Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

PSA grading standard update

Hello I'm sure a lot of you saw this.
5/24/21
PSA no longer requires submitters to decide whether to request “No Qualifiers”, as characteristics such as Centering, Staining, Print Defects and Focus will default to impacting the numerical grade rather than carrying a qualifier. There are exceptions and we encourage collectors to review the updated policy on the PSA Grading Standards page.
So no more qualifiers except for a MK(marks) and MC(miscut)???

«1

Comments

  • Mickey71Mickey71 Posts: 3,650 ✭✭✭

    Probably will make it even harder for the graders now. Too far in the game to make this change. 30 years in the game is too long.

  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    not the grading standard update i was hoping for.

    but here’s an interesting query. is the “no more qualifier” rule going into effect as for subs that arrived today and on? or are the implementing the rule change retroactively to all the existing subs that elected to have them in the backlog? 😉

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 26, 2021 3:35AM

    So many people prefer to request no qualifiers, they probably figured why bother to use them. This change makes no difference to me as I have always requested no qualifiers anyway. At least for newly graded cards we won’t have to deal with dishonest eBay sellers describing a 9OC as “PSA 9.”

  • Jayman1982Jayman1982 Posts: 64 ✭✭

    @blurryface said:
    not the grading standard update i was hoping for.

    but here’s an interesting query. is the “no more qualifier” rule going into effect as for subs that arrived today and on? or are the implementing the rule change retroactively to all the existing subs that elected to have them in the backlog? 😉

    Yes, this is the question. I have some wax stained OPC Bonds RCs that I'm hoping for qualifiers on, not lower grades

  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Jayman1982 said:

    @blurryface said:
    not the grading standard update i was hoping for.

    but here’s an interesting query. is the “no more qualifier” rule going into effect as for subs that arrived today and on? or are the implementing the rule change retroactively to all the existing subs that elected to have them in the backlog? 😉

    Yes, this is the question. I have some wax stained OPC Bonds RCs that I'm hoping for qualifiers on, not lower grades

    well if the harsher grading standards that have been placed on cards that have been there for months are any indication...

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • olb31olb31 Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭

    I think someone knew this coming. I have noticed that there have been a lot of sales for psa 9 oc over the last few months. People paying decent prices for them. I even bought a couple just because.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @olb31 said:
    I even bought a couple just because.

    on purpose?

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • CakesCakes Posts: 2,550 ✭✭✭

    @olb31 said:
    I think someone knew this coming. I have noticed that there have been a lot of sales for psa 9 oc over the last few months. People paying decent prices for them. I even bought a couple just because.

    That's wild, I noticed that too and found it odd.

    Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.

    Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭

    Yep. Just in case there was something to it.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    for the novelty of it, i guess? like a $2 bill?

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • brad31brad31 Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 26, 2021 10:44AM

    I think this is a good change. Never understood the qualifiers - every card is a 10 but for defects. A qualifier to me was always a strange way to grade.

  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    i always felt you potentially penalize yourself a grade by requesting a qualifier.

    they basically knock you down two grades via a non-qualifier request, so an otherwise 10 would be a straight 8 if it were oc. however if you request a qualifier the best you could get would be a 9oc therefore defaulting it to a straight 7 value wise.

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 28,301 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @blurryface said:
    i always felt you potentially penalize yourself a grade by requesting a qualifier.

    they basically knock you down two grades via a non-qualifier request, so an otherwise 10 would be a straight 8 if it were oc. however if you request a qualifier the best you could get would be a 9oc therefore defaulting it to a straight 7 value wise.

    True in that particular scenario but in many cases a PSA 9 OC will command a higher premium than a straight 7, too, for an otherwise Mint 9 card.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • DotStoreDotStore Posts: 505 ✭✭✭

    I've picked up a few 9 (oc) cards that I feel fall within the 8 centering guidelines. My thinking is that I paid the price for a 7, but they could actually be an 8 considering everything outside of centering met their 9 standards.

  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 26, 2021 11:37AM

    @grote15 said:

    @blurryface said:
    i always felt you potentially penalize yourself a grade by requesting a qualifier.

    they basically knock you down two grades via a non-qualifier request, so an otherwise 10 would be a straight 8 if it were oc. however if you request a qualifier the best you could get would be a 9oc therefore defaulting it to a straight 7 value wise.

    True in that particular scenario but in many cases a PSA 9 OC will command a higher premium than a straight 7, too, for an otherwise Mint 9 card.

    yes but does a 9oc outsell the straight 8 (bc no 10oc)?

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • So if you did not request a qualifier previously and your card had a stain or something was it rejected or given a lower grade? What is a stain vs recoloring? That has also always confused me.

  • olb31olb31 Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭

    The 9 oc probably works better for very low pop cards. Or high profile vintage. A 1985 topps mcgwire psa 9 oc is essentially useless in value. But a 1968 Nolan ryan psa 9 oc may command more than a 7. OPC cards are a good example also. 1974 and 1976 opc cards are very hard to find remotely centered. So a psa 9 oc of a 1974 winfield may indeed bring a higher price than a 7. a 1976 george brett psa 9 oc may bring more than a 7, due to the fact very few 9's exist.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 28,301 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @blurryface said:

    @grote15 said:

    @blurryface said:
    i always felt you potentially penalize yourself a grade by requesting a qualifier.

    they basically knock you down two grades via a non-qualifier request, so an otherwise 10 would be a straight 8 if it were oc. however if you request a qualifier the best you could get would be a 9oc therefore defaulting it to a straight 7 value wise.

    True in that particular scenario but in many cases a PSA 9 OC will command a higher premium than a straight 7, too, for an otherwise Mint 9 card.

    yes but does a 9oc outsell the straight 8 (bc no 10oc)?

    For the rare occasions when an OC card is otherwise a PSA 10, that is true, but OC cards that would otherwise be PSA 9 is a far more likely scenario especially with vintage cards.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @grote15 said:

    @blurryface said:

    @grote15 said:

    @blurryface said:
    i always felt you potentially penalize yourself a grade by requesting a qualifier.

    they basically knock you down two grades via a non-qualifier request, so an otherwise 10 would be a straight 8 if it were oc. however if you request a qualifier the best you could get would be a 9oc therefore defaulting it to a straight 7 value wise.

    True in that particular scenario but in many cases a PSA 9 OC will command a higher premium than a straight 7, too, for an otherwise Mint 9 card.

    yes but does a 9oc outsell the straight 8 (bc no 10oc)?

    For the rare occasions when an OC card is otherwise a PSA 10, that is true, but OC cards that would otherwise be PSA 9 is a far more likely scenario especially with vintage cards.

    well nothing’s getting a 10 now anyways, so doesnt even really matter anymore! 😉

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • RufussCkingstonRufussCkingston Posts: 463 ✭✭✭

    @rsherryjr said:
    So if you did not request a qualifier previously and your card had a stain or something was it rejected or given a lower grade? What is a stain vs recoloring? That has also always confused me.

    Don't think any stain gets a card rejected, just a lower grade. A stain is usually from gum or wax, or water/liquid. Recoloring is altering the card, usually in a way to deceive.

  • 19591959 Posts: 255 ✭✭✭

    I have a 9 o/c 1980 Henderson, but the front is dead on 50/50 > it's the back that's o/c. I would rather have it than a 7, because the cards front appearance sells itself. I have some with qualifiers (stain) that I cannot find on the card. It gives the grader too much discretion without any explanation. I would at least like a choice < but it is what it is.

  • @brad31 said:
    I think this is a good change. Never understood the qualifiers - every card is a 10 but for defects. A qualifier to me was always a strange way to grade.

    Completely agree.
    Good for them correcting a past mistake.

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1959 said:
    I have a 9 o/c 1980 Henderson, but the front is dead on 50/50 > it's the back that's o/c. I would rather have it than a 7, because the cards front appearance sells itself. I have some with qualifiers (stain) that I cannot find on the card. It gives the grader too much discretion without any explanation. I would at least like a choice < but it is what it is.

    Can you post pics? I have seen so many PSA 9s with backs that appear 95/5, it’s hard to imagine getting an OC qualifier due to the back centering.

  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PaulMaul said:

    @1959 said:
    I have a 9 o/c 1980 Henderson, but the front is dead on 50/50 > it's the back that's o/c. I would rather have it than a 7, because the cards front appearance sells itself. I have some with qualifiers (stain) that I cannot find on the card. It gives the grader too much discretion without any explanation. I would at least like a choice < but it is what it is.

    Can you post pics? I have seen so many PSA 9s with backs that appear 95/5, it’s hard to imagine getting an OC qualifier due to the back centering.

    like the ‘68 bench? 😉

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • ABellPharmDABellPharmD Posts: 180 ✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2021 6:05AM



    I have a few cards with qualifiers, primarily with back stamps and things like that. I feel those often add character and can provide provenance to the card. The shift will make it more challenging to seek high quality cards out with minor defects that do not detract from the eye appeal of the card. I also can't wait to see more "card is a PSA 6 but should be a 8 (INSERT QUALIFIER) in the listings and descriptions online. The hunt just got harder boys!

    I collect Cal Ripken cards, T206, E95, E210, R319.
  • detroitfan2detroitfan2 Posts: 3,091 ✭✭✭

    Sigh. When I saw there was an update, I thought my dream of a "BS" (Bicycle Spokes) qualifier was going to become a reality, but I guess it went in an entirely different direction . . .

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 3,914 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This one bothered me for a bit but I let it go because there’s no other choice. Not just poor, but a poor card with an unrequested qualifier. This card is basically a negative one (yes, I know that’s not how it works).


    Here’s the highest graded example for comparison:


    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think MC and MK are different from the other qualifiers in that they are assigned whether the submitter wants them or not.

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is the miscut example way oversized? It seems way wider than the other one.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 3,914 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PaulMaul said:
    I think MC and MK are different from the other qualifiers in that they are assigned whether the submitter wants them or not.

    Agreed. And fine with it where applicable.

    I just wonder if once you’ve said the condition of the card is poor does it really even need the qualifiers anymore?

    Anyhow, the Foxx has a thin border but it’s there and there’s no text loss on back it’s just off center. I tend to think of miscuts - especially from this set - more like this...

    ...Walter Masterson, lower left card back.

    I also have cards with miscut fronts from the set. But again, there’s not much point to complaining and no recourse. Besides, I like the cards regardless and the actual look of them is what matters to me, not the assigned grade.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 3,914 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2021 7:39AM

    Here’s what a nice miscut front from the set...


    ...looks like to me. And again, they’re fragile so I’m glad they’re encased by PSA and happy I sent the ones in that I did.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 3,914 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PaulMaul said:
    Is the miscut example way oversized? It seems way wider than the other one.

    I’m not positive but I think these were hand cut - after being distributed as small panels - by the original collector. So border size has some variety, I suppose. I know they were intended to an album because I am lucky enough to have one:





    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • RufussCkingstonRufussCkingston Posts: 463 ✭✭✭

    @PaulMaul said:

    @1959 said:

    >
    Can you post pics? I have seen so many PSA 9s with backs that appear 95/5, it’s hard to imagine getting an OC qualifier due to the back centering.

    The "grading standard" is 90/10 for the back for PSA.

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RufussCkingston said:

    @PaulMaul said:

    @1959 said:

    >
    Can you post pics? I have seen so many PSA 9s with backs that appear 95/5, it’s hard to imagine getting an OC qualifier due to the back centering.

    The "grading standard" is 90/10 for the back for PSA.

    Yes, but there have been photos posted here over the years that suggest that any back centering that has some border showing on all sides will grade without qualifier. Heck, nearly every 1973 #1 card has back centering of 90/10 or worse!

  • brad31brad31 Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The next ‘73 All-Time Home Run Leaders I see with nice centering on front and back will be the first.

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @brad31 said:
    The next ‘73 All-Time Home Run Leaders I see with nice centering on front and back will be the first.

    I actually don’t think it is possible, if it were I think we would have seen one by now.

  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2021 1:28PM

    '68 bench. '72 erving.

    dont even get us started w/ the front of the wacky clammy! :)

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here’s the back of the first Dr. J. PSA 8 I found on eBay....

  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    ^ and thats actually quite good. still own a 9 that i think is worse than that and firmly believe is what held it from gemming.

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • brad31brad31 Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The way the stats are off-set to the left on this one has always bothered me. This is more of a layout error than an OC issue - but it has always bugged me.

  • RufussCkingstonRufussCkingston Posts: 463 ✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2021 3:44PM

    @PaulMaul said:
    Here’s the back of the first Dr. J. PSA 8 I found on eBay....

    That's 80/20 centering.

    The #1 above is about 89/11

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If that’s the case there isn’t much point in requiring 90/10, just say there must be some border present, because evidently the difference is beyond negligible.

  • 19591959 Posts: 255 ✭✭✭

    Sorry guys, the 80 Henderson is 9 m/c. not o/c . Front looks great. the border on back has very little distance after name Henderson. so it is probably 95/5 centering. IS 9 m/c preferable to 9 o/c or 7 ? Or 6.5. I do not have a printer to send photo.

  • CakesCakes Posts: 2,550 ✭✭✭

    @blurryface said:
    ^ and thats actually quite good. still own a 9 that i think is worse than that and firmly believe is what held it from gemming.

    Well golly that must explain mine years ago getting such a low grade. I never knew why until just now, I think at the time I posted about the grader of death. TY

    BC

    Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.

    Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
  • RufussCkingstonRufussCkingston Posts: 463 ✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2021 7:32PM

    @1959 said:
    Sorry guys, the 80 Henderson is 9 m/c. not o/c . Front looks great. the border on back has very little distance after name Henderson. so it is probably 95/5 centering. IS 9 m/c preferable to 9 o/c or 7 ? Or 6.5. I do not have a printer to send photo.

    Cell phone with Camera?

    I would think OC is preferable to a MC..... MC can mean incorrect dimensions or chopping of card where you get part of the adjacent card in the sheet. I feel MC is more of a true defect designation, where OC is just that the cut was not within the normal paremeters, but not far enough away to where it deems the card defective.

  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2021 8:06PM

    @Cakes said:

    @blurryface said:
    ^ and thats actually quite good. still own a 9 that i think is worse than that and firmly believe is what held it from gemming.

    Well golly that must explain mine years ago getting such a low grade. I never knew why until just now, I think at the time I posted about the grader of death. TY

    BC

    here’s the back from one of my 9s.

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • CakesCakes Posts: 2,550 ✭✭✭

    Thanks Blurry, I need to get a loop and look at mine closer. Next time I am at the Office I will take some scans. It looks like a PSA 8.

    I love Dr. J , he is one of my favorites. I was born in 71 and in the late 70's while shooting hoops we would actually call out his name while making a nice shot!

    Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.

    Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
  • blurryfaceblurryface Posts: 3,562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Cakes said:
    Thanks Blurry, I need to get a loop and look at mine closer. Next time I am at the Office I will take some scans. It looks like a PSA 8.

    I love Dr. J , he is one of my favorites. I was born in 71 and in the late 70's while shooting hoops we would actually call out his name while making a nice shot!

    i grabbed one of these for eyesights & timings sake.

    it USED to make grading estimates a lot more accurate until very recently for some unbeknownst reason. 😉

    i always forget to check pms. hit me over the head.

  • 1966CUDA1966CUDA Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭

    Blurry... is that a scanner? What is it?

Sign In or Register to comment.