15 months total from date entered to poppage, Not good, Pretty shoddy sub overall.
My takeaways: 1) new grading scheme is on average one grade lower than my previous experience, 2) grading is highly inconsistent, 3) more valuable cards get more heavily scrutinized (market control?), 4) getting a 10 on 70s cards is pretty much impossible (at least as an individual submitter).
I could have missed a few things (i.e., PSA 5s) but all of these cards (aside from the 75 Erving) were in close to the same shape. I knew the Erving was a 2-3 but it is super nice aside from a chip on one side. I just wanted it encapsulated. The basketball cards are just flat out poorly graded. The 77s were all the same quality and all of the 7s are seriously under graded. The Fiddys were a nice ending though. I will never use PSA again. Too many issues for me.
Line # Grade Description
1 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
2 MINT 9 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
3 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
4 MINT 9 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
5 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
6 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
7 MINT 9 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
8 EXCELLENT 5 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
9 MINT 9 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
10 MINT 9 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
11 MINT 9 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
12 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
13 MINT 9 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
14 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 60 David Thompson
15 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 60 David Thompson
16 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 60 David Thompson
17 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 110 Billy Knight
18 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 110 Billy Knight
19 MINT 9 1975 Topps 228 Billy Knight
20 GOOD 2 1975 Topps 300 Julius Erving All-Star
21 EXCELLENT 5 1977 Topps 40 Elvin Hayes
22 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 40 Elvin Hayes
23 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 40 Elvin Hayes
24 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 120 Bill Walton
25 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
26 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
27 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
28 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
29 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
30 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
31 EXCELLENT+ 5.5 1977 Topps 1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
32 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
33 EXCELLENT 5 1977 Topps 1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
34 MINT 9 1977 Topps 50 George McGinnis
35 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
36 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
37 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
38 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
39 EXCELLENT 5 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
40 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
41 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
42 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
43 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
44 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
45 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
46 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
47 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
48 EXCELLENT 5 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
49 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 140 Vida Blue
50 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 140 Vida Blue
51 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 475 Joe Rudi
52 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 169 Graig Nettles
53 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1977 Topps 100 Joe Morgan
54 MINT 9 1977 Topps 120 Rod Carew
55 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 420 Rusty Staub
56 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 210 Fred Lynn
57 MINT 9 1977 Topps 265 Mark Fidrych
58 MINT 9 1977 Topps 265 Mark Fidrych
59 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 265 Mark Fidrych
@bombdropper said:
15 months total from date entered to poppage, Not good, Pretty shoddy sub overall.
My takeaways: 1) new grading scheme is on average one grade lower than my previous experience, 2) grading is highly inconsistent, 3) more valuable cards get more heavily scrutinized (market control?), 4) getting a 10 on 70s cards is pretty much impossible (at least as an individual submitter).
I could have missed a few things (i.e., PSA 5s) but all of these cards (aside from the 75 Erving) were in close to the same shape. I knew the Erving was a 2-3 but it is super nice aside from a chip on one side. I just wanted it encapsulated. The basketball cards are just flat out poorly graded. The 77s were all the same quality and all of the 7s are seriously under graded. The Fiddys were a nice ending though. I will never use PSA again. Too many issues for me.
From what I've been getting back anything in the 70s that's an 8 is about the top grade you'll be getting. I've submitted quite a few over the past few months, and I think I've gotten 1 or 2 9s back. The rest are mostly 6-8. I just got 20 back yesterday (mostly 78 FB), and a little more than half were 8s. That's a win in 2022.
I'm with you on stopping the grading. The vintage stuff is just being graded too tough, and it's not making financial sense to even bother. If I'm only getting 6-8s on everything there's no way that works as a financial. It's better just to buy graded cards, because you'll lose your shirt trying to grade raw at those levels. PSA is eliminating their own business, because I know several that have stopped.
@bombdropper said:
15 months total from date entered to poppage, Not good, Pretty shoddy sub overall.
My takeaways: 1) new grading scheme is on average one grade lower than my previous experience, 2) grading is highly inconsistent, 3) more valuable cards get more heavily scrutinized (market control?), 4) getting a 10 on 70s cards is pretty much impossible (at least as an individual submitter).
I could have missed a few things (i.e., PSA 5s) but all of these cards (aside from the 75 Erving) were in close to the same shape. I knew the Erving was a 2-3 but it is super nice aside from a chip on one side. I just wanted it encapsulated. The basketball cards are just flat out poorly graded. The 77s were all the same quality and all of the 7s are seriously under graded. The Fiddys were a nice ending though. I will never use PSA again. Too many issues for me.
From what I've been getting back anything in the 70s that's an 8 is about the top grade you'll be getting. I've submitted quite a few over the past few months, and I think I've gotten 1 or 2 9s back. The rest are mostly 6-8. I just got 20 back yesterday (mostly 78 FB), and a little more than half were 8s. That's a win in 2022.
I'm with you on stopping the grading. The vintage stuff is just being graded too tough, and it's not making financial sense to even bother. If I'm only getting 6-8s on everything there's no way that works as a financial. It's better just to buy graded cards, because you'll lose your shirt trying to grade raw at those levels. PSA is eliminating their own business, because I know several that have stopped.
Good points. It's been mentioned on here several times but they seem to be using Ultra-Modern standards for older cards. Heck with that approach, you could buy an unopened case of cards and still get hammered. I've been submitting for 20 years and have close to 100 subs overall. I am not a new submitter. But, it hurts the most to have to wait so long for crappy results.
@dmg111 said:
Small economy order just popped this morning
TOTAL ITEMS
2
DATE RECEIVED
5/31/2022
DATE SHIPPED
N/A
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type
1 1 66063476 GEM MINT 10 1992 Spider-Man the McFarlane Era P-4 Impact Prism Card
2 1 66063477 MINT 9 2003 Upper Deck Lego Sports 2 Ray Allen Gold Card
Bombdropper said: "My takeaways: 1) new grading scheme is on average one grade lower than my previous experience, 2) grading is highly inconsistent, 3) more valuable cards get more heavily scrutinized (market control?), 4) getting a 10 on 70s cards is pretty much impossible (at least as an individual submitter)."
Pretty much sums up what I wrote on another site. Almost all the 10's I get are on lower valued cards, and players like Brady that look exactly like the PSA 10's from the same set get 9s. It becomes more apparent as one goes thru their submission. And yes, the older the card, the more unwilling they seem to give a 10. Each card should be graded on its own merit...year, set, population, etc should not matter.
@Kepper19 said:
Bombdropper said: "My takeaways: 1) new grading scheme is on average one grade lower than my previous experience, 2) grading is highly inconsistent, 3) more valuable cards get more heavily scrutinized (market control?), 4) getting a 10 on 70s cards is pretty much impossible (at least as an individual submitter)."
Pretty much sums up what I wrote on another site. Almost all the 10's I get are on lower valued cards, and players like Brady that look exactly like the PSA 10's from the same set get 9s. It becomes more apparent as one goes thru their submission. And yes, the older the card, the more unwilling they seem to give a 10. Each card should be graded on its own merit...year, set, population, etc should not matter.
That's what I'm seeing too.
Someone smarter than me has to explain how this is good for the collector, hobby or PSA. All this seems counterintuitive to business development, but yet it still seems to be happening.
I'm with you on stopping the grading. **The ****vintage stuff is just being graded too tough****, and it's not making financial sense to even bother. If I'm only getting 6-8s on everything there's no way that works as a financial. It's better just to buy graded cards, because you'll lose your shirt trying to grade raw at those levels. PSA is eliminating their own business, because I know several that have stopped.
My last sub (of 13 which were part of the "backlog") is enroute. I have a really Gretzky rookie that I'll probably send to BVG. I heard they do a nice job on vintage cards, and I REALLY LIKE the idea of subgrades, especially for such a valuable card.
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
Well I had a modern bulk order from last year pop this evening. This is the first bulk order I've received grades for since the shut down. I have to say I was fearing the worst but pleasantly surprised. These were mostly '72-'77 Topps baseball with some 80s thrown in. Here's the grade distribution:
PSA Grade=Quantity of Cards in That Grade
N6=2
3=1
4=2
5=5
6=7
7=34
8=190
9=148
10=2
Some comments and observations:
It's interesting that I didn't get a single half grade....and I'm perfectly fine with that
No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to weed out the occasional mid grade card. This order had a lower bottom but overall fewer sub PSA 7 cards in it. I use magnifying readers now in addition to my loupe and try different angles and lighting to catch light surface wrinkles
The PSA 10s were the Ripken FF error and a '72 Luis Aparicio
At an almost 38% PSA 9 rate, that's the best I've ever achieved. Though historically I was able to lump 70s cards and 60s cards into the same submission. This would result in lower percentages of 9s due to the higher difficulty of finding mint cards from the 60s compared to the 70s
Some PSA 9 highlights include: Marino RC, '84 Fleer UD Puckett, '75 Staubach, 1975 Stargell (x2), 1986 Fleer Jeff Malone, 1972 Catfish Hunter, 1979 Thurman Munson, 1976 Ted Simmons (tough upgrade for my set), '82 Traded Ripken, '86 Fleer Johnny Moore, '72 Munson, '74 Staubach, '72 Kingman RC, '76 Yaz (x2), '89 UD Griffey (x3), '75 O.J., '74 Parker RC, '75 Brock (x2), '74 Brock (x2), '75 Yaz, '72 Cleon Jones Green Letters.
These will go into my sets. The extras will go to eBay over time.
@gemint said:
Well I had a modern bulk order from last year pop this evening. This is the first bulk order I've received grades for since the shut down. I have to say I was fearing the worst but pleasantly surprised. These were mostly '72-'77 Topps baseball with some 80s thrown in. Here's the grade distribution:
PSA Grade=Quantity of Cards in That Grade
N6=2
3=1
4=2
5=5
6=7
7=34
8=190
9=148
10=2
Some comments and observations:
It's interesting that I didn't get a single half grade....and I'm perfectly fine with that
No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to weed out the occasional mid grade card. This order had a lower bottom but overall fewer sub PSA 7 cards in it. I use magnifying readers now in addition to my loupe and try different angles and lighting to catch light surface wrinkles
The PSA 10s were the Ripken FF error and a '72 Luis Aparicio
At an almost 38% PSA 9 rate, that's the best I've ever achieved. Though historically I was able to lump 70s cards and 60s cards into the same submission. This would result in lower percentages of 9s due to the higher difficulty of finding mint cards from the 60s compared to the 70s
Some PSA 9 highlights include: Marino RC, '84 Fleer UD Puckett, '75 Staubach, 1975 Stargell (x2), 1986 Fleer Jeff Malone, 1972 Catfish Hunter, 1979 Thurman Munson, 1976 Ted Simmons (tough upgrade for my set), '82 Traded Ripken, '86 Fleer Johnny Moore, '72 Munson, '74 Staubach, '72 Kingman RC, '76 Yaz (x2), '89 UD Griffey (x3), '75 O.J., '74 Parker RC, '75 Brock (x2), '74 Brock (x2), '75 Yaz, '72 Cleon Jones Green Letters.
These will go into my sets. The extras will go to eBay over time.
Not bad at all but only 2 10’s?!?just seems like it’s getting harder and harder to get 10’s. in my prior submissions, I typically get 1 10 per submission, and only one.
Psa grading has become harsh and are losing customers. I hope they know what they are doing
Some PSA 9 highlights include: Marino RC, '84 Fleer UD Puckett, '75 Staubach, 1975 Stargell (x2), 1986 Fleer Jeff Malone, 1972 Catfish Hunter, 1979 Thurman Munson, 1976 Ted Simmons (tough upgrade for my set), '82 Traded Ripken, '86 Fleer Johnny Moore, '72 Munson, '74 Staubach, '72 Kingman RC, '76 Yaz (x2), '89 UD Griffey (x3), '75 O.J., '74 Parker RC, '75 Brock (x2), '74 Brock (x2), '75 Yaz, '72 Cleon Jones Green Letters.
These will go into my sets. The extras will go to eBay over time.
Those are great 9s! I'd take any of those in a second. Those Munsons and Parker are sweet pulls.
These days if you're getting 9s on mid-70s then you're winning. That's a beautiful list. I'm hitting a ton of 8s on my 70s, but not a lot of 9s.
I've been doing the fine combing of my recent submittals too, and still get the occasional 5 or 6. I've been trying to eliminate those but they keep happening.
Norcal - 1 to 2 tens in a 500 card sub is typical for me. There have been subs in the past where I got a dozen or so tens but those are definitely the exception and not the rule. This sub did have more 80s cards than I typically submit, so maybe it should have had more tens. However, in today's environment, I'll take these grades any day of the week.
After all the horror stories I have read, I was pleasantly surprised. However, that is a subjective observation. Objectively, I don't think I have ever received an order that met my expectations more accurately than this one. After opening the package I looked carefully at each item under a lighted loupe and was simply amazed at the accuracy of these grades, with only an exception or two.
Submission #10530163
Arrived 02/18/21
Date Received 04/10/21
Date Shipped 07/19/22
1999 PADRES MADD STEVE GARVEY EX 5
1986 SPORTS CARDS PADRES POSTCARD PLAYER COMPOSITE VG-EX 4
1981 GARVEY GAFLINE STEVE GARVEY NM 7
1974 VENEZUELAN TIGRES TEAM PHOTO GD 2
1986 DONRUSS ALL-STARS 3 STEVE GARVEY EX-MT 6
1986 DONRUSS ALL-STARS 50 DON MATTINGLY MINT 9
1972 TOPPS 132 JOE MORGAN MINT 9
1973 TOPPS 255 REGGIE JACKSON NM 7
1975 TOPPS 308 R.B.I. LEADERS JEFF BURROUGHS/JOHNNY BENCH MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 95 BROOKS ROBINSON NM 7
1976 TOPPS 95 BROOKS ROBINSON NM-MT 8
1976 TOPPS 95 BROOKS ROBINSON NM-MT 8
1976 TOPPS 95 BROOKS ROBINSON NM-MT 8
1976 TOPPS 150 STEVE GARVEY MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 201 NL ERA LEADERS JONES/MESSERSMITH/SEAVER NM 7
I got my sub back today. Looking at some of the lowest graded cards, it definitely looks like some damage happened. They had obvious bends which formed light creases across the surface. They were easy to see in the holder and I would never miss something that obvious let alone a dozen or so of them. Fortunately none of those were high value cards. There also seemed to be some 1975s that were graded low which look like they were soaked. Again, obvious damage I would have detected. Maybe I dodged a bullet but overall I'm quite happy and relieved with this sub.
@gemint said:
I got my sub back today. Looking at some of the lowest graded cards, it definitely looks like some damage happened. They had obvious bends which formed light creases across the surface. They were easy to see in the holder and I would never miss something that obvious let alone a dozen or so of them. Fortunately none of those were high value cards. There also seemed to be some 1975s that were graded low which look like they were soaked. Again, obvious damage I would have detected. Maybe I dodged a bullet but overall I'm quite happy and relieved with this sub.
I don't know how on earth they ding cards up so bad and so often...I can't even imagine how it would be happening so much but they're flat out beating them up on a regular basis. I am pretty sure it's physically impossible to have a curled up corner when it's been sandwiched I'm a card saver for over a year, or so I thought anyway. You tell me, maybe physics are deceiving but I would have to see to believe frankly...
Have a modern $30 per card order that was entered 6/13 that just moved from Grading to Assembly. That surprised me. Would have rather had the $50 per card order sent just a little earlier and insured at about 3x higher value go there but I cant complain and am glad to see the movement.
Got back my last submission-- vintage cards. One Basketball rookie was miscut (not sure what constitutes that- certainly more noticeable on the back, I guess).
Here are some conclusions, based on all my submissions mainly early to mid 1980s, some 70s, only 1 1990 card----totaled around 300 cards- I got TWO (2) PSA 10s: (They came in same sub).
1) I put too much insurance (estimated value). The only thing that I guess would be ok with it, is that they sat in storage somewhere almost a year and a half--so they could have been lost. Probably let PSA give you an upcharge notice, which is a good extra, especially if you are selling.
2) Star cards of one year versus more common (semi-star) cards of the same year are graded more harshly (pop control?) I remember watching a youtube video on this topic, which also compared where specific cards are located on auncut sheet.
3) Monotonous grading patterns exist in higher quantity submissions. (If the PSA 5s or 6's start, many will be like that).
Case in point, a number of my 1971 Topps cards were graded 3s. Some had dinged corners, the rookie card (without soft corners and had nice black borders) received the same grade.
4) Many cards are 1-2 grades lower than expected- just got to anticipate it. This also made many cards not worth grading--cost (slab, fees, insurance, postage) outweighed value.
5) Subgrades (ala Beckett) would eliminate some of the questioning of grades--would answer why card fell short of a specific grade(s).
6) One person verifying and grading cello packs (even if he is generally right), is not a good thing. Should be competition in the marketplace. In baseball more HP umpire mistakes are made calling strikes outside the strikezone (should have been a ball), than incorrectly calling balls for pitches inside the zone. Same with packs. Outside of the great Pokemon error, I would tend to think more packs are called invalid which are actually legit, than deciding a pack is valid, when it isn't.
7) I imagine some of the higher tech/automating grading cards will be more valued down the road taking out the human element. (Similar to the roboumps working their way up to the majors in baseball).
8) Will there be 2 sets of price guides (PSA pre-pandemic and current)? Will we see higher premiums paid for a HOF PSA 8 just graded, then a PSA of the same player/card year graded several years ago?
9) If I were just starting a collection now (rather than paring down and selling most of it) I would buy cards already graded. I would only submit raw, if I got the raw card for a good price and saw it in person, not online.
That's it. I have really enjoyed reading posts on this forum, and having all of you share pictures of your treasures!
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
I've gotten three subs back since I last posted, and they all had some of the most accurate grades I've received in a long time. Decent 10 ratio, fair grades on vintage, no cards rejected for mysterious reasons, and auto grades have been 100% spot on. Maybe luck or maybe the new graders are hitting their stride, but I'm content. Turnaround times have been as stated or faster.
@scmavl said:
I've gotten three subs back since I last posted, and they all had some of the most accurate grades I've received in a long time. Decent 10 ratio, fair grades on vintage, no cards rejected for mysterious reasons, and auto grades have been 100% spot on. Maybe luck or maybe the new graders are hitting their stride, but I'm content. Turnaround times have been as stated or faster.
Fair grades on vintage, 100% spot on auto grades, decent 10 ratio and turnaround times as stated or faster.........you should go out right now and purchase a lottery ticket. I'm serious. I don't think 1 person has stated these compliments in 2 years about the grading and service. "Congrats"
@scmavl said:
I've gotten three subs back since I last posted, and they all had some of the most accurate grades I've received in a long time. Decent 10 ratio, fair grades on vintage, no cards rejected for mysterious reasons, and auto grades have been 100% spot on. Maybe luck or maybe the new graders are hitting their stride, but I'm content. Turnaround times have been as stated or faster.
I hope you're right that new graders are hitting their strides, because I'm done subbing vintage until the prices come down/card. At $18 it's still a stretch when you only get 5-7s back with some 8s and an occasional 9. If they'd get back to $12 then I'd really send some in.
I won't send anymore at $30/card with vintage. I'll just let them stack and wait for special deals.
@StatsGuy said:
Got back my last submission-- vintage cards. One Basketball rookie was miscut (not sure what constitutes that- certainly more noticeable on the back, I guess).
Here are some conclusions, based on all my submissions mainly early to mid 1980s, some 70s, only 1 1990 card----totaled around 300 cards- I got TWO (2) PSA 10s: (They came in same sub).
1) I put too much insurance (estimated value). The only thing that I guess would be ok with it, is that they sat in storage somewhere almost a year and a half--so they could have been lost. Probably let PSA give you an upcharge notice, which is a good extra, especially if you are selling.
2) Star cards of one year versus more common (semi-star) cards of the same year are graded more harshly (pop control?) I remember watching a youtube video on this topic, which also compared where specific cards are located on auncut sheet.
3) Monotonous grading patterns exist in higher quantity submissions. (If the PSA 5s or 6's start, many will be like that).
Case in point, a number of my 1971 Topps cards were graded 3s. Some had dinged corners, the rookie card (without soft corners and had nice black borders) received the same grade.
4) Many cards are 1-2 grades lower than expected- just got to anticipate it. This also made many cards not worth grading--cost (slab, fees, insurance, postage) outweighed value.
5) Subgrades (ala Beckett) would eliminate some of the questioning of grades--would answer why card fell short of a specific grade(s).
6) One person verifying and grading cello packs (even if he is generally right), is not a good thing. Should be competition in the marketplace. In baseball more HP umpire mistakes are made calling strikes outside the strikezone (should have been a ball), than incorrectly calling balls for pitches inside the zone. Same with packs. Outside of the great Pokemon error, I would tend to think more packs are called invalid which are actually legit, than deciding a pack is valid, when it isn't.
7) I imagine some of the higher tech/automating grading cards will be more valued down the road taking out the human element. (Similar to the roboumps working their way up to the majors in baseball).
8) Will there be 2 sets of price guides (PSA pre-pandemic and current)? Will we see higher premiums paid for a HOF PSA 8 just graded, then a PSA of the same player/card year graded several years ago?
9) If I were just starting a collection now (rather than paring down and selling most of it) I would buy cards already graded. I would only submit raw, if I got the raw card for a good price and saw it in person, not online.
That's it. I have really enjoyed reading posts on this forum, and having all of you share pictures of your treasures!
I’ve always wished PSA would offer sub grades. It would definitely take a lot of the uncertainty out of why some cards that we think are 9’s come back as 7’s. Tell us WHY !!!
My 2 swinging sixties from mid April 21 hasn’t moved off 4 in like 8 months. It’s been so long I have to keep checking time to time to remember what I sent
@1959 said:
There used to be ONE "Grader of Death". Now there seems to be many, many, G.O.D. and every once in a while one that did an OK job.
Yeah, well prior to these last two orders (easily over 1000 in the last 20 years) I had never once had an entire order come back without a single 10 and you already know...2 straight. I musta forgot how to grade cards, makes perfect sense. This is why I send in 20ish ct orders so when an a***ole gets a hold of one I don't watch as much money burn in flames. Btw, we're talking mid 90's stuff here . i literally chuckled when I saw the results because it is laughable and obviously ridiculous
With all of the dings and dents and surprisingly low grades we've seen recently, I've started to scan all of my cards before I submit them. At least this way I have a baseline idea what they looked like before I shipped them. Does anyone else do this?
@jeffcbay said:
With all of the dings and dents and surprisingly low grades we've seen recently, I've started to scan all of my cards before I submit them. At least this way I have a baseline idea what they looked like before I shipped them. Does anyone else do this?
For my 3 orders I’ve submitted to PSA recently, I took 10 pictures of each card before sending. I think we can’t be too careful.
Also, in the event I don’t get my cards back before we make a full revolution around the Sun, I can at least see what my cards looked like.
Down to my last order in the great backlog. This one was entered on 4/20/21 and was the smallest of all of the ones I had sent. Hope that one clears soon. Then it's all new activity for me.
Looking for a Glen Rice Inkredible and Alex Rodriguez cards
I am down to just FIVE older personal orders and if you pay close attention you'll notice patterns and I'll leave it at that
,
,
,
OLDER STUFF
===========
job id / sub number / arrived date / entered date / shipped date / status / amount / type of sub
22298656 10637986 03/30/21 05/06/21 N/A See Details 11 Value Modern (1972- 2017)
22298638 10637943 03/30/21 05/06/21 N/A See Details 29 Value Vintage Deal (1971-)
22263108 10562584 03/11/21 04/22/21 N/A See Details 20 Value Modern (1972- 2017)
22263092 10557401 03/11/21 04/22/21 N/A See Details 21 Value Modern (1972- 2017) 22249816 10577070 03/05/21 04/19/21 N/A See Details 30 Value Vintage Deal (1971-)
,
,
,
The two bolded popped. The others are over 300 business days old
I am down to just FIVE older personal orders and if you pay close attention you'll notice patterns and I'll leave it at that
,
,
,
OLDER STUFF
===========
job id / sub number / arrived date / entered date / shipped date / status / amount / type of sub
22298656 10637986 03/30/21 05/06/21 N/A See Details 11 Value Modern (1972- 2017)
22298638 10637943 03/30/21 05/06/21 N/A See Details 29 Value Vintage Deal (1971-)
22263108 10562584 03/11/21 04/22/21 N/A See Details 20 Value Modern (1972- 2017)
22263092 10557401 03/11/21 04/22/21 N/A See Details 21 Value Modern (1972- 2017) 22249816 10577070 03/05/21 04/19/21 N/A See Details 30 Value Vintage Deal (1971-)
,
,
,
The two bolded popped. The others are over 300 business days old
You had a vintage pop and a modern pop. You have vintage and modern still in grading. What pattern am I supposed to notice????
Only 2 cards graded as expected.
3 came back as miscut or questionable authenticity.
The rest came back 2-3 grades lower than expected. I am glad I decided not to send anything in during their “special”. Long time to wait for a Disappointment. I have one value vintage submission left (1 card of mine, the rest are my brothers). I also have 2 cards left and they are cards that were damaged at their facility. It’ll be while(if ever) before I throw away my money with PSA. It seems like they have much to figure out.
As I said earlier, overall I was happy with my order. However, a handful of cards were damaged, including surface creases that are easy to see even in the holder. The Stargell below probably would have been a 9 like the other two I submitted except for the surface crease running through the 'A' in Stargell and up his left leg. The creased cards had the damage in the same general area at the bottom middle of the card. This leads me to believe that they were likely damaged during order prep when they were still in their cardsavers and stacked together.
I have some top notch cards still pending in other orders and am concerned about them surviving the process unscathed. I fear some may already be damaged if it is occurring during order prep as they are past that phase in the grading process.
Sorry for the glare. It's the only way I could get the crease to show in the photo.
I have some top notch cards still pending in other orders and am concerned about them surviving the process unscathed. I fear some may already be damaged if it is occurring during order prep as they are past that phase in the grading process.
This feeling of dread that cards will be damaged comes with every order I submit now. It's justified as well because I have yet to receive one order back in the last couple years that didn't include some form of damage. I too have seen that similar creasing done to one of my cards, albeit it was running horizontally but in the same area.
Just had these grades pop. For the most part, the grades are pretty awful. It's just frustrating because it can be so inconsistent. I sent in 4 Nestle Mattinglys a few months ago and got 3 10s and 1 9. Now 4 8s and 1 7. They really don't look that different. And you can tell after you see those first couple grades that popped that you got the grader of death and it's not going to be your day. I mean it could have been a lot worse. Somehow middle of the order the strictness seemed to lift and I got some awesome 10s. I love the Skyridge Holo Machamp in a 10. I love that Ohtani Chrome with the 83 Topps design in a 10. I can't get enough Kaprizovs in a 10. The 95 Finest Refractor Mattinglys as 8s feels silly. Centered and free of print lines with sharp corners. Last one I submitted that was similar was a 9 and felt like it could have been a 10. All in all, I didn't get killed. Just not good business. It just doesn't seem like a worthwhile venture to acquire these cards and get them graded by PSA if this strictness is going to continue. I probably lost money in terms of what my costs were and what I got back. Have 3 more orders in and that might be it for me. At $30 per card and $18 per card. I hope to see better than this but even if I do, I don't know if I want to make the investment to potentially get this inconsistency. Think I will stop the buying raw cards game and opening packs and just buy graded cards where I don't have to wait and hold my breath and hope they see it the same way I do and probably won't. This one was $50 a card so I guess if it was a lower fee it might not have seemed so bad. I was just really encouraged by another order I received back at $50 a card which were close to the best grades I have ever seen, even surpassing my expectations. It's clear this person and that person see the way cards should be graded in a very different way. I can't help but feel that makes this whole exercise kind of pointless and not something that really holds much value.
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type
1 1 65739961 NEAR MINT 7 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
2 1 65739962 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
3 1 65739963 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
4 1 65739964 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
5 1 65739965 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
6 1 65739966 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 182 Darryl Strawberry Card
7 1 65739967 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 182 Darryl Strawberry Card
8 1 65739968 NEAR MINT 7 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 596 Ryne Sandberg Card
9 1 65739969 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 300 Pete Rose Card
10 1 65739970 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 230 Rickey Henderson Card
11 1 65739971 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 490 Cal Ripken Jr. Card
12 1 65739972 MINT 9 1994 Stadium Club Bowman's Best 12 Brett Favre Black Refractor Card
13 1 65739973 MINT 9 1994 Stadium Club Bowman's Best 12 Brett Favre Black Refractor Card
14 1 65739974 MINT 9 2019 Topps Chrome 201 Vladimir Guerrero Jr. Card
15 1 65739975 GEM MINT 10 2019 Topps Chrome 201 Vladimir Guerrero Jr. Card
16 1 65739976 GEM MINT 10 2018 Topps Silver Pack 1983 Chrome Promo 145 Shohei Ohtani Card
17 1 65739977 GEM MINT 10 2018 Topps Chrome Update HMT1 Shohei Ohtani Card
18 1 65739978 MINT 9 2019 Upper Deck 201 Jack Hughes Card
19 1 65739979 GEM MINT 10 2020 Upper Deck 451 Kirill Kaprizov Card
20 1 65739980 GEM MINT 10 2019 Panini Prizm 249 Ja Morant Card
21 1 65739981 GEM MINT 10 2021 Metazoo Cryptid Nation 4 Bigfoot-Holo 1st Edition Card
22 1 65739982 GEM MINT 10 2021 Metazoo Cryptid Nation 4 Bigfoot-Holo 1st Edition Card
23 1 65739983 GEM MINT 10 2021 Metazoo Cryptid Nation 4 Bigfoot-Holo 1st Edition Card
24 1 65739984 GEM MINT 10 2003 Pokemon Skyridge H15 Machamp-Holo Card
25 1 65739985 MINT 9 2021 Pokemon Sword & Shield Evolving Skies 180 Full Art/Espeon V Card
26 1 65739986 MINT 9 2021 Pokemon Sword & Shield Evolving Skies 196 Full Art/Noivern V Card
27 1 65739987 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1995 Finest 126 Don Mattingly Refractor Card
28 1 65739988 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1995 Finest 126 Don Mattingly Refractor Card
Or maybe I just need to never submit another 1984 Topps Nestle card or anything 95 or earlier again. Definitely am feeling some modern love here so maybe there is a little room to continue in that direction. Funny to say I feel good about Bigfoot. I might have overpaid on the fee but love that Ja too. Thought it was lost in the mail after purchasing on eBay and then one day like half a year later there it was.
I may just keep my cards raw after the last 2 submissions. Can’t find myself just buying graded either. Not sure that I want to keep supporting such an inconsistent method of grading. Also bothers me that their is no way to give any input. I feel that complaints would just fall upon deaf ears. How do they actually know if every grader is using the same standards. I think most agree that only one grader sees each card.
Comments
15 months total from date entered to poppage, Not good, Pretty shoddy sub overall.
My takeaways: 1) new grading scheme is on average one grade lower than my previous experience, 2) grading is highly inconsistent, 3) more valuable cards get more heavily scrutinized (market control?), 4) getting a 10 on 70s cards is pretty much impossible (at least as an individual submitter).
I could have missed a few things (i.e., PSA 5s) but all of these cards (aside from the 75 Erving) were in close to the same shape. I knew the Erving was a 2-3 but it is super nice aside from a chip on one side. I just wanted it encapsulated. The basketball cards are just flat out poorly graded. The 77s were all the same quality and all of the 7s are seriously under graded. The Fiddys were a nice ending though. I will never use PSA again. Too many issues for me.
Line # Grade Description
1 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
2 MINT 9 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
3 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
4 MINT 9 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
5 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
6 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
7 MINT 9 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
8 EXCELLENT 5 1976 Topps 310 Jack Youngblood
9 MINT 9 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
10 MINT 9 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
11 MINT 9 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
12 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
13 MINT 9 1976 Topps 110 Tom Mack
14 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 60 David Thompson
15 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 60 David Thompson
16 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 60 David Thompson
17 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 110 Billy Knight
18 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 110 Billy Knight
19 MINT 9 1975 Topps 228 Billy Knight
20 GOOD 2 1975 Topps 300 Julius Erving All-Star
21 EXCELLENT 5 1977 Topps 40 Elvin Hayes
22 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 40 Elvin Hayes
23 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 40 Elvin Hayes
24 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 120 Bill Walton
25 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
26 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
27 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
28 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
29 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
30 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1977 Topps 20 Pete Maravich
31 EXCELLENT+ 5.5 1977 Topps 1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
32 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
33 EXCELLENT 5 1977 Topps 1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
34 MINT 9 1977 Topps 50 George McGinnis
35 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
36 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
37 NEAR MINT 7 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
38 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
39 EXCELLENT 5 1977 Topps 100 Julius Erving
40 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
41 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
42 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
43 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
44 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
45 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
46 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
47 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
48 EXCELLENT 5 1976 Topps 500 Reggie Jackson
49 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1976 Topps 140 Vida Blue
50 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 140 Vida Blue
51 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 475 Joe Rudi
52 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 Topps 169 Graig Nettles
53 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1977 Topps 100 Joe Morgan
54 MINT 9 1977 Topps 120 Rod Carew
55 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 420 Rusty Staub
56 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 210 Fred Lynn
57 MINT 9 1977 Topps 265 Mark Fidrych
58 MINT 9 1977 Topps 265 Mark Fidrych
59 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 Topps 265 Mark Fidrych
From what I've been getting back anything in the 70s that's an 8 is about the top grade you'll be getting. I've submitted quite a few over the past few months, and I think I've gotten 1 or 2 9s back. The rest are mostly 6-8. I just got 20 back yesterday (mostly 78 FB), and a little more than half were 8s. That's a win in 2022.
I'm with you on stopping the grading. The vintage stuff is just being graded too tough, and it's not making financial sense to even bother. If I'm only getting 6-8s on everything there's no way that works as a financial. It's better just to buy graded cards, because you'll lose your shirt trying to grade raw at those levels. PSA is eliminating their own business, because I know several that have stopped.
Good points. It's been mentioned on here several times but they seem to be using Ultra-Modern standards for older cards. Heck with that approach, you could buy an unopened case of cards and still get hammered. I've been submitting for 20 years and have close to 100 subs overall. I am not a new submitter. But, it hurts the most to have to wait so long for crappy results.
Nice on the Fidrych's though.
Bosox1976
nice Spidey prism card...congrats
Bombdropper said: "My takeaways: 1) new grading scheme is on average one grade lower than my previous experience, 2) grading is highly inconsistent, 3) more valuable cards get more heavily scrutinized (market control?), 4) getting a 10 on 70s cards is pretty much impossible (at least as an individual submitter)."
Pretty much sums up what I wrote on another site. Almost all the 10's I get are on lower valued cards, and players like Brady that look exactly like the PSA 10's from the same set get 9s. It becomes more apparent as one goes thru their submission. And yes, the older the card, the more unwilling they seem to give a 10. Each card should be graded on its own merit...year, set, population, etc should not matter.
That's what I'm seeing too.
Someone smarter than me has to explain how this is good for the collector, hobby or PSA. All this seems counterintuitive to business development, but yet it still seems to be happening.
My last sub (of 13 which were part of the "backlog") is enroute. I have a really Gretzky rookie that I'll probably send to BVG. I heard they do a nice job on vintage cards, and I REALLY LIKE the idea of subgrades, especially for such a valuable card.
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
Well I had a modern bulk order from last year pop this evening. This is the first bulk order I've received grades for since the shut down. I have to say I was fearing the worst but pleasantly surprised. These were mostly '72-'77 Topps baseball with some 80s thrown in. Here's the grade distribution:
PSA Grade=Quantity of Cards in That Grade
N6=2
3=1
4=2
5=5
6=7
7=34
8=190
9=148
10=2
Some comments and observations:
It's interesting that I didn't get a single half grade....and I'm perfectly fine with that
No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to weed out the occasional mid grade card. This order had a lower bottom but overall fewer sub PSA 7 cards in it. I use magnifying readers now in addition to my loupe and try different angles and lighting to catch light surface wrinkles
The PSA 10s were the Ripken FF error and a '72 Luis Aparicio
At an almost 38% PSA 9 rate, that's the best I've ever achieved. Though historically I was able to lump 70s cards and 60s cards into the same submission. This would result in lower percentages of 9s due to the higher difficulty of finding mint cards from the 60s compared to the 70s
Some PSA 9 highlights include: Marino RC, '84 Fleer UD Puckett, '75 Staubach, 1975 Stargell (x2), 1986 Fleer Jeff Malone, 1972 Catfish Hunter, 1979 Thurman Munson, 1976 Ted Simmons (tough upgrade for my set), '82 Traded Ripken, '86 Fleer Johnny Moore, '72 Munson, '74 Staubach, '72 Kingman RC, '76 Yaz (x2), '89 UD Griffey (x3), '75 O.J., '74 Parker RC, '75 Brock (x2), '74 Brock (x2), '75 Yaz, '72 Cleon Jones Green Letters.
These will go into my sets. The extras will go to eBay over time.
Not bad at all but only 2 10’s?!?just seems like it’s getting harder and harder to get 10’s. in my prior submissions, I typically get 1 10 per submission, and only one.
Psa grading has become harsh and are losing customers. I hope they know what they are doing
That's a great sub. Nice!
Bosox1976
Those are great 9s! I'd take any of those in a second. Those Munsons and Parker are sweet pulls.
These days if you're getting 9s on mid-70s then you're winning. That's a beautiful list. I'm hitting a ton of 8s on my 70s, but not a lot of 9s.
I've been doing the fine combing of my recent submittals too, and still get the occasional 5 or 6. I've been trying to eliminate those but they keep happening.
Norcal - 1 to 2 tens in a 500 card sub is typical for me. There have been subs in the past where I got a dozen or so tens but those are definitely the exception and not the rule. This sub did have more 80s cards than I typically submit, so maybe it should have had more tens. However, in today's environment, I'll take these grades any day of the week.
There used to be ONE "Grader of Death". Now there seems to be many, many, G.O.D. and every once in a while one that did an OK job.
After all the horror stories I have read, I was pleasantly surprised. However, that is a subjective observation. Objectively, I don't think I have ever received an order that met my expectations more accurately than this one. After opening the package I looked carefully at each item under a lighted loupe and was simply amazed at the accuracy of these grades, with only an exception or two.
Submission #10530163
Arrived 02/18/21
Date Received 04/10/21
Date Shipped 07/19/22
1999 PADRES MADD STEVE GARVEY EX 5
1986 SPORTS CARDS PADRES POSTCARD PLAYER COMPOSITE VG-EX 4
1981 GARVEY GAFLINE STEVE GARVEY NM 7
1974 VENEZUELAN TIGRES TEAM PHOTO GD 2
1986 DONRUSS ALL-STARS 3 STEVE GARVEY EX-MT 6
1986 DONRUSS ALL-STARS 50 DON MATTINGLY MINT 9
1972 TOPPS 132 JOE MORGAN MINT 9
1973 TOPPS 255 REGGIE JACKSON NM 7
1975 TOPPS 308 R.B.I. LEADERS JEFF BURROUGHS/JOHNNY BENCH MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 95 BROOKS ROBINSON NM 7
1976 TOPPS 95 BROOKS ROBINSON NM-MT 8
1976 TOPPS 95 BROOKS ROBINSON NM-MT 8
1976 TOPPS 95 BROOKS ROBINSON NM-MT 8
1976 TOPPS 150 STEVE GARVEY MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 201 NL ERA LEADERS JONES/MESSERSMITH/SEAVER NM 7
1976 TOPPS 203 NL STRIKEOUT LDRS. SEAVER/MONTEFUSCO/MESSERSMITH NM-MT 8
1976 TOPPS 365 CARLTON FISK MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 420 JOE MORGAN MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 420 JOE MORGAN MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 420 JOE MORGAN NM-MT 8
1976 TOPPS 420 JOE MORGAN MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 420 JOE MORGAN MINT 9
1976 TOPPS 420 JOE MORGAN NM-MT 8
1977 O-PEE-CHEE 143 ROD CAREW NM-MT 8
1977 O-PEE-CHEE 255 STEVE GARVEY NM 7
1979 O-PEE-CHEE 167 GEORGE BRETT NM-MT 8
1979 TOPPS 418 ALL-TIME ERA LEADER D.LEONARD/W.JOHNSON NM-MT 8
1979 TOPPS 700 REGGIE JACKSON NM-MT 8
1979 TOPPS 700 REGGIE JACKSON MINT 9
1981-93 LOUISVILLE SLUGGER PEDRO GUERRERO DODGERS EX-MT 6
1981-93 LOUISVILLE SLUGGER OREL HERSHISER DODGERS EX-MT 6
1981-93 LOUISVILLE SLUGGER FRED LYNN ANGELS EX-MT 6
1981-93 LOUISVILLE SLUGGER ERIC DAVIS REDS NM 7
1981-93 LOUISVILLE SLUGGER STEVE GARVEY DODGERS NM 7
1982 FLEER 176 CAL RIPKEN JR. MINT 9
1982 FLEER 405 GEORGE BRETT MINT 9
1982 ON DECK COOKIES DISCS STEVE GARVEY MINT 9
1983 TCMA ALBUQUERQUE DUKES 3 OREL HERSHISER MINT 9
1984 TOPPS 8 DON MATTINGLY MINT 9
1984 TOPPS 8 DON MATTINGLY MINT 9
1984 TOPPS 8 DON MATTINGLY MINT 9
1987 INSIDE BASEBALL SAN DIEGO PADRES STEVE GARVEY NM-MT 8
1987 INSIDE BASEBALL SAN DIEGO PADRES JERRY COLEMAN NM-MT 8
1987 INSIDE BASEBALL SAN DIEGO PADRES STEVE GARVEY/DOUGLAS ALLRED NM-MT 8
1987 MOTHER'S COOKIES DODGERS 4 FERNANDO VALENZUELA MINT 9
1987 MOTHER'S COOKIES DODGERS 6 OREL HERSHISER NM-MT 8
1988 VENEZUELAN LEAGUE STICKERS 14 DAVE CONCEPCION VG 3
I got my sub back today. Looking at some of the lowest graded cards, it definitely looks like some damage happened. They had obvious bends which formed light creases across the surface. They were easy to see in the holder and I would never miss something that obvious let alone a dozen or so of them. Fortunately none of those were high value cards. There also seemed to be some 1975s that were graded low which look like they were soaked. Again, obvious damage I would have detected. Maybe I dodged a bullet but overall I'm quite happy and relieved with this sub.
I don't know how on earth they ding cards up so bad and so often...I can't even imagine how it would be happening so much but they're flat out beating them up on a regular basis. I am pretty sure it's physically impossible to have a curled up corner when it's been sandwiched I'm a card saver for over a year, or so I thought anyway. You tell me, maybe physics are deceiving but I would have to see to believe frankly...
I got a few back like this…
Bosox1976
Have a modern $30 per card order that was entered 6/13 that just moved from Grading to Assembly. That surprised me. Would have rather had the $50 per card order sent just a little earlier and insured at about 3x higher value go there but I cant complain and am glad to see the movement.
That's ridiculous!
c;mon...seriously?
Wow I can't believe the corner on your Ryan. NO ONE would have submitted it like that. Did the grade reflect that ding?
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
Got back my last submission-- vintage cards. One Basketball rookie was miscut (not sure what constitutes that- certainly more noticeable on the back, I guess).
Here are some conclusions, based on all my submissions mainly early to mid 1980s, some 70s, only 1 1990 card----totaled around 300 cards- I got TWO (2) PSA 10s: (They came in same sub).
1) I put too much insurance (estimated value). The only thing that I guess would be ok with it, is that they sat in storage somewhere almost a year and a half--so they could have been lost. Probably let PSA give you an upcharge notice, which is a good extra, especially if you are selling.
2) Star cards of one year versus more common (semi-star) cards of the same year are graded more harshly (pop control?) I remember watching a youtube video on this topic, which also compared where specific cards are located on auncut sheet.
3) Monotonous grading patterns exist in higher quantity submissions. (If the PSA 5s or 6's start, many will be like that).
Case in point, a number of my 1971 Topps cards were graded 3s. Some had dinged corners, the rookie card (without soft corners and had nice black borders) received the same grade.
4) Many cards are 1-2 grades lower than expected- just got to anticipate it. This also made many cards not worth grading--cost (slab, fees, insurance, postage) outweighed value.
5) Subgrades (ala Beckett) would eliminate some of the questioning of grades--would answer why card fell short of a specific grade(s).
6) One person verifying and grading cello packs (even if he is generally right), is not a good thing. Should be competition in the marketplace. In baseball more HP umpire mistakes are made calling strikes outside the strikezone (should have been a ball), than incorrectly calling balls for pitches inside the zone. Same with packs. Outside of the great Pokemon error, I would tend to think more packs are called invalid which are actually legit, than deciding a pack is valid, when it isn't.
7) I imagine some of the higher tech/automating grading cards will be more valued down the road taking out the human element. (Similar to the roboumps working their way up to the majors in baseball).
8) Will there be 2 sets of price guides (PSA pre-pandemic and current)? Will we see higher premiums paid for a HOF PSA 8 just graded, then a PSA of the same player/card year graded several years ago?
9) If I were just starting a collection now (rather than paring down and selling most of it) I would buy cards already graded. I would only submit raw, if I got the raw card for a good price and saw it in person, not online.
That's it. I have really enjoyed reading posts on this forum, and having all of you share pictures of your treasures!
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
I've gotten three subs back since I last posted, and they all had some of the most accurate grades I've received in a long time. Decent 10 ratio, fair grades on vintage, no cards rejected for mysterious reasons, and auto grades have been 100% spot on. Maybe luck or maybe the new graders are hitting their stride, but I'm content. Turnaround times have been as stated or faster.
Fair grades on vintage, 100% spot on auto grades, decent 10 ratio and turnaround times as stated or faster.........you should go out right now and purchase a lottery ticket. I'm serious. I don't think 1 person has stated these compliments in 2 years about the grading and service. "Congrats"
I hope you're right that new graders are hitting their strides, because I'm done subbing vintage until the prices come down/card. At $18 it's still a stretch when you only get 5-7s back with some 8s and an occasional 9. If they'd get back to $12 then I'd really send some in.
I won't send anymore at $30/card with vintage. I'll just let them stack and wait for special deals.
Wow.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
I’ve always wished PSA would offer sub grades. It would definitely take a lot of the uncertainty out of why some cards that we think are 9’s come back as 7’s. Tell us WHY !!!
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
My 2 swinging sixties from mid April 21 hasn’t moved off 4 in like 8 months. It’s been so long I have to keep checking time to time to remember what I sent
My Swinging 60's is finally in assembly.
Bosox1976
Are you talking about the cards or you submitted these in the Vietnam era ??? At least you're still kicking. Good luck with the sub Mike.
Not to rain on your parade, but next Thursday my Value submission (that they received in March, 2021) will have been in Assembly for 3 months.
As Charles Barkley says.... Turrible!
Bosox1976
Yeah, well prior to these last two orders (easily over 1000 in the last 20 years) I had never once had an entire order come back without a single 10 and you already know...2 straight. I musta forgot how to grade cards, makes perfect sense. This is why I send in 20ish ct orders so when an a***ole gets a hold of one I don't watch as much money burn in flames. Btw, we're talking mid 90's stuff here . i literally chuckled when I saw the results because it is laughable and obviously ridiculous
With all of the dings and dents and surprisingly low grades we've seen recently, I've started to scan all of my cards before I submit them. At least this way I have a baseline idea what they looked like before I shipped them. Does anyone else do this?
For my 3 orders I’ve submitted to PSA recently, I took 10 pictures of each card before sending. I think we can’t be too careful.
Also, in the event I don’t get my cards back before we make a full revolution around the Sun, I can at least see what my cards looked like.
Down to my last order in the great backlog. This one was entered on 4/20/21 and was the smallest of all of the ones I had sent. Hope that one clears soon. Then it's all new activity for me.
,
,
,
The two bolded popped. The others are over 300 business days old
You had a vintage pop and a modern pop. You have vintage and modern still in grading. What pattern am I supposed to notice????
,
,
,
,
Pattern = lowest cost subs
24 card value vintage submission
Only 2 cards graded as expected.
3 came back as miscut or questionable authenticity.
The rest came back 2-3 grades lower than expected. I am glad I decided not to send anything in during their “special”. Long time to wait for a Disappointment. I have one value vintage submission left (1 card of mine, the rest are my brothers). I also have 2 cards left and they are cards that were damaged at their facility. It’ll be while(if ever) before I throw away my money with PSA. It seems like they have much to figure out.
almost hitting 18 months since receipt on the last order ........ tick tock. lol
Had some cards sent to SGC, received 7/15 and had the grades pop today.
eBay Store
Greg Maddux #1 Master SetGreg Maddux #2 Basic Set
As I said earlier, overall I was happy with my order. However, a handful of cards were damaged, including surface creases that are easy to see even in the holder. The Stargell below probably would have been a 9 like the other two I submitted except for the surface crease running through the 'A' in Stargell and up his left leg. The creased cards had the damage in the same general area at the bottom middle of the card. This leads me to believe that they were likely damaged during order prep when they were still in their cardsavers and stacked together.
I have some top notch cards still pending in other orders and am concerned about them surviving the process unscathed. I fear some may already be damaged if it is occurring during order prep as they are past that phase in the grading process.
Sorry for the glare. It's the only way I could get the crease to show in the photo.
This feeling of dread that cards will be damaged comes with every order I submit now. It's justified as well because I have yet to receive one order back in the last couple years that didn't include some form of damage. I too have seen that similar creasing done to one of my cards, albeit it was running horizontally but in the same area.
Just had these grades pop. For the most part, the grades are pretty awful. It's just frustrating because it can be so inconsistent. I sent in 4 Nestle Mattinglys a few months ago and got 3 10s and 1 9. Now 4 8s and 1 7. They really don't look that different. And you can tell after you see those first couple grades that popped that you got the grader of death and it's not going to be your day. I mean it could have been a lot worse. Somehow middle of the order the strictness seemed to lift and I got some awesome 10s. I love the Skyridge Holo Machamp in a 10. I love that Ohtani Chrome with the 83 Topps design in a 10. I can't get enough Kaprizovs in a 10. The 95 Finest Refractor Mattinglys as 8s feels silly. Centered and free of print lines with sharp corners. Last one I submitted that was similar was a 9 and felt like it could have been a 10. All in all, I didn't get killed. Just not good business. It just doesn't seem like a worthwhile venture to acquire these cards and get them graded by PSA if this strictness is going to continue. I probably lost money in terms of what my costs were and what I got back. Have 3 more orders in and that might be it for me. At $30 per card and $18 per card. I hope to see better than this but even if I do, I don't know if I want to make the investment to potentially get this inconsistency. Think I will stop the buying raw cards game and opening packs and just buy graded cards where I don't have to wait and hold my breath and hope they see it the same way I do and probably won't. This one was $50 a card so I guess if it was a lower fee it might not have seemed so bad. I was just really encouraged by another order I received back at $50 a card which were close to the best grades I have ever seen, even surpassing my expectations. It's clear this person and that person see the way cards should be graded in a very different way. I can't help but feel that makes this whole exercise kind of pointless and not something that really holds much value.
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type
1 1 65739961 NEAR MINT 7 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
2 1 65739962 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
3 1 65739963 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
4 1 65739964 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
5 1 65739965 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 8 Don Mattingly Card
6 1 65739966 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 182 Darryl Strawberry Card
7 1 65739967 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 182 Darryl Strawberry Card
8 1 65739968 NEAR MINT 7 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 596 Ryne Sandberg Card
9 1 65739969 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 300 Pete Rose Card
10 1 65739970 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 230 Rickey Henderson Card
11 1 65739971 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 Topps Nestle Hand Cut 490 Cal Ripken Jr. Card
12 1 65739972 MINT 9 1994 Stadium Club Bowman's Best 12 Brett Favre Black Refractor Card
13 1 65739973 MINT 9 1994 Stadium Club Bowman's Best 12 Brett Favre Black Refractor Card
14 1 65739974 MINT 9 2019 Topps Chrome 201 Vladimir Guerrero Jr. Card
15 1 65739975 GEM MINT 10 2019 Topps Chrome 201 Vladimir Guerrero Jr. Card
16 1 65739976 GEM MINT 10 2018 Topps Silver Pack 1983 Chrome Promo 145 Shohei Ohtani Card
17 1 65739977 GEM MINT 10 2018 Topps Chrome Update HMT1 Shohei Ohtani Card
18 1 65739978 MINT 9 2019 Upper Deck 201 Jack Hughes Card
19 1 65739979 GEM MINT 10 2020 Upper Deck 451 Kirill Kaprizov Card
20 1 65739980 GEM MINT 10 2019 Panini Prizm 249 Ja Morant Card
21 1 65739981 GEM MINT 10 2021 Metazoo Cryptid Nation 4 Bigfoot-Holo 1st Edition Card
22 1 65739982 GEM MINT 10 2021 Metazoo Cryptid Nation 4 Bigfoot-Holo 1st Edition Card
23 1 65739983 GEM MINT 10 2021 Metazoo Cryptid Nation 4 Bigfoot-Holo 1st Edition Card
24 1 65739984 GEM MINT 10 2003 Pokemon Skyridge H15 Machamp-Holo Card
25 1 65739985 MINT 9 2021 Pokemon Sword & Shield Evolving Skies 180 Full Art/Espeon V Card
26 1 65739986 MINT 9 2021 Pokemon Sword & Shield Evolving Skies 196 Full Art/Noivern V Card
27 1 65739987 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1995 Finest 126 Don Mattingly Refractor Card
28 1 65739988 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1995 Finest 126 Don Mattingly Refractor Card
Or maybe I just need to never submit another 1984 Topps Nestle card or anything 95 or earlier again. Definitely am feeling some modern love here so maybe there is a little room to continue in that direction. Funny to say I feel good about Bigfoot. I might have overpaid on the fee but love that Ja too. Thought it was lost in the mail after purchasing on eBay and then one day like half a year later there it was.
I may just keep my cards raw after the last 2 submissions. Can’t find myself just buying graded either. Not sure that I want to keep supporting such an inconsistent method of grading. Also bothers me that their is no way to give any input. I feel that complaints would just fall upon deaf ears. How do they actually know if every grader is using the same standards. I think most agree that only one grader sees each card.
Nice on the Skyridge Holo 10!
Bosox1976
Thanks Bosox.