but this one, which just came back this week, is really baffling.

Since you won't be able to sell a 5 anyway, crack it out. Look it over really good and I bet you will find a wrinkle somewhere.

grote15

@Jimmy_Commonpants said:

@PROMETHIUS88 said:
I know I use good light and a 16x loupe and still miss something from time to time. When I get it back I usually can find what I missed.

This is a good example of what I mean - if the "flaw" can only be seen with a 16x loupe, then an explanation is warranted.

A simple note like "Grader notes faint ripple on front, approximately one half inch from bottom left-hand corner; visible with 10x or higher loupe" would be sufficient. Then there is no mystery.

If a card has an obvious crease, pen mark etc.. I don't think an explanation is needed. But when something is only visible good with magnification, I think it should be pointed out to the submitter.

I sincerely hope PSA never implements anything like that as turnaround would be years not months.

Seriously, you do sometimes get a post it note if you submit a card for review and it doesn't bump (even if it's only an arrow pointing to the issue) but the idea that graders are going to start explaining their grades to submitters who either missed something when they submitted or are not well versed in grading criteria is simply not realistic from an efficiency standpoint. If you disagree with the grade, you can always crack and resubmit or use the review process.

remedylane

@PROMETHIUS88 said:
The idea of a grading report for every single card is crazy. Should it be offered at a cost for select, high end cards....sure, I'll buy into that. But the time involved would back up turn around times so much more to even offer that on higher $$ cards. Have we all had cards that we felt should have graded higher....yep. Are there cards that are submitted multiple times before they finally get a higher grade....also yep. But I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the time when a card comes back lower, and in this case much lower than expected, there was something missed by the submitter. I know I use good light and a 16x loupe and still miss something from time to time. When I get it back I usually can find what I missed.
The other factor that we tend to overlook is that although the TPC's have their grading standards, grading is and always will be subjective when done by humans.

I respect your opinion. But I don't think its crazy at all. Folks spend A LOT of money getting cards graded. Something explaining why a card graded the way it did isn't asking too much. I'm not talking about an 18 page, front and back, double spaced report. I'm talking about something a long the lines of what Beckett does with the centering, surface, corners etc. I would assume they already do that as they are grading. A note in the report saying "small wrinkle top left" shouldn't be a huge deal imo. Also, I submit tons of cards that I know aren't 9s or 10s. Most of my 48 leaf boxing cards fall in the 5-6 range.

I do understand the concerns with the turn around times if this were to happen. But ultimately it's up to the grading companies to keep up with demand and employ an adequate number of graders.. Maybe it could be an extra service you pay for up front.

I suggested this to SGC 2 years ago. When they "relaunched" they said graders notes would be visible. This has yet to happen. Anyways, just my opinion. I respect all you guys thoughts on it.

PROMETHIUS88

@remedylane said:

@PROMETHIUS88 said:
The idea of a grading report for every single card is crazy. Should it be offered at a cost for select, high end cards....sure, I'll buy into that. But the time involved would back up turn around times so much more to even offer that on higher $$ cards. Have we all had cards that we felt should have graded higher....yep. Are there cards that are submitted multiple times before they finally get a higher grade....also yep. But I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the time when a card comes back lower, and in this case much lower than expected, there was something missed by the submitter. I know I use good light and a 16x loupe and still miss something from time to time. When I get it back I usually can find what I missed.
The other factor that we tend to overlook is that although the TPC's have their grading standards, grading is and always will be subjective when done by humans.

I respect your opinion. But I don't think its crazy at all. Folks spend A LOT of money getting cards graded. Something explaining why a card graded the way it did isn't asking too much. I'm not talking about an 18 page, front and back, double spaced report. I'm talking about something a long the lines of what Beckett does with the centering, surface, corners etc. I would assume they already do that as they are grading. A note in the report saying "small wrinkle top left" shouldn't be a huge deal imo. Also, I submit tons of cards that I know aren't 9s or 10s. Most of my 48 leaf boxing cards fall in the 5-6 range.

I do understand the concerns with the turn around times if this were to happen. But ultimately it's up to the grading companies to keep up with demand and employ an adequate number of graders.. Maybe it could be an extra service you pay for up front.

I suggested this to SGC 2 years ago. When they "relaunched" they said graders notes would be visible. This has yet to happen. Anyways, just my opinion. I respect all you guys thoughts on it.

Thank you and I respect your opinion and all others as well. I just don't see it as being cost or time effective for a TPG to do this. If it didn't affect cost or turnaround time, yes, it would be great. And I agree, we do spend a lot to have our cards graded. But, the problem as I see it is this.... 98% of the cards don't need an explanation and we don't know which cards are going to come back less than we expect, nor do they, so how do we make it only the cards that we feel are misgraded?? I think that is what the review process that already exists is for. I wish it were a perfect world but if it were, what would we have to discuss, lol!!

Walt_Altmen

Not sure on graded cards, but on upper echelon coins they will leave little post-it notes with arrows to the “problem” area(s) that contribute to the assigned grade. Short, sweet and to the point. But yeah, if they did it for every merc submitted the bottleneck effect and subsequent delays would be detrimental to say the least!

Walt_Altmen

Per the grade though, I see it says “National” and assume it was distributed in a goodie bag?

Did that goodie bag have other marketing items such as pens, tees, key chains, thick promotional leaflets or any other items that could damage the card?

Surface wrinkle is completely plausible, but I’m still sticking to some sort of scratch, indentation or surface wear if it was thrown in with a bunch of freebies and carried around all day.

Follow up questions to consider. Did it come in a pack with other cards? If so, being that it was 2011, Tiger Woods and UD, was he on the front of the pack? Is UD’s stock prone to surface wrinkles? Is it a glossy card? Seems with most modern cards issues arise from surface wear on the “finish” and highlighted in the gloss when held at the right kurt angles.

Walt_Altmen

@DBesse27 said:
I’m sorry but I don’t buy the take by some that you got screwed. In my experience, and that of the majority of people on this thread, a minuscule surface wrinkle is usually the reason an otherwise mint card receives a 5. It can be very hard to see, and by definition it doesn’t show on the other side of the card, but I’m betting it’s there. It sucks, but a lot of us have been there.

Concur. And in the words of one of America’s most prolific poets, Meatloaf, “2 out of 3 ain’t bad”.

remedylane

@PROMETHIUS88 said:

@remedylane said:

@PROMETHIUS88 said:
The idea of a grading report for every single card is crazy. Should it be offered at a cost for select, high end cards....sure, I'll buy into that. But the time involved would back up turn around times so much more to even offer that on higher $$ cards. Have we all had cards that we felt should have graded higher....yep. Are there cards that are submitted multiple times before they finally get a higher grade....also yep. But I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the time when a card comes back lower, and in this case much lower than expected, there was something missed by the submitter. I know I use good light and a 16x loupe and still miss something from time to time. When I get it back I usually can find what I missed.
The other factor that we tend to overlook is that although the TPC's have their grading standards, grading is and always will be subjective when done by humans.

I respect your opinion. But I don't think its crazy at all. Folks spend A LOT of money getting cards graded. Something explaining why a card graded the way it did isn't asking too much. I'm not talking about an 18 page, front and back, double spaced report. I'm talking about something a long the lines of what Beckett does with the centering, surface, corners etc. I would assume they already do that as they are grading. A note in the report saying "small wrinkle top left" shouldn't be a huge deal imo. Also, I submit tons of cards that I know aren't 9s or 10s. Most of my 48 leaf boxing cards fall in the 5-6 range.

I do understand the concerns with the turn around times if this were to happen. But ultimately it's up to the grading companies to keep up with demand and employ an adequate number of graders.. Maybe it could be an extra service you pay for up front.

I suggested this to SGC 2 years ago. When they "relaunched" they said graders notes would be visible. This has yet to happen. Anyways, just my opinion. I respect all you guys thoughts on it.

Thank you and I respect your opinion and all others as well. I just don't see it as being cost or time effective for a TPG to do this. If it didn't affect cost or turnaround time, yes, it would be great. And I agree, we do spend a lot to have our cards graded. But, the problem as I see it is this.... 98% of the cards don't need an explanation and we don't know which cards are going to come back less than we expect, nor do they, so how do we make it only the cards that we feel are misgraded?? I think that is what the review process that already exists is for. I wish it were a perfect world but if it were, what would we have to discuss, lol!!

Lol. True. I agree there would be significant changes that would have to be made in order for my plan to work. And I agree, most cards need no explanation. When I sent my 48 leaf Joe Louis out last month I was expecting a 4. It came back a 3. I can't complain about that.

In the same order I sent a Jordan tv cell predictor card that I was expecting a 9 on, maybe a 10, and it came back evidence of trimming. I opened it personally in 1999 and put it directly in a top loader. Sgc gave no explanation really, just that I could re submit it. And pay again. I looked it over with my loupe before and after. I see nothing. It's just not possible. Things like that are where I'd like an explanation.

2dueces

@DBesse27 said:
I’m sorry but I don’t buy the take by some that you got screwed. In my experience, and that of the majority of people on this thread, a minuscule surface wrinkle is usually the reason an otherwise mint card receives a 5. It can be very hard to see, and by definition it doesn’t show on the other side of the card, but I’m betting it’s there. It sucks, but a lot of us have been there.

Been there, done that.

TubaPete

Thanks for all your thoughts everyone. Here are two new close-up photos. There are absolutely no creases, surface wrinkles, or scratches on this card. When you consider that the other two were graded 10 and 9, how can this be a 5?

DBesse27

Still hard to tell in the slab, and especially in those photos. If you have it in hand and say it’s not there, it’s hard to insist from a distance. Still, it’s the only plausible explanation.

HighGradeLegends

@LarkinCollector said:
I'll put money on a surface wrinkle on the front, at least this was the cause of every mystery 5 I was expecting a 9/10 on. With the glare from the photo and small size, I can't find it. Do you have access to a CCD scanner?

If there's no hidden wrinkle ...

HA!

ahopkins

Here's a thought: send the card out to a few trusted members so they can look at it in hand and then they can post their observations here. A wrinkle is hard to pick up from a photograph no matter how high resolution it is. To find the wrinkle, you have to tilt the card and let the light pass across the card as you're looking at it on an angle.

remedylane

There's only 2 possible scenarios. 1. PSA screwed up somehow. Or 2. There is some kind of flaw tgat2 you can't see without heavy magnification.

Your only options for recourse are to contact PSA and ask for an explanation, (not likely to help) or crack and resubmit.

I suggest getting a jewlers loupe and look the card over for a flaw you can't see with the naked eye.

miwlvrn

I don't think there is a point in contacting PSA or in sending it to others to judge while in holder. Just crack it, first of all, since the sales price of a 5 won't be worth doing. Once out of the holder, examine closely yourself. If still no surface flaw on either side, then resub.

grote15

Try tilting the card under the light after cracking it out to check for a surface wrinkle.

Jimmy_Commonpants

Oh, good grief, there is no such thing as a "crease that can only be seen with a 10x loupe". Its either there, or it isn't. There is nothing about cardboard stock that requires viewing with a loupe to find the "flaws". There is clearly nothing wrong with that card. Its high gloss, any "ripple", "wrinkle" or "crease" would be obvious.

initialD

Why is the 9 not a 10? They have comparable centering

Dpeck100

@grote15 said:
Try tilting the card under the light after cracking it out to check for a surface wrinkle.

I have had a few of these and it took me probably twenty minutes to find them tilting them under light but sure enough there was a tiny wrinkle.

Walt_Altmen

I think it was the grader on the grassy knoll.

_EagleEyeKid_

Crack it out! Crack it out!

PROMETHIUS88

Not that it matters, but is this card even worth anything? I see you have the only 3 submitted. Is there any value to them other than during the 2 weeks after he won the Masters?

Desert_Ice_Sports

"There are absolutely no creases, surface wrinkles, or scratches on this card. When you consider that the other two were graded 10 and 9, how can this be a 5?"

Here's the bottom line... PSA saw something on the card that brought the grade down to a 5... It's possible they made a mistake, but unless you can examine the card like a grader does, you can't be sure... And, you can't examine the card like a grader while it's in the slab... So...

It's not desirable at all as a 5, so crack it out.... Then, look it over under a bright light, tilting it so you can see every potential imperfection, front and back... Keep looking until you either find something or you lose your mind.

grote15

@Jimmy_Commonpants said:
Oh, good grief, there is no such thing as a "crease that can only be seen with a 10x loupe". Its either there, or it isn't. There is nothing about cardboard stock that requires viewing with a loupe to find the "flaws". There is clearly nothing wrong with that card. Its high gloss, any "ripple", "wrinkle" or "crease" would be obvious.

This is 100% incorrect. Many surface wrinkles are indeed easily missed and/or tough to spot at first glance.

Once you understand this, explanations from the graders as to why a card was graded the way it was will no longer be necessary, either.

DBesse27

@Desert_Ice_Sports said:
"There are absolutely no creases, surface wrinkles, or scratches on this card. When you consider that the other two were graded 10 and 9, how can this be a 5?"

Here's the bottom line... PSA saw something on the card that brought the grade down to a 5... It's possible they made a mistake, but unless you can examine the card like a grader does, you can't be sure... And, you can't examine the card like a grader while it's in the slab... So...

It's not desirable at all as a 5, so crack it out.... Then, look it over under a bright light, tilting it so you can see every potential imperfection, front and back... Keep looking until you either find something or you lose your mind.

BINGO!!