My last open sub hit assembly today. I have a few cards out piggybacked with a buddy, but it will be nice to be free of the last credit card charge hanging out there.
Whew. The one I was worried might be lost finally went to grading today.
Received 3/5/21
moved from research to grading finally today.
Now I can sleep well again
I wish they'd put the stage each orders are at in the 'orders' summary table. Instead, I have to check each submission individually. Mine were mostly entered in 4/23-4/29 and still in grading. I have one entered 5/21 that's still in R&D.
03/08/21 04/19/21 N/A See Details 27 Value Modern (1972- 2017)
After 11 days in assembly, QA1 today
QA 2 today - was 3 business days in QA1
Rare Sunday poppage - sadly another disappointing one. Most are about about a grade below what I had expected, or they wouldn't have been sent in, even at the old prices.... and all of the Fleer Basketball were straight from packs.
TOTAL ITEMS
27
DATE RECEIVED
4/19/2021
DATE SHIPPED
N/A
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type
1 1 59870988 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 261 Rickey Henderson Card
2 1 59870989 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 540 Mike Schmidt Card
3 1 59870990 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 347 Harold Baines Card
4 1 59870991 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 110 Carl Yastrzemski Card
5 1 59870992 NEAR MINT 7 1981 Topps 302 Dodgers Future Star Perconte/Scioscia/Valenzuela Card
6 1 59870993 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 479 Expos Future Stars Tim Raines/Roberto Ramos/Bobby Pate Card
7 1 59870994 MINT 9 1981 Topps 515 Robin Yount Card
8 1 59870995 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
9 1 59870996 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
10 1 59870997 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
11 1 59870998 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1980 Topps 210 Steve Carlton Card
12 1 59870999 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 580 Nolan Ryan Card
13 1 59871000 MINT 9 1988 Topps Tiffany 361 Greg Maddux Card
14 1 59871001 MINT 9 1988 Topps Tiffany 300 Don Mattingly Card
15 1 59871002 GEM MINT 10 1988 Topps Tiffany 60 Rickey Henderson Card
16 1 59871003 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Star Wars 118 R2-D2 and C-3PO Card
17 1 59871004 GEM MINT 10 1980 Star Wars Empire Strikes Back 131 Checklist: 1-66 Card
18 1 59871005 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 3 Michael Jordan Card
19 1 59871006 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
20 1 59871007 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
21 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
22 1 59871009 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 10 Larry Bird Card
23 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 10 Larry Bird Card
24 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 8 Dale Ellis Card
25 1 59871012 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer 77 Magic Johnson Card
26 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer 8 Larry Bird Card
27 1 59871014 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer 8 Larry Bird Card
Ouch Mike. I'm noticing similar results. I think we may be seeing the days of 10s in pre-90s stuff dwindling significantly. It seems as though they are grading the vintage with the same modern standards. It's apples and oranges.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
is there any place to see the monthly completion percentages or is that a thing of the past? I find the CTD not helpful but the percentages were a good gauge where things really are
Ouch Mike. I'm noticing similar results. I think we may be seeing the days of 10s in pre-90s stuff dwindling significantly. It seems as though they are grading the vintage with the same modern standards. It's apples and oranges.
I agree 100% on the pre-90s stuff. I'm getting a bunch sent back that are miscut that are straight out of the pack. I'm also hardly seeing anything pre-80 come back better than an 8 that are also right out of the box.
It's going to have an effect all the way down the line on the pricing too. If it's impossible to get 10s in those years (and almost impossible for 9s) then things are about to get very expensive at those grades. I think an 8 is about the best you can hope for these days on most submittals from those years with a very rare one going higher.
03/08/21 04/19/21 N/A See Details 27 Value Modern (1972- 2017)
After 11 days in assembly, QA1 today
QA 2 today - was 3 business days in QA1
Rare Sunday poppage - sadly another disappointing one. Most are about about a grade below what I had expected, or they wouldn't have been sent in, even at the old prices.... and all of the Fleer Basketball were straight from packs.
TOTAL ITEMS
27
DATE RECEIVED
4/19/2021
DATE SHIPPED
N/A
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type
1 1 59870988 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 261 Rickey Henderson Card
2 1 59870989 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 540 Mike Schmidt Card
3 1 59870990 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 347 Harold Baines Card
4 1 59870991 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 110 Carl Yastrzemski Card
5 1 59870992 NEAR MINT 7 1981 Topps 302 Dodgers Future Star Perconte/Scioscia/Valenzuela Card
6 1 59870993 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 479 Expos Future Stars Tim Raines/Roberto Ramos/Bobby Pate Card
7 1 59870994 MINT 9 1981 Topps 515 Robin Yount Card
8 1 59870995 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
9 1 59870996 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
10 1 59870997 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
11 1 59870998 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1980 Topps 210 Steve Carlton Card
12 1 59870999 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 580 Nolan Ryan Card
13 1 59871000 MINT 9 1988 Topps Tiffany 361 Greg Maddux Card
14 1 59871001 MINT 9 1988 Topps Tiffany 300 Don Mattingly Card
15 1 59871002 GEM MINT 10 1988 Topps Tiffany 60 Rickey Henderson Card
16 1 59871003 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Star Wars 118 R2-D2 and C-3PO Card
17 1 59871004 GEM MINT 10 1980 Star Wars Empire Strikes Back 131 Checklist: 1-66 Card
18 1 59871005 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 3 Michael Jordan Card
19 1 59871006 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
20 1 59871007 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
21 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
22 1 59871009 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 10 Larry Bird Card
23 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 10 Larry Bird Card
24 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 8 Dale Ellis Card
25 1 59871012 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer 77 Magic Johnson Card
26 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer 8 Larry Bird Card
27 1 59871014 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer 8 Larry Bird Card
Not good and I've followed your subbing for years. You know high grade cards and this must hurt.
@Mickey71 said:
........I've followed your subbing for years. You know high grade cards..........
If PSA says that after years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years of consistently submitting high grade cards that Mike suddenly doesn't know how to pre-grade anymore, then Mike doesn't know how to pre-grade anymore and that's that.
Haha - thanks for the votes of confidence! As i keep getting older, and keep needing new glasses, I can see that it might be me - but the straight-out-of-the-pack Fleer cards were all well centered - no way they are 7's and 8's, let alone too small. Ah well - I don't have high hopes for my remaining subs as a result of the last couple of beat downs (and the big difference in grades with SGC on that Clemente a couple of months ago). But it's something to do. For what it's worth, the Jordan stickers from the same box break got 9's last month....
Ouch Mike. I'm noticing similar results. I think we may be seeing the days of 10s in pre-90s stuff dwindling significantly. It seems as though they are grading the vintage with the same modern standards. It's apples and oranges.
I agree 100% on the pre-90s stuff. I'm getting a bunch sent back that are miscut that are straight out of the pack. I'm also hardly seeing anything pre-80 come back better than an 8 that are also right out of the box.
It's going to have an effect all the way down the line on the pricing too. If it's impossible to get 10s in those years (and almost impossible for 9s) then things are about to get very expensive at those grades. I think an 8 is about the best you can hope for these days on most submittals from those years with a very rare one going higher.
It's had a lingering affect on me, and I just don't have the zest or excitement that I had. It might be time for a hiatus.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I agree 100% on the pre-90s stuff. I'm getting a bunch sent back that are miscut that are straight out of the pack. I'm also hardly seeing anything pre-80 come back better than an 8 that are also right out of the box.
It's going to have an effect all the way down the line on the pricing too. If it's impossible to get 10s in those years (and almost impossible for 9s) then things are about to get very expensive at those grades. I think an 8 is about the best you can hope for these days on most submittals from those years with a very rare one going higher.
It's had a lingering affect on me, and I just don't have the zest or excitement that I had. It might be time for a hiatus.
I'm quickly coming to the same boat. Their grading on the vintage stuff is pushing me away from even attempting that anymore, and to just focus on buying what's already graded. What's the point in sending in cards from pre-90s that are graded like a 2022 Heritage?
PSA spent a year trying to convince me they don't want my business by shutting down and now they're doubling down with this grading.
I agree 100% on the pre-90s stuff. I'm getting a bunch sent back that are miscut that are straight out of the pack. I'm also hardly seeing anything pre-80 come back better than an 8 that are also right out of the box.
It's going to have an effect all the way down the line on the pricing too. If it's impossible to get 10s in those years (and almost impossible for 9s) then things are about to get very expensive at those grades. I think an 8 is about the best you can hope for these days on most submittals from those years with a very rare one going higher.
It's had a lingering affect on me, and I just don't have the zest or excitement that I had. It might be time for a hiatus.
I'm quickly coming to the same boat. Their grading on the vintage stuff is pushing me away from even attempting that anymore, and to just focus on buying what's already graded. What's the point in sending in cards from pre-90s that are graded like a 2022 Heritage?
PSA has always (or close enough to always) done that. A 6 doesn't mean "this card is pretty good for its age". Have you taken a look at Chris's ( @jordangretzkyfan ) thread on pulling 10s straight from the pack of '80s unopened? I trust it will reset your expectations.
Understand that I'm not suggesting that they haven't tightened their standards on that material; I have no way of knowing, but I'm saying that darned few of those cards ever came out of the pack Gem Mint in the first place.
I agree 100% on the pre-90s stuff. I'm getting a bunch sent back that are miscut that are straight out of the pack. I'm also hardly seeing anything pre-80 come back better than an 8 that are also right out of the box.
It's going to have an effect all the way down the line on the pricing too. If it's impossible to get 10s in those years (and almost impossible for 9s) then things are about to get very expensive at those grades. I think an 8 is about the best you can hope for these days on most submittals from those years with a very rare one going higher.
It's had a lingering affect on me, and I just don't have the zest or excitement that I had. It might be time for a hiatus.
I'm quickly coming to the same boat. Their grading on the vintage stuff is pushing me away from even attempting that anymore, and to just focus on buying what's already graded. What's the point in sending in cards from pre-90s that are graded like a 2022 Heritage?
PSA has always (or close enough to always) done that. A 6 doesn't mean "this card is pretty good for its age". Have you taken a look at Chris's ( @jordangretzkyfan ) thread on pulling 10s straight from the pack of '80s unopened? I trust it will reset your expectations.
Understand that I'm not suggesting that they haven't tightened their standards on that material; I have no way of knowing, but I'm saying that darned few of those cards ever came out of the pack Gem Mint in the first place.
I agree with the cards are not graded as "pretty good for the age". Personally what I think has happened is that the graded scale was created and based on cards produced pre-2000. With the influx of technology and printing techniques, new cards are mostly only at the top. There is no difference. But since they are primarily grading these new cards, the whole scale that was based on what they were grading when it was created has been shifted lower.
Read the standards and look at the cards coming back and many cards do not fit into the published standards, they are being held to a higher standard due to graders seeing 99% cards produced in the last few years.
I don't think anybody kids themselves that all 80's or older cards pulled from packs are 10's. But I would guess that the consensus here would be that grading consistency across the PSA Brand has varied with time. Things have tightened up before, over the years. I think many of us are not happy that our cards sat around for a year plus, and during that year things changed again.
If everybody needs to lower their thoughts a full grade on vintage, however, and grading prices stay stratospheric, the days of anybody grading commons or semi-stars, or base cards of non megastars, will be over soon (if not already). That's too bad - particularly for set collectors, registry folks, and people who just like the nuances of the "toughies" from each year.
And while tougher standards are fine, in and of themselves, when PSA gives me a 3 on a nice 1973 Clemente, and I crack it out and send it to SGC and get a 7.5, and I had pre-graded it as an 8 in my head, something is actually off (at PSA). I might grumble a little, but once things are two or more grades off, something seems actually wrong. Just my .02.
@Bosox1976 said:
I don't think anybody kids themselves that all 80's or older cards pulled from packs are 10's. But I would guess that the consensus here would be that grading consistency across the PSA Brand has varied with time. Things have tightened up before, over the years. I think many of us are not happy that our cards sat around for a year plus, and during that year things changed again.
If everybody needs to lower their thoughts a full grade on vintage, however, and grading prices stay stratospheric, the days of anybody grading commons or semi-stars, or base cards of non megastars, will be over soon (if not already). That's too bad - particularly for set collectors, registry folks, and people who just like the nuances of the "toughies" from each year.
And while tougher standards are fine, in and of themselves, when PSA gives me a 3 on a nice 1973 Clemente, and I crack it out and send it to SGC and get a 7.5, and I had pre-graded it as an 8 in my head, something is actually off (at PSA). I might grumble a little, but once things are two or more grades off, something seems actually wrong. Just my .02.
Said perfectly Mike. I'll add an example on my end on how grading has gotten ridiculous on vintage....I once was collecting a graded 1971 Topps Baseball set. I was always buying these cards over the years raw. I would find really sharp ones and submit them starting about 15 years ago. I was getting 8's and the occasional 9. One time I sent in 38 and got 36 of the 38 at 8 or higher. These were cherry picked from 1 dealer and they were beautiful. Then about 7 years ago I started to not hardly get any 8's on subs from 1971 and forget about a 9. I notice most people can not grade 71s anymore. Did we all lose our eyes or did standards change? I know the answer.
I agree 100% on the pre-90s stuff. I'm getting a bunch sent back that are miscut that are straight out of the pack. I'm also hardly seeing anything pre-80 come back better than an 8 that are also right out of the box.
It's going to have an effect all the way down the line on the pricing too. If it's impossible to get 10s in those years (and almost impossible for 9s) then things are about to get very expensive at those grades. I think an 8 is about the best you can hope for these days on most submittals from those years with a very rare one going higher.
It's had a lingering affect on me, and I just don't have the zest or excitement that I had. It might be time for a hiatus.
I'm quickly coming to the same boat. Their grading on the vintage stuff is pushing me away from even attempting that anymore, and to just focus on buying what's already graded. What's the point in sending in cards from pre-90s that are graded like a 2022 Heritage?
PSA has always (or close enough to always) done that. A 6 doesn't mean "this card is pretty good for its age". Have you taken a look at Chris's ( @jordangretzkyfan ) thread on pulling 10s straight from the pack of '80s unopened? I trust it will reset your expectations.
Understand that I'm not suggesting that they haven't tightened their standards on that material; I have no way of knowing, but I'm saying that darned few of those cards ever came out of the pack Gem Mint in the first place.
Yeah, I get that, and I NEVER expect a 10 in any vintage I send. At this point I don't even expect a 9. If I get an 8 then it feels like a victory.
My point is that there have been more even grades in the past on vintage, because 9s and 10s are out there. Now that it SEEMS to be tightening on those the 7s and 8s will be more available and the 9s and 10s are going to be VERY expensive.
I also won't be sending any commons in for grading anymore. At least until enough time passes to see if there will still be interest in those at lower grades.
I have 2 in economy that are approaching 2 full months. 1 in assembly and 1 in Research and ID (this one is PSA/DNA). I was really hoping to have those back in hand before Vacation and they are in the USPS hands longer than they need to be
Looking for a Glen Rice Inkredible and Alex Rodriguez cards
I have seen a lot of comments that talk about a change in grading standards and there is a disappointment but maybe an acceptance. But I feel that it cant be accepted. It is absolutely necessary that grading standards are consistent from day 1 to now to 20 years from now. If not, what is anybody paying for? When you pay an amount to have your card graded? When you pay for a card that is in a grading company's holder? Mint means Mint. Always. Gem Mint means Gem Mint. Always. NM-MT means NM-MT. Always. And so on. There is no reinterpretation. There is no stricter periods of time. It is defined and laid out what the grade means to the company. If Mint is one thing in 2004 and another thing in 2022, there is no Mint. It means nothing. So I just hope there is not a tolerance for this idea that grading can become tougher. Grades for the same card would get worse over time. They cant. They have to stay the same. Exactly the same. That is the whole point of doing this. The cards have to be graded by the same standards always. Or they become worthless in the holders. Or just the same as they would be raw. If grading becomes stricter, there needs to be a page that defines the new stricter standards. Cards need to be identifiable as being graded under the new stricter standards. So yo
Over a decade on these boards and I cannot recall at any time that there was not a discussion on these boards about how grading was now getting stricter. There have always been discussions like this, and as long as professional grading exists there will always be discussions like this.
@Bosox1976 said:
I don't think anybody kids themselves that all 80's or older cards pulled from packs are 10's. But I would guess that the consensus here would be that grading consistency across the PSA Brand has varied with time. Things have tightened up before, over the years. I think many of us are not happy that our cards sat around for a year plus, and during that year things changed again.
If everybody needs to lower their thoughts a full grade on vintage, however, and grading prices stay stratospheric, the days of anybody grading commons or semi-stars, or base cards of non megastars, will be over soon (if not already). That's too bad - particularly for set collectors, registry folks, and people who just like the nuances of the "toughies" from each year.
And while tougher standards are fine, in and of themselves, when PSA gives me a 3 on a nice 1973 Clemente, and I crack it out and send it to SGC and get a 7.5, and I had pre-graded it as an 8 in my head, something is actually off (at PSA). I might grumble a little, but once things are two or more grades off, something seems actually wrong. Just my .02.
Seeing firsthand how 2000 and up cards are being treated the exact same but vintage is now impossible to guess what grades will be assigned > @mrburns443 said:
Anyone have any bulk modern orders entered last April showing movement. My bulk modern from 4/15/21 has been stuck in assembly for over 5 weeks.
Same here, Apr 22 Value Modern been in assembly for about the same time as yours
@athleticsfan said:
Over a decade on these boards and I cannot recall at any time that there was not a discussion on these boards about how grading was now getting stricter. There have always been discussions like this, and as long as professional grading exists there will always be discussions like this.
Good point but did it ever corelate with PSA having to hire thousands of news graders?
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I'll add my two cents on the grading standards. I agree with much of what has been said above. To use a Mike Tomlin-ism (Steelers head coach), the standard is the standard. It should not change over time. Aside from some allowance for 1st generation holders where PSA was still evolving the grading industry in its infancy, a NM-MT card graded 20 years ago should be a NM-MT card today. Professional grading was invented to bring consistency to the industry in terms of both authenticity and condition. Of course there will be variations in how a given card is graded due to the subjective nature of grading (e.g., eye appeal). However, wholesale shifts in grading standards should not occur. We've talked about the grader of death over the years and periods of where grading seemed to tighten up a bit. However, it now seems vintage cards have been more harshly graded for a period of more than a year now. Getting an 8 on a card you thought should get a 9 isn't reason to protest. However, when you submit 500 cards that you used to always get 60% 8's and 15% 9's pretty consistently but now are getting 60% 7's and 15% 8's, that's when the system falls apart.
I have a few thousand cards that have been sitting at PSA for over a year. The only submission I've received back since the shutdown has been a 5 card regular submission. The results for that order was pretty much in line with my expectations. I think one 7 could have been an 8 but see my comment above about variability in grades for an individual card. I have a pretty consistent track record for grade distribution for 500 card blocks I submit. It will be interesting to compare these pending orders with past results. My thinking is if you get a veteran grader who's handled a lot of vintage over the years, your results will probably be typical of what we expect. We've seen occasional posts where results are as expected. I think the real problem comes when you get a newer grader who has mostly been grading ultra modern. If they get your vintage submission, the results are likely to be brutal. Hopefully PSA will carve out a niche of graders that focus solely on vintage and not mix and match submissions across the entire grading room. They have enough graders to do this now. A grader staring at refractors all day and then getting a submission of 1933 Goudey's would be nuts. The contrast in attributes is a bridge to far.
Grading has always been subjective, but for vintage, PSA grading standards have become ridiculous. Case in point:
Here's my first Rocket rookie, a PSA 7 that I loved owning, up against my recently graded PSA 4. The 4 has no creases or wrinkles, and I've been over it with a 20x loupe many times. The saddest part is, even though it checks every box for being an unaltered example, half the time this type of card would probably come back altered or minsizereq these days.
@Frozencaribou said:
Grading has always been subjective, but for vintage, PSA grading standards have become ridiculous. Case in point:
Here's my first Rocket rookie, a PSA 7 that I loved owning, up against my recently graded PSA 4. The 4 has no creases or wrinkles, and I've been over it with a 20x loupe many times. The saddest part is, even though it checks every box for being an unaltered example, half the time this type of card would probably come back altered or minsizereq these days.
I would like to see PSA just once tell us why a certain grade was given, the only thing I ever hear is that they stand behind the grader's assessment. After spending tens of thousands of $$$ in grading fees over the years I have literally requested explanations on a grade one time, but still got a cookie cutter response back from CS. I understand they are busy but I'm not talking about a 2019 Prizm that got a 9, but rather a potential $15K vintage card that looked like a 7 but got a 4.
We can only hope that they make it right and allow free reviews on cases like this, but that is beyond doubtful...
@Frozencaribou said:
Grading has always been subjective, but for vintage, PSA grading standards have become ridiculous. Case in point:
Here's my first Rocket rookie, a PSA 7 that I loved owning, up against my recently graded PSA 4. The 4 has no creases or wrinkles, and I've been over it with a 20x loupe many times. The saddest part is, even though it checks every box for being an unaltered example, half the time this type of card would probably come back altered or minsizereq these days.
I would like to see PSA just once tell us why a certain grade was given, the only thing I ever hear is that they stand behind the grader's assessment. After spending tens of thousands of $$$ in grading fees over the years I have literally requested explanations on a grade one time, but still got a cookie cutter response back from CS. I understand they are busy but I'm not talking about a 2019 Prizm that got a 9, but rather a potential $15K vintage card that looked like a 7 but got a 4.
We can only hope that they make it right and allow free reviews on cases like this, but that is beyond doubtful...
Wow. Did you pay to have the grade reviewed? I don't know how it actually works because I've never tried sending in a graded card to have the grade reviewed. I think if a customer does that, they should at least provide a detailed explanation why a card was graded the way it was if they are standing by the original grade. It only seems fair.
@Frozencaribou said:
Grading has always been subjective, but for vintage, PSA grading standards have become ridiculous. Case in point:
Here's my first Rocket rookie, a PSA 7 that I loved owning, up against my recently graded PSA 4. The 4 has no creases or wrinkles, and I've been over it with a 20x loupe many times. The saddest part is, even though it checks every box for being an unaltered example, half the time this type of card would probably come back altered or minsizereq these days.
I would like to see PSA just once tell us why a certain grade was given, the only thing I ever hear is that they stand behind the grader's assessment. After spending tens of thousands of $$$ in grading fees over the years I have literally requested explanations on a grade one time, but still got a cookie cutter response back from CS. I understand they are busy but I'm not talking about a 2019 Prizm that got a 9, but rather a potential $15K vintage card that looked like a 7 but got a 4.
We can only hope that they make it right and allow free reviews on cases like this, but that is beyond doubtful...
Wow. Did you pay to have the grade reviewed? I don't know how it actually works because I've never tried sending in a graded card to have the grade reviewed. I think if a customer does that, they should at least provide a detailed explanation why a card was graded the way it was if they are standing by the original grade. It only seems fair.
No, it was a direct request to QA asking whether or not it was a mechanical error as to why it received said grade. I was fishing for a reason as to why it was given such a poor grade given that there were no signs of any kind that would warrant a 4. They weren't forthcoming with any information, saying the grader stood behind their decision, and if I wanted to I could send it in for review, at $350...
With CGC comic grading you get graders notes outlining reasons for their decision, at the $350 level we should expect/demand the same transparency from PSA, it JUST, MAKES, SENSE...
No, it was a direct request to QA asking whether or not it was a mechanical error as to why it received said grade. I was fishing for a reason as to why it was given such a poor grade given that there were no signs of any kind that would warrant a 4. They weren't forthcoming with any information, saying the grader stood behind their decision, and if I wanted to I could send it in for review, at $350...
With CGC comic grading you get graders notes outlining reasons for their decision, at the $350 level we should expect/demand the same transparency from PSA, it JUST, MAKES, SENSE...
$350 for review?!
They certainly owe some transparency for that. Quite frankly, if they got the grade wrong in the first place, I don't believe the customer should have to pay for them to fix their mistake.
To be fair to PSA. I can personally see why they gave the card a 4. Yes the centering is " good," but look at the corner bottom right. It's rounded off from the corner. That can drop a gem mint 10 to a 6 in a flash. Another thing.... The edges are okay for the year but not mint. The discoloration is a problem.surface is actually the second big problem besides the rounded corner. I'm not trying to hurt you at all.... I'm just calling it like I see it. If nobody from PSA wants to give you a reason..... I WILL because I Care about you!!! I know that feeling from years ago. I sincerely hope this helps you buddy!!! But I understand your frustrations! The surface is a big factor. Stained. Now be aware also.... " I did sleep in a holiday express Last night!"
If you sent in both cards at the same time, the 4 would be graded higher. I think the 7 grader new the card , year and difficulty of obtaining the card in that condition. The 4 , I think the grader was looking for any negitive possible to mark the card down. (Possibly to knock the value down). What gets me is someone is supposed to re-check the card and grade.I the the 7 could have been a 6 , and the 4 , a 7. But I have bad eye-site.
@Historicalwood71 said:
To be fair to PSA. I can personally see why they gave the card a 4. Yes the centering is " good," but look at the corner bottom right. It's rounded off from the corner. That can drop a gem mint 10 to a 6 in a flash. Another thing.... The edges are okay for the year but not mint. The discoloration is a problem.surface is actually the second big problem besides the rounded corner. I'm not trying to hurt you at all.... I'm just calling it like I see it. If nobody from PSA wants to give you a reason..... I WILL because I Care about you!!! I know that feeling from years ago. I sincerely hope this helps you buddy!!! But I understand your frustrations! The surface is a big factor. Stained. Now be aware also.... " I did sleep in a holiday express Last night!"
@Historicalwood71 said:
To be fair to PSA. I can personally see why they gave the card a 4. Yes the centering is " good," but look at the corner bottom right. It's rounded off from the corner. That can drop a gem mint 10 to a 6 in a flash. Another thing.... The edges are okay for the year but not mint. The discoloration is a problem.surface is actually the second big problem besides the rounded corner. I'm not trying to hurt you at all.... I'm just calling it like I see it. If nobody from PSA wants to give you a reason..... I WILL because I Care about you!!! I know that feeling from years ago. I sincerely hope this helps you buddy!!! But I understand your frustrations! The surface is a big factor. Stained. Now be aware also.... " I did sleep in a holiday express Last night!"
This some kind of joke?
No. If I was joking..... I'd be a grader for Beckett
@Frozencaribou said:
The 4 has no creases or wrinkles, and I've been over it with a 20x loupe many times. The saddest part is, even though it checks every box for being an unaltered example, half the time this type of card would probably come back altered or minsizereq these days.
Do you have any reason to believe this last sentence, or are you just frustrated with the grade? That is, have you heard of anyone who recently sent in a stack of unaltered key rookies before, say, 1980, all sports, and gotten grades for only half of them?
After all the outrage from PWCC allegedly submitting altered cards, having them get straight grades, and then selling them on eBay, it is totally understandable to me that PSA would err on the side of caution when it comes to cards they aren't 100% sure are unaltered. Like maybe they would grade them if they were 70% sure they were unaltered before but would need to be 95% sure now. As I say, I don't blame them.
@Historicalwood71 said:
To be fair to PSA. I can personally see why they gave the card a 4. Yes the centering is " good," but look at the corner bottom right. It's rounded off from the corner. That can drop a gem mint 10 to a 6 in a flash. Another thing.... The edges are okay for the year but not mint. The discoloration is a problem.surface is actually the second big problem besides the rounded corner. I'm not trying to hurt you at all.... I'm just calling it like I see it. If nobody from PSA wants to give you a reason..... I WILL because I Care about you!!! I know that feeling from years ago. I sincerely hope this helps you buddy!!! But I understand your frustrations! The surface is a big factor. Stained. Now be aware also.... " I did sleep in a holiday express Last night!"
@beachbumcollecting said:
is there any place to see the monthly completion percentages or is that a thing of the past? I find the CTD not helpful but the percentages were a good gauge where things really are
@beachbumcollecting I also noticed the change in the CTD percentage chart. I am guessing that as PSA closes in on the remainder of the backlog (for the received dates of April and May 2021 before the shut down) there is less of a need to project it. I have just seen 2 of my April orders move to Assembly this week. My guess is that anyone in the remaining backlog will see similar movement soon. In any case…yay for the movement!!!
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. Live long, and prosper.
Daltex- I take that from my own experience with hockey cards and also others I know well. At least for vintage hockey, its been that way for the last couple of years. Perhaps its the new technology they are using at PSA, but whatever the reason it ends up rejecting a lot of cards as N6 or altered. Here's a recent order...
Historicalwood71- Appreciate the perspective. I shared those cards as a comparison point for grading standards. They have changed a lot.
I've also gotten some 77s sent back recently as altered. I know they weren't because I saw them pulled directly from packs. All the same N6: Min Size problem. I'm going to keep sending them though.
I had a recent allocation that was entered 4/21/22 move to assembly yesterday after maybe 15-20 days in grading. Hope it moves quick through those last stages but more importantly I hope the grades are good. I just wish I could know the grades with the asterisk that they might change in QA.
@Historicalwood71 said:
To be fair to PSA. I can personally see why they gave the card a 4. Yes the centering is " good," but look at the corner bottom right. It's rounded off from the corner. That can drop a gem mint 10 to a 6 in a flash. Another thing.... The edges are okay for the year but not mint. The discoloration is a problem.surface is actually the second big problem besides the rounded corner. I'm not trying to hurt you at all.... I'm just calling it like I see it. If nobody from PSA wants to give you a reason..... I WILL because I Care about you!!! I know that feeling from years ago. I sincerely hope this helps you buddy!!! But I understand your frustrations! The surface is a big factor. Stained. Now be aware also.... " I did sleep in a holiday express Last night!"
@Frozencaribou said:
Daltex- I take that from my own experience with hockey cards and also others I know well. At least for vintage hockey, its been that way for the last couple of years. Perhaps its the new technology they are using at PSA, but whatever the reason it ends up rejecting a lot of cards as N6 or altered. Here's a recent order...
Historicalwood71- Appreciate the perspective. I shared those cards as a comparison point for grading standards. They have changed a lot.
No problem 👍 I try to help people with questions. I know that feeling.
@UlyssesExtravaganza said:
I had a recent allocation that was entered 4/21/22 move to assembly yesterday after maybe 15-20 days in grading. Hope it moves quick through those last stages but more importantly I hope the grades are good. I just wish I could know the grades with the asterisk that they might change in QA.
Don't want to ruin your holiday, but mine Submission from March, 2021, has been in Assembly since May 4th...
My recent Economy Submissions were usually back to my house within 30-35 days
Comments
Several 4/19/21 orders still in GRADING phase. Looks like it’s getting closer if the 4/15’s are moving through.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
4/11 still in grading. Even my $50 orders submitted mid April '22 moved into QA 1/2 ahead. Ugh.
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
My last open sub hit assembly today. I have a few cards out piggybacked with a buddy, but it will be nice to be free of the last credit card charge hanging out there.
Whew. The one I was worried might be lost finally went to grading today.
Received 3/5/21
moved from research to grading finally today.
Now I can sleep well again
I wish they'd put the stage each orders are at in the 'orders' summary table. Instead, I have to check each submission individually. Mine were mostly entered in 4/23-4/29 and still in grading. I have one entered 5/21 that's still in R&D.
Rare Sunday poppage - sadly another disappointing one. Most are about about a grade below what I had expected, or they wouldn't have been sent in, even at the old prices.... and all of the Fleer Basketball were straight from packs.
TOTAL ITEMS
27
DATE RECEIVED
4/19/2021
DATE SHIPPED
N/A
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type
1 1 59870988 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 261 Rickey Henderson Card
2 1 59870989 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 540 Mike Schmidt Card
3 1 59870990 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 347 Harold Baines Card
4 1 59870991 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 110 Carl Yastrzemski Card
5 1 59870992 NEAR MINT 7 1981 Topps 302 Dodgers Future Star Perconte/Scioscia/Valenzuela Card
6 1 59870993 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 Topps 479 Expos Future Stars Tim Raines/Roberto Ramos/Bobby Pate Card
7 1 59870994 MINT 9 1981 Topps 515 Robin Yount Card
8 1 59870995 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
9 1 59870996 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
10 1 59870997 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1980 Topps 482 Rickey Henderson Card
11 1 59870998 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1980 Topps 210 Steve Carlton Card
12 1 59870999 NEAR MINT 7 1980 Topps 580 Nolan Ryan Card
13 1 59871000 MINT 9 1988 Topps Tiffany 361 Greg Maddux Card
14 1 59871001 MINT 9 1988 Topps Tiffany 300 Don Mattingly Card
15 1 59871002 GEM MINT 10 1988 Topps Tiffany 60 Rickey Henderson Card
16 1 59871003 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Star Wars 118 R2-D2 and C-3PO Card
17 1 59871004 GEM MINT 10 1980 Star Wars Empire Strikes Back 131 Checklist: 1-66 Card
18 1 59871005 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 3 Michael Jordan Card
19 1 59871006 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
20 1 59871007 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
21 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 5 Magic Johnson Card
22 1 59871009 NEAR MINT 7 1989 Fleer Sticker 10 Larry Bird Card
23 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 10 Larry Bird Card
24 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer Sticker 8 Dale Ellis Card
25 1 59871012 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer 77 Magic Johnson Card
26 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1989 Fleer 8 Larry Bird Card
27 1 59871014 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 Fleer 8 Larry Bird Card
Bosox1976
Ouch Mike. I'm noticing similar results. I think we may be seeing the days of 10s in pre-90s stuff dwindling significantly. It seems as though they are grading the vintage with the same modern standards. It's apples and oranges.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
is there any place to see the monthly completion percentages or is that a thing of the past? I find the CTD not helpful but the percentages were a good gauge where things really are
I agree 100% on the pre-90s stuff. I'm getting a bunch sent back that are miscut that are straight out of the pack. I'm also hardly seeing anything pre-80 come back better than an 8 that are also right out of the box.
It's going to have an effect all the way down the line on the pricing too. If it's impossible to get 10s in those years (and almost impossible for 9s) then things are about to get very expensive at those grades. I think an 8 is about the best you can hope for these days on most submittals from those years with a very rare one going higher.
Not good and I've followed your subbing for years. You know high grade cards and this must hurt.
Just passed day 500 since my order arrived at PSA. Still “grading”. Crazy that this is where we are.
If PSA says that after years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years of consistently submitting high grade cards that Mike suddenly doesn't know how to pre-grade anymore, then Mike doesn't know how to pre-grade anymore and that's that.
Sorry, that's terrible to hear. I'm only at 418.
Haha - thanks for the votes of confidence! As i keep getting older, and keep needing new glasses, I can see that it might be me - but the straight-out-of-the-pack Fleer cards were all well centered - no way they are 7's and 8's, let alone too small. Ah well - I don't have high hopes for my remaining subs as a result of the last couple of beat downs (and the big difference in grades with SGC on that Clemente a couple of months ago). But it's something to do. For what it's worth, the Jordan stickers from the same box break got 9's last month....
Bosox1976
It's had a lingering affect on me, and I just don't have the zest or excitement that I had. It might be time for a hiatus.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I'm quickly coming to the same boat. Their grading on the vintage stuff is pushing me away from even attempting that anymore, and to just focus on buying what's already graded. What's the point in sending in cards from pre-90s that are graded like a 2022 Heritage?
PSA spent a year trying to convince me they don't want my business by shutting down and now they're doubling down with this grading.
Soon I'm going to have to listen to them.
2 card Economy piggy back results
1996 Flair Showcase Class of 96 Kobe Bryant PSA 9
2020 Panini Select Field Level Silver Prizm Justin Herbert PSA 10
Ecstatic
PSA has always (or close enough to always) done that. A 6 doesn't mean "this card is pretty good for its age". Have you taken a look at Chris's ( @jordangretzkyfan ) thread on pulling 10s straight from the pack of '80s unopened? I trust it will reset your expectations.
Understand that I'm not suggesting that they haven't tightened their standards on that material; I have no way of knowing, but I'm saying that darned few of those cards ever came out of the pack Gem Mint in the first place.
I agree with the cards are not graded as "pretty good for the age". Personally what I think has happened is that the graded scale was created and based on cards produced pre-2000. With the influx of technology and printing techniques, new cards are mostly only at the top. There is no difference. But since they are primarily grading these new cards, the whole scale that was based on what they were grading when it was created has been shifted lower.
Read the standards and look at the cards coming back and many cards do not fit into the published standards, they are being held to a higher standard due to graders seeing 99% cards produced in the last few years.
I don't think anybody kids themselves that all 80's or older cards pulled from packs are 10's. But I would guess that the consensus here would be that grading consistency across the PSA Brand has varied with time. Things have tightened up before, over the years. I think many of us are not happy that our cards sat around for a year plus, and during that year things changed again.
If everybody needs to lower their thoughts a full grade on vintage, however, and grading prices stay stratospheric, the days of anybody grading commons or semi-stars, or base cards of non megastars, will be over soon (if not already). That's too bad - particularly for set collectors, registry folks, and people who just like the nuances of the "toughies" from each year.
And while tougher standards are fine, in and of themselves, when PSA gives me a 3 on a nice 1973 Clemente, and I crack it out and send it to SGC and get a 7.5, and I had pre-graded it as an 8 in my head, something is actually off (at PSA). I might grumble a little, but once things are two or more grades off, something seems actually wrong. Just my .02.
Bosox1976
Said perfectly Mike. I'll add an example on my end on how grading has gotten ridiculous on vintage....I once was collecting a graded 1971 Topps Baseball set. I was always buying these cards over the years raw. I would find really sharp ones and submit them starting about 15 years ago. I was getting 8's and the occasional 9. One time I sent in 38 and got 36 of the 38 at 8 or higher. These were cherry picked from 1 dealer and they were beautiful. Then about 7 years ago I started to not hardly get any 8's on subs from 1971 and forget about a 9. I notice most people can not grade 71s anymore. Did we all lose our eyes or did standards change? I know the answer.
Yeah, I get that, and I NEVER expect a 10 in any vintage I send. At this point I don't even expect a 9. If I get an 8 then it feels like a victory.
My point is that there have been more even grades in the past on vintage, because 9s and 10s are out there. Now that it SEEMS to be tightening on those the 7s and 8s will be more available and the 9s and 10s are going to be VERY expensive.
I also won't be sending any commons in for grading anymore. At least until enough time passes to see if there will still be interest in those at lower grades.
How was your turnaround time? I currently have three in Economy, but it hasn't been that long.
Shipped: 05/04/22
Delivered: 05/06/22
Logged: 05/10/22
Research & ID: 05/11/22
Grading: 05/17/22
I have 2 in economy that are approaching 2 full months. 1 in assembly and 1 in Research and ID (this one is PSA/DNA). I was really hoping to have those back in hand before Vacation and they are in the USPS hands longer than they need to be
I have seen a lot of comments that talk about a change in grading standards and there is a disappointment but maybe an acceptance. But I feel that it cant be accepted. It is absolutely necessary that grading standards are consistent from day 1 to now to 20 years from now. If not, what is anybody paying for? When you pay an amount to have your card graded? When you pay for a card that is in a grading company's holder? Mint means Mint. Always. Gem Mint means Gem Mint. Always. NM-MT means NM-MT. Always. And so on. There is no reinterpretation. There is no stricter periods of time. It is defined and laid out what the grade means to the company. If Mint is one thing in 2004 and another thing in 2022, there is no Mint. It means nothing. So I just hope there is not a tolerance for this idea that grading can become tougher. Grades for the same card would get worse over time. They cant. They have to stay the same. Exactly the same. That is the whole point of doing this. The cards have to be graded by the same standards always. Or they become worthless in the holders. Or just the same as they would be raw. If grading becomes stricter, there needs to be a page that defines the new stricter standards. Cards need to be identifiable as being graded under the new stricter standards. So yo
u cant treat an 8 from 20 years ago as the same as an 8 now. (Sorry, accidentally hit post mid sentence)
Over a decade on these boards and I cannot recall at any time that there was not a discussion on these boards about how grading was now getting stricter. There have always been discussions like this, and as long as professional grading exists there will always be discussions like this.
Anyone have any bulk modern orders entered last April showing movement. My bulk modern from 4/15/21 has been stuck in assembly for over 5 weeks.
Seeing firsthand how 2000 and up cards are being treated the exact same but vintage is now impossible to guess what grades will be assigned > @mrburns443 said:
Same here, Apr 22 Value Modern been in assembly for about the same time as yours
Good point but did it ever corelate with PSA having to hire thousands of news graders?
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
These were super quick. I piggy backed so I do not have the stats but less than 2 months
I'll add my two cents on the grading standards. I agree with much of what has been said above. To use a Mike Tomlin-ism (Steelers head coach), the standard is the standard. It should not change over time. Aside from some allowance for 1st generation holders where PSA was still evolving the grading industry in its infancy, a NM-MT card graded 20 years ago should be a NM-MT card today. Professional grading was invented to bring consistency to the industry in terms of both authenticity and condition. Of course there will be variations in how a given card is graded due to the subjective nature of grading (e.g., eye appeal). However, wholesale shifts in grading standards should not occur. We've talked about the grader of death over the years and periods of where grading seemed to tighten up a bit. However, it now seems vintage cards have been more harshly graded for a period of more than a year now. Getting an 8 on a card you thought should get a 9 isn't reason to protest. However, when you submit 500 cards that you used to always get 60% 8's and 15% 9's pretty consistently but now are getting 60% 7's and 15% 8's, that's when the system falls apart.
I have a few thousand cards that have been sitting at PSA for over a year. The only submission I've received back since the shutdown has been a 5 card regular submission. The results for that order was pretty much in line with my expectations. I think one 7 could have been an 8 but see my comment above about variability in grades for an individual card. I have a pretty consistent track record for grade distribution for 500 card blocks I submit. It will be interesting to compare these pending orders with past results. My thinking is if you get a veteran grader who's handled a lot of vintage over the years, your results will probably be typical of what we expect. We've seen occasional posts where results are as expected. I think the real problem comes when you get a newer grader who has mostly been grading ultra modern. If they get your vintage submission, the results are likely to be brutal. Hopefully PSA will carve out a niche of graders that focus solely on vintage and not mix and match submissions across the entire grading room. They have enough graders to do this now. A grader staring at refractors all day and then getting a submission of 1933 Goudey's would be nuts. The contrast in attributes is a bridge to far.
Grading has always been subjective, but for vintage, PSA grading standards have become ridiculous. Case in point:
Here's my first Rocket rookie, a PSA 7 that I loved owning, up against my recently graded PSA 4. The 4 has no creases or wrinkles, and I've been over it with a 20x loupe many times. The saddest part is, even though it checks every box for being an unaltered example, half the time this type of card would probably come back altered or minsizereq these days.
I would like to see PSA just once tell us why a certain grade was given, the only thing I ever hear is that they stand behind the grader's assessment. After spending tens of thousands of $$$ in grading fees over the years I have literally requested explanations on a grade one time, but still got a cookie cutter response back from CS. I understand they are busy but I'm not talking about a 2019 Prizm that got a 9, but rather a potential $15K vintage card that looked like a 7 but got a 4.
We can only hope that they make it right and allow free reviews on cases like this, but that is beyond doubtful...
Wow. Did you pay to have the grade reviewed? I don't know how it actually works because I've never tried sending in a graded card to have the grade reviewed. I think if a customer does that, they should at least provide a detailed explanation why a card was graded the way it was if they are standing by the original grade. It only seems fair.
No, it was a direct request to QA asking whether or not it was a mechanical error as to why it received said grade. I was fishing for a reason as to why it was given such a poor grade given that there were no signs of any kind that would warrant a 4. They weren't forthcoming with any information, saying the grader stood behind their decision, and if I wanted to I could send it in for review, at $350...
With CGC comic grading you get graders notes outlining reasons for their decision, at the $350 level we should expect/demand the same transparency from PSA, it JUST, MAKES, SENSE...
$350 for review?!
They certainly owe some transparency for that. Quite frankly, if they got the grade wrong in the first place, I don't believe the customer should have to pay for them to fix their mistake.
To be fair to PSA. I can personally see why they gave the card a 4. Yes the centering is " good," but look at the corner bottom right. It's rounded off from the corner. That can drop a gem mint 10 to a 6 in a flash. Another thing.... The edges are okay for the year but not mint. The discoloration is a problem.surface is actually the second big problem besides the rounded corner. I'm not trying to hurt you at all.... I'm just calling it like I see it. If nobody from PSA wants to give you a reason..... I WILL because I Care about you!!! I know that feeling from years ago. I sincerely hope this helps you buddy!!! But I understand your frustrations! The surface is a big factor. Stained. Now be aware also.... " I did sleep in a holiday express Last night!"
If you sent in both cards at the same time, the 4 would be graded higher. I think the 7 grader new the card , year and difficulty of obtaining the card in that condition. The 4 , I think the grader was looking for any negitive possible to mark the card down. (Possibly to knock the value down). What gets me is someone is supposed to re-check the card and grade.I the the 7 could have been a 6 , and the 4 , a 7. But I have bad eye-site.
This some kind of joke?
No. If I was joking..... I'd be a grader for Beckett
Do you have any reason to believe this last sentence, or are you just frustrated with the grade? That is, have you heard of anyone who recently sent in a stack of unaltered key rookies before, say, 1980, all sports, and gotten grades for only half of them?
After all the outrage from PWCC allegedly submitting altered cards, having them get straight grades, and then selling them on eBay, it is totally understandable to me that PSA would err on the side of caution when it comes to cards they aren't 100% sure are unaltered. Like maybe they would grade them if they were 70% sure they were unaltered before but would need to be 95% sure now. As I say, I don't blame them.
Made me laugh, that's for sure
@beachbumcollecting I also noticed the change in the CTD percentage chart. I am guessing that as PSA closes in on the remainder of the backlog (for the received dates of April and May 2021 before the shut down) there is less of a need to project it. I have just seen 2 of my April orders move to Assembly this week. My guess is that anyone in the remaining backlog will see similar movement soon. In any case…yay for the movement!!!
Live long, and prosper.
Daltex- I take that from my own experience with hockey cards and also others I know well. At least for vintage hockey, its been that way for the last couple of years. Perhaps its the new technology they are using at PSA, but whatever the reason it ends up rejecting a lot of cards as N6 or altered. Here's a recent order...
Historicalwood71- Appreciate the perspective. I shared those cards as a comparison point for grading standards. They have changed a lot.
I've also gotten some 77s sent back recently as altered. I know they weren't because I saw them pulled directly from packs. All the same N6: Min Size problem. I'm going to keep sending them though.
I had a recent allocation that was entered 4/21/22 move to assembly yesterday after maybe 15-20 days in grading. Hope it moves quick through those last stages but more importantly I hope the grades are good. I just wish I could know the grades with the asterisk that they might change in QA.
You know I luv you 💜
No problem 👍 I try to help people with questions. I know that feeling.
Don't want to ruin your holiday, but mine Submission from March, 2021, has been in Assembly since May 4th...
My recent Economy Submissions were usually back to my house within 30-35 days