Lost faith in PSA
mbothner
Posts: 761 ✭✭✭
I waited 9 months for nothing. I sent in 102 1964 Topps Coins. Most look like they just came out the pack. I knew what I had since I have had well over 1000 Topps coins graded over the last 17 years and own 500+ 9's and 10's. I was expecting over half to be PSA 9 and 10 with the rest being 8's. Most look pack fresh. I ended up with 3 9's, 24 8's and the rest being 5, 6 and 7. I just threw the 5, 6 and 7's on ebay under bcca11210 starting at $1. I am just in such disgust over these grades I had to rant. I know PSA does not grade a lot of coins versus cards but you can not either change your grading standards or give items like this to new graders that just do not have the experience with coins. This inexperience or change in grading standards is going to cost me thousands of dollars. What about the step where the grades are reviewed? I guess that step was missed. This happened to me once before. Years ago I had another batch that was very poorly graded and after a long discussion with Joe the entire lot was regraded with significantly different grades. Seems there is zero chance of getting in touch with PSA these days that is why I put the lower grade coins on ebay but maybe someone in PSA will read this and actually care and contact me. They have my number. After looking at the coins, I might have figured out what the grader was doing but who knows. These coins are made of metal. Sometimes there is slight blemished on the metal but under the print which means it was there when the coin was made. These were never considered a flaw before. Just like every OPC card is not automatically a PSA 4 because of a rough cut.
This is a random coin from ebay that PSA called an 8 which I do not agree with the grade. Notice the rim wear.
Here is a coin they gave me a 5. The rim is flawless.
Here is the back of the same coin. The lines were made during manufacturing. When blown up, you can see the print is over the manufacturer lines which means they were there before the coin was printed.
I used this example because PSA 5 was the lowest grade I received. The PSA 6, 7 and 8's even had significantly less manufacturer marks. Almost all the 7's and 8's I received should have been 9's.
I have been contacted by other people that collect these that have seen them posted on ebay and have they also seriously question the low grades.
If PSA says these grades are accurate, what does that say about the coins they graded the previous 17 years?
For 9 months I was so looking forward to these grades. What a disappointment. If the coins were truly these grades I would accept it but I know they are not.
Comments
Your Pete Rose is a stunner.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
I know. Definitely not a PSA 7.
Wow, that is a disappointment. I've got a handful of nice-looking 1964 coins in the sub I sent last fall, so now I'm pretty nervous about how those will come back.
It would be nice if PSA contacted me and correct the problem. Sometimes you just have to admit when you are wrong.
I'm sorry that happened to you. More than once I've had a similar experience and (almost) gave up collecting entirely. Hopefully people will ignore the grades on eBay and buy your coins based on eye appeal. That seems to be happening more and more these days. Best of luck!
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
Here is the exact same coin as the one pictured above that PSA graded a PSA 9.
not familiar w coin grading requirements, but if it's off center or not struck? properly on the interior paint/pic does that automatically knock it down to a 5? ie a crease in a card?
I have some off center coins. The picture actually on part of the rim. This is not off center.
again not familiar w grading requirements, but yours is certainly off centered compared to the other two examples you provided from a card perspective at least. imo.
and i'm not trying to dog ya, just wondering if you were the victim of a technicality on this particular example. yours certainly does present better both on the rim and back which is why i was asking...
This coin would be considered off center.
This coin, with the same centering as the PSA 5 above is not considered off center.
the malzone has significantly better centering, imo.
but not looking to argue. sorry about the grades.
I would not say significant but I can pull examples all day. My point is that it does not have to be dead center. I am not calling it a 10 but just like cards, it does not have to have perfect centering to be in the 8 and 9 range.
You can also look at the 75 examples on ebay under seller bcca11210. It was not a one time thing.
again, just asking if you were the victim of a technicality.
similar to a crease in a card, is the maximum grade for a coin that is deemed mis struck a psa 5?
if that terminology exists on the coin side, i would say thats your culprit. no need to present more examples. again, sorry about the grades. i've shared in your frustrations before, trust me.
I actually got very few 5's. Got many more 6 and 7's. that look near perfect.
Wow, that is scary, I have 18 subs in house and cannot afford for them to be graded wrong. If there is 2 graders eyes on every card I dont see how this could happen.
there are supposed to be 2 graders eyes on every card, no?
I do know that everyone who works there is human and no one is perfect. I would imagine they will take care of you if you get ahold of them
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If it is cards you should not have a problem. My guess is that many graders are unfamiliar with coins and they have different standards then in the past (which should not be) but 2 graders are suppose to review these so I do not know.
I have an entire 1971 Topps Coin high grade set I am afraid to send in.
@mbothner If it is cards you should not have a problem.
yeah, but the thing is they as busy as they are they are erring on the side of caution. I am hoping that cards are graded correctly and I am upcharged ( hopefully based on the price point when I subbed the cards) I have played the crack out game a whole lot over the last decade and been justified many more times than I was wrong. But current prices and turn times make that impossible.
PSA has always been inconsistent on Topps coins, in my opinion. Check out the "rims" of these 2:
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
OK. First off, I want to preface this comment with the fact that I have zero knowledge on grading standards for coins. With that said here goes...
My biggest fear in collecting, when submitting is what seems to have happened to you. Again, I may be wrong, and they may have reason for the grades they gave you. But as prices increase for 10's and 9's and more people submit their collectibles I fear them raising standards to an almost impossible level to limit the numbers of 10's. Again, that is a fear, I'm not saying it's happening, as I don't know their requirements. But I sure wish for the money we pay, and the time we wait to get our collectibles back that they could at least provide a print out of the notes the grader made. Why something is deemed a 5, etc. So, at least we could take pictures and ask questions. You are just in the dark about why your Osteen is a 5, when it CLEARLY displays better than the 9 you provided the example of. Sorry this happened to you.
PS - I purchased a 1976 topps set that was put together taking the best cards from 3 vending boxes back in 1976. It was then wrapped up in brown craft paper and put in a cool dry place for 44 years until I opened it. The cards were flawless if centering and printing weren't a problem. I subbed 80 of them, and ZERO of them should be below an 8, I'd even argue they should all be 9's or better. I'm very worried I will be the next victim of changing the curve on grading, but I will patiently wait another couple of months (mine were sent in last July) and see what happens.
Jeff
Collecting:
post world war II HOF rookie
76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars
Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals)
successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
Look at the rim on the PSA 7 Pizarro above.
This has been the rule not the exception of late. I have experienced similar results that combined with longer wait times and increased prices which makes subbing until I get the correct grade no longer feasible. I have learned just to deal with it. Prices have risen so I can just sell the stuff I do not want to keep to balance costs. I do not like it but it is what it is. They should publish graders names on each submission. They should be reviewed for their preformance. If they consistently hammer stuff or let stuff slide then they should be corrected or let go.
Stupid question . . . is it possible that some of those coins that appear to have "rust" on the edges rusted AFTER they grade (i.e. in the holder)? Otherwise, I don't see how they obtained the grades they did.
The one I showed isn’t rust, just wear. The paint has worn away to bare metal.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
No rust. The coins I submitted are pack fresh.
I do not see how. I have cracked these out before and they have a rubber ring around them so they can not move in the case. The case is then sealed so I do not see how any moisture could get in.
how does that get a 9 with all that chipping on the border? Man...I guess the grading standards for these metal coins probably isn't applied too consistently?
I’ve never collected or graded a coin but I can agree with the sentiment that grading seems much more strict within recent months. I never had a card graded before 2018 but I sent a lot during 2018 and 2019 and I received a lot of 10s. Probably more 10s than 9s and under. Looking back at a lot of those cards there are certainly some things I can see where those cards should have been 9s at best. Fast forward to the present and I have received 1 10 out of about 20 cards I have gotten back. Mostly received 9s but looking at them I can’t see where they should have been 9s. Had 1 recently in particular. It was a 2018 Topps Update Ronald Acuña Red and Blue shirt. Got a 9 but I can’t find a thing wrong with it. Maybe it is because of having new graders and maybe they are so afraid of incorrectly grading a card that if they have any doubt they go with the lower grade ??? Again I don’t have a clue how they go about grading a coin but the “standards” don’t seem to be so standard, as much as it is opinion. You can find examples all over eBay and even in the pictures you have posted, of cards/coins that were graded in years past and have the older Cert numbers, that seem to have higher grades. I have recently been trying to find Baseball Hall of Famers from the early 90s that are PSA 10s. Lots of them out there but when you look closely at the card you can see off centering in a lot of them. Look at the Cert number and it is an old number. If those received 10s then PSA needs to stick with those same “standards”.
Hopefully you can get someone to reach out to you and you can get the problem sorted out. Good luck!
Ugh. Been there! A similar issue I have experienced with is the 1970-1971 topps supers. I have a group there that I hope is looked at correctly. If you know this issue a lot have factory wrinkles alone the back boarders. Fronts flwless without a chip and unhandled. I have 9-10s graded with the wrinkles and half the time they come back 5s and the other time 9-10s. Frustrating when someone grades and doesn’t know the set issues perfectly.
@handyman I have some supers there myself. hoping I don't get the dreaded 5's it will be a waste of time and money
I've sent several coins in over the years...not as many as he OP but the grades were consistent.
It is my belief and understanding that the wear/rust...whatever you want to call it around the rim should drastically reduce the grade. The centering of the pic on the front also reduces the grade. Scratches, dings, etc on the back...the same.
Now the "dings" on the front of the rim..... I don't care of those were done at the factory and if they are commonplace, those should lower the grade. Now if every single coin produced had those, then maybe it can be overlooked but not when some have it and some don't.
Those are some of the freshest looking Topps coins I have ever seen though. Just doesn't equate to all 9's and 10's in my opinion.
nice centering on that one.
Just a thought, perhaps PCGS should grade all Topps coins?
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
I was more referring to the back. I agree on the rims.
I never said they should be all 9's and 10's just that the coins were way under-graded. Out of 102 coins I got 3 9's and 0 10's.
it's a general and growing consensus that this is the toughest they've ever been on grades right now. i've had a few recently that fall into this category and very close to agreeing. as someone w about 7k cards in the pipeline, i'd be remiss to say i'm not a little worried. my gem rate has dropped about 16 points in the past month or so. i know none of this makes you or it any better. just trying to help reconcile the major head scratcher.
Wouldn’t you be better off cracking the low grade ones and selling raw?
I’ve always felt that most cards fall into a range. These boards back that up. For some cards, the range can be wide. Ask people on the boards to grade anything you post and you’ll get a variety of guesses most times. I try to keep that in mind and then recognize that the lowest guess is likely the grade PSA will give.
Not a knock, just reality.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And I definitely feel your pain, by the way. Sometimes it can be tough when you feel your item compares favorably to higher graded examples - even outshines them - but the grade your card received does not match. Here’s three different PSA examples of a beautiful card: a down payment on a nice house, a down payment on a nice car and mine 🤪
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
PSA should just come out and say that they have changed their grading standards and the grades you receive now will not be consistent with the grades you have received for the last 17 years. That is what they have done. My first of many coin submissions was on 2004. Look at the Pizarro above. How can anyone call that a PSA 7? Two years ago that was an easy 9.
Just had to throw my Mantle out there.
Whoa! If I give you my address can you ‘throw it’ to me? 😂
That thing is beautiful , bud.
Great card!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
preaching to the choir. just had a personal sub of soto cards come back 6s and 7s. and i like to think i have a pretty good eye.
First things first . . . +1 to the Mod for allowing this to run. I believe civil constructive criticism is good for all.
Secondly, if you don't know Mike, he probably knows more about these coins (and their grading) than anyone. He has built some of the finest ever Topps coins sets.
My 2 cents on this, having owned thousands of higher-grade [Topps] coins myself, is that the grader became fixated on the centering of the image. You often see otherwise crappy looking coins get a high grade simply because of a centered image. Conversely, you see lots of otherwise perfect 8s that have very slightly misaligned images.
The biggest issue for me on this is the inconsistency. I've been told by PSA that they do not refer to previously graded examples -- each card / coin is graded on its own merits. Clearly that contributes to the inconsistency. Seems there should be some middle ground -- maybe not feasible given the added time. Maybe that is the purpose of the review process.
Scott
Always plenty of PSA-graded cards in my ebay store -- https://ebay.com/str/thelumbercompanysportscards
and they grade my coin a PSA 7.
That 9 I would hope wasn’t graded like that but maybe someone wiped it used soap and water or something before grading? And it aged after the fact. I have no clue. But the cert does look to be 15 years or older and I can understand metal deteriorating. I know 1970s Kellogg’s issues have cracked after grading due to how they are typically warped before sending in. I can see these rusting in something was used to clean them before grading. I have no clue but we all agree that isn’t a 9 even you wouldn’t send that in looking like that 9 and expect a 9.
The coin recently sold on eBay. I was not the previous owner but I did own this coin seven or eight years ago and it just looked like this since I owned it. I got rid of it as soon as I was able to get another PSA 9. This coin in PSA 9 is one of the lowest pop coins in the set. I was not the person that had it graded.
When you put those two next to each other the difference is incredibly stark. Wow. It’s the difference between finding something in a junk drawer and finding something that is just from a pack.