First Grade Pop from previously Beckett Graded Cards

DMasci

My first PSA submission finally popped after close to a year and most grades were expected but something looks odd to me. These cards were all previously graded by BGS/BVG and cracked out of the slabs and sent in to PSA. Below are the two grades.

1984 Topps - John Elway (BGS 8.0) - (PSA 8.0)
1984 Topps - Dan Marino (BGS 8.5) - (PSA 8.0)
1985 Topps - Dan Marino (BGS 9.0) - (PSA 8.0)
1986 Topps - Dan Marino (BGS 9.0) - (PSA 9.0)
1981 Topps - Joe Montana (BGS 8.5) - (PSA 7.0) surprised here
1982 Topps - Joe Montana (BGS 9.5) - (PSA 8.0) surprised here
1984 Topps - Joe Montana (BGS 9.0) - (PSA 9.0)
1986 Topps - Jerry Rice (BGS 8.5) - (PSA 7.0) surprised here
1977 Topps - Walter Payton (BVG 8.0) - (PSA 7.0)
1978 Topps - Walter Payton (BVG 8.5) - (PSA 8.0)
1981 Topps - Walter Payton (BGS 9.0) - (PSA 8.0)
1984 Topps - Walter Payton (BGS 9.0) - (PSA 8.0)
1975 Topps - Dan Fouts (BVG 8.0) - (PSA 7.0)
1977 Topps - Steve Largent (BVG 8.5) - (PSA 8.0)
1973 Topps - Roger Staubach (BVG 8.0) - (PSA 8.0)
1972 Topps - Joe Namath (BVG 8.0) - (PSA 8.0)
1975 Topps - Lynn Swann (BVG 7.0) - (PSA 6.0)
1989 Topps Traded - Barry Sanders - (BGS 9.5) - (PSA 9.0)

In summary, I'm not surprised that not a single card graded higher as I was warned that seldom happens. Not surprised to see a card go down .5 or even 1.0 lower but 1.5 is a bit surprising and the fact it happened on the two most expensive cards makes it a bit harder to take. I have another order in for probably a couple months that were all cracked out of BVG cases and I imagine about the same. With the hit on the Montana and Rice rookies I don't know if this was a good ides for the value of the cards but since most are for my PC it's not that big a deal.

bobbybakeriv

Thanks for the insight. I too find it a bit odd that more valuable cards seem to be graded more stringently. This has happened to me numerous times. Better luck on the next one!

82FootballWaxMemorys

There are reasons. Of course to directly address them on this forum would not be wise for me.

SoxPatsFan

I recently had grades pop for a submission that included several BGS crack outs. I had a 1989 UD Griffey BGS 8.5 go up to a PSA 9 and also a 1983 Fleer Tony Gwynn BGS 8.5 go up to a PSA 9. Had 2 other BGS 8.5's go down to PSA 8's.

I only crack out BGS cards with strong subgrades. For instance all my 8.5's had 2 subs of 8.5 and 2 subs of 9.

DMasci

@82FootballWaxMemorys said:
There are reasons. Of course to directly address them on this forum would not be wise for me.

I sure would be interested in your thoughts if you want to send me a PM. I assume that all cards are graded with a blind eye to the player depicted on the card, results are just a bit odd to me is all. In my collecting experience there is a pretty big difference between a 7 and an 8.5 even to the naked eye.

That said, in the past year I've purchased over 300 PSA graded cards and the cards that are in the older holders seem to be a bit lenient in their grades then those recently graded....but maybe that's a good thing

Goldy213

Just had 2 of my CSG 9.5 come back from PSA crossover… I sent it with minimum grade as a 10. It took 9 days from the day I went to post office, and both cards came back in the CSG slab… I really loved the handwritten notes that were taped on to my slab… mentioned a few corners that I missed and a centering issue.. after seeing what psa saw, surprised I had a 9.5

DotStore

I wonder how old psa graded cards would cross today. Some might deserve a half-grade bump (if they were the borderline nice cards before introducing the half-point grades). But I guess alot of old 9's and 10's would grade lower today (cracked out and re-submitted to PSA).

82FootballWaxMemorys

@Goldy213 said:
Just had 2 of my CSG 9.5 come back from PSA crossover… I sent it with minimum grade as a 10. It took 9 days from the day I went to post office, and both cards came back in the CSG slab… I really loved the handwritten notes that were taped on to my slab… mentioned a few corners that I missed and a centering issue.. after seeing what psa saw, surprised I had a 9.5

You are not the first I've seen say the same thing.

Darn was hoping CSG would provide true competition to PSA, so that all of us consumers would benefit.

Problem is this when starting out;

"A" ] too strict no one will use you and you are slow to get off the ground.

"B" ] if you are too lenient tracked sales will be much lower in $ value. The perception or stink of you not being strict enough will never wash away. So while you get an initial take off boost it will quickly fade. At that time the executives who are smart will grab their large bonus and skedaddle before it falls apart.

The perfect example of "B" is CBCS. If not for Covid they might be out of business. Regardless their apparent business model now is to feed on the scraps that do not go to CGC or those CGC has wronged and or offended. I genuinely wanted CBCS to succeed, and even was a submitter and auction buyer briefly as multiple strong grading companies is great for everyone except the exec's at the grading company's or their parent firms.

Sad that CSG who has money behind them chose to take the quick cash-grab route rather than take some loses the first few years and build a solid reputation as being just as strict as PSA perhaps stricter. We'll I'm sure there executives got their bonus' and future of the company be damned. Post Covid outlook = grim.