Grading Impacts from Latest Controversy?

gemint

What’s the general feeling from those of you lucky enough to have your orders pop with these long lead times? Has PSA gotten more stringent in their grading standards in the wake of the revelations about the card doctors? Are you also seeing more rejections for min size cards? I have some orders teed up, so I’m curious about any changes in grading standards. I have some vintage vending mixed in which is often slightly undersized.

lightningboy

100 card bulk (vintage Wacky Packages) just shipped. Decent share of 8's and 9's but not a single 10. Was expecting 7 - 10 of them. So. I vote yes for stricter. Tom

PaulMaul

My last sub seemed par for the course. I had one ‘72 I expected (and received) a 9 on. I also had ten star cards from a complete original owner 1953 Topps baseball set (so I know they are legit). All were graded at grades that were around what I expected.

Stone193

I did my club sub.

Of the 4 cards I thought had a shot?

2 - 10s and 2 - 9s.

_EagleEyeKid_

I have a bulk sub shared with two other members. It's been there for 2 month at the research/ID stage. I'm a tad bit worried. We will see.

PaulMaul

This card would not seem to indicate increased stringency!

Kep13

what in the heck...that's a PSA 7 I would think

PatsGuy5000

I believe PSA has gotten stricter with their grading, I don’t have as much experience with SGC and Beckett. I have many vintage cards with clear edge and corner touches that are PSA 8’s, yet I have submitted new cards recently that I can find no wear even after looking under a 10X lens that are receiving the same grade.

Oldcardguy

I think stricter before all the revelations, always head scratchers though. I had some dual grade come back a little lower than I though. Was hoping for 5s and 6s and got 4s and 5s. Auto grade always a shot in the dark, but did achieve a handful of 10s.

gemint

Thanks for the feedback. Mike, did that Johnson IA have lines in the gloss on the surface? I have a number of high grade Johnson IA cards that all have these lines. They look like creases but when you hold the card at an angle, the lines disappear, confirming it’s just an interruption of the gloss.

PaulMaul

The Johnson IA card isn’t mine, but it should not be a 9 just based on the centering, which is like 67/33 at the top.

JoeBanzai

1972 IA cards are very often found with bad centering, although I wouldn't give this one a 9.

Regarding the OP, why would PSA become more "strict" over grades because of the controversy? That was about altered cards not overgraded cards.

More cards may be getting rejected, how are we going to know?

RookieWax

I would sure hope PSA would refrain from making the rest of us suffer because of this. I recently opened 3 sealed 1986 Tiffany Traded sets and all cards in the sets are just a hair short top-to-bottom - otherwise they are GEM. The key cards are heading to PSA soon.

gemint

@JoeBanzai said:

Regarding the OP, why would PSA become more "strict" over grades because of the controversy? That was about altered cards not overgraded cards.

More cards may be getting rejected, how are we going to know?

More scrutiny overall.

Regarding rejections, I'm asking because people posting on here submit and may be seeing it in the results of their recent submissions.

JoeBanzai

@gemint said:

Regarding rejections, I'm asking because people posting on here submit and may be seeing it in the results of their recent submissions.

Yes, I would like to hear about that as well.

jeffv96masters

Posted it before but seeing tons of "Min Siz Req" rejections in all my bulks

spanky74

What happened to the thread about the trimmed card used as the PSA twitter background?

doubledragon

@spanky74 said:
What happened to the thread about the trimmed card used as the PSA twitter background?

Some nasty comments were made about PSA, and the thread is history.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ReggieCleveland

@RookieWax said:
I would sure hope PSA would refrain from making the rest of us suffer because of this. I recently opened 3 sealed 1986 Tiffany Traded sets and all cards in the sets are just a hair short top-to-bottom - otherwise they are GEM. The key cards are heading to PSA soon.

There's been a rash of resealed Tiffany sets for sale over the past year. Obviously not saying that's what you got but taking this opportunity to warn people to be extra careful when buying Tiffany sets. That gold seal can be easily resealed perfectly.

Arthur

doubledragon

@drc said:

@doubledragon said:

@spanky74 said:
What happened to the thread about the trimmed card used as the PSA twitter background?

Some nasty comments were made about PSA, and the thread is history.

I saw commentary but no nasty comments

There was a comment made toward the end of the thread, that was pretty abusive toward PSA. I won't repeat it, but it was pretty harsh.

DotStore

does anyone know for sure what the "tolerance" is for min-size? I've read it can be up to 1/16" -- which is a little more than the width of a penny. But are there any other factors? Such as it can only be short in one direction (either side-to-side or top-to-bottom -- but not both). Or do they allow 1/32" side to side and 1/32" top-to-bottom (i.e. the combined min-size cannot total more than 1/16"?

Or is 1/16" even true???

krisd3279

I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

JoeBanzai

@krisd3279 said:
I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

For some years there were at least three different "sizes" Wax was different than vending and presentation sets were different than either, or so I have heard.

krisd3279

@JoeBanzai said:

@krisd3279 said:
I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

For some years there were at least three different "sizes" Wax was different than vending and presentation sets were different than either, or so I have heard.

I have read that here. If that is the case then those years will have to have a larger tolerance given PSA doesn't know the source of the cards and therefore can't distinguish between the different types. That just makes those years more difficult to grade for size and more difficult to detect trimming based on size alone.

PaulMaul

@krisd3279 said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@krisd3279 said:
I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

For some years there were at least three different "sizes" Wax was different than vending and presentation sets were different than either, or so I have heard.

I have read that here. If that is the case then those years will have to have a larger tolerance given PSA doesn't know the source of the cards and therefore can't distinguish between the different types. That just makes those years more difficult to grade for size and more difficult to detect trimming based on size alone.

“Min size req” does not imply anything was done to the card, just that it doesn’t meet the minimum size requirement. So even though vending cards are known to be smaller, they are still rejected if undersized even if viewed as legit. You could change that if you really believed PSA can reliably distinguish between an undersized vending card and a trimmed card, but I think requiring a minimum size makes that distinction quicker and easier.

krisd3279

@PaulMaul said:

@krisd3279 said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@krisd3279 said:
I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

For some years there were at least three different "sizes" Wax was different than vending and presentation sets were different than either, or so I have heard.

I have read that here. If that is the case then those years will have to have a larger tolerance given PSA doesn't know the source of the cards and therefore can't distinguish between the different types. That just makes those years more difficult to grade for size and more difficult to detect trimming based on size alone.

“Min size req” does not imply anything was done to the card, just that it doesn’t meet the minimum size requirement. So even though vending cards are known to be smaller, they are still rejected even if viewed as legit.

Exactly. More false positives.

PaulMaul

@krisd3279 said:

@PaulMaul said:

@krisd3279 said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@krisd3279 said:
I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

For some years there were at least three different "sizes" Wax was different than vending and presentation sets were different than either, or so I have heard.

I have read that here. If that is the case then those years will have to have a larger tolerance given PSA doesn't know the source of the cards and therefore can't distinguish between the different types. That just makes those years more difficult to grade for size and more difficult to detect trimming based on size alone.

“Min size req” does not imply anything was done to the card, just that it doesn’t meet the minimum size requirement. So even though vending cards are known to be smaller, they are still rejected even if viewed as legit.

Exactly. More false positives.

I don’t view it is a mistake though. Their goal is not to grade every card that hasn’t been altered. They view a card that deviates significantly from the normal size for the issue as ungradable in the same way a miscut card is.

demondeacs

@JoeBanzai said:

@krisd3279 said:
I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

For some years there were at least three different "sizes" Wax was different than vending and presentation sets were different than either, or so I have heard.

This old thread discusses another source: sheets that were sent to distributors, which were then cut to fill bulk lot mail orders. I don't know if the size varied, but supposedly the cuts were different.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/5496987#Comment_5496987

PaulMaul

@demondeacs said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@krisd3279 said:
I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

For some years there were at least three different "sizes" Wax was different than vending and presentation sets were different than either, or so I have heard.

This old thread discusses another source: sheets that were sent to distributors, which were then cut to fill bulk lot mail orders. I don't know if the size varied, but supposedly the cuts were different.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/5496987#Comment_5496987

Are these the same as “cut card cases”? Because I know that the cards from those have a unique appearance compared to normal vending cards. The cut case cards have kind of a taper at the edges, hard to explain verbally, but very distinct when you see it.

demondeacs

@PaulMaul said:

@demondeacs said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@krisd3279 said:
I would think the tolerance would differ between years and brands depending on the quality control and equipment used at the time. I think the idea would be to establish what the average size of a given issue is (this should be the same for standard sized cards) and then also establish what the tolerance would be based on known good examples out there. The more variation in size of an issue the harder it is going to be to detect trimming and the more likely to have cards rejected for min size when they are really pack fresh.

For some years there were at least three different "sizes" Wax was different than vending and presentation sets were different than either, or so I have heard.

This old thread discusses another source: sheets that were sent to distributors, which were then cut to fill bulk lot mail orders. I don't know if the size varied, but supposedly the cuts were different.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/5496987#Comment_5496987

Are these the same as “cut card cases”? Because I know that the cards from those have a unique appearance compared to normal vending cards. The cut case cards have kind of a taper at the edges, hard to explain verbally, but very distinct when you see it.

I could be wrong, but my understanding with cut card cases is that Topps cut those down to the single card level themselves and boxed them by sheet whereas that thread seems to be more about large distributors ordering sheets and cutting them themselves as they received orders. The below quote comes from Solomon Cramer who was a bigwig at the time.

"This is exactly correct. The "big guys" never opened a pack of cards, they generally bought uncut sheets and cut them down. That is why you see many cards, especially Topps, from 1986-1992 that are sheet cut. This eliminated needs for sorting - you put 200 sheets on a huge guillotine cutter, did that four times and boxed them into 800 ct boxes by player."

Either way, I think these things were likely printed and distributed in numerous ways.