Anyone got a PSA 10 for 1983

olb31

or older card in the last six months. Not a review, but a grading.

johfr

Nope.

olb31

ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

Cladiator

It's not pre-83 but I got this 10 in submission results from last week. It was the only 10 I got lol.

olb31

and the rose isn't all that centered left to right, no offense meant.

olb31

Sales for around $40. I hope so more people chime in and let us know their results.

athleticsfan

I sent in 29 cards under the $18 bulk special in November. Got them back in late December.

Was actually hoping for a 9 on this one

Cladiator

@olb31 said:
and the rose isn't all that centered left to right, no offense meant.

None taken. I figure it for about 55/45.

DBesse27

@olb31 said:
ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

What about corners, edges and surface? 40+ year old PSA 10’s SHOULD be hard.

Mcvillagehtx

I sent in some Raiders of the Lost Ark cards that got 8s at best and lots of 7s. I bought the boxes last year or year before and they were fresh from the box.
I've been sending in cards for a long time and these would have been 9s and 10s five or six years ago.

BBBrkrr

I sent around 200 in the vintage special. No 10s.

Then I sent about 200 in the modern special. About 2/3 10s.

ScoobyDoo2

A few of my collecting chums stopped grading altogether .... the grades didnt offer resale value to continue paying fee's ... understandable really.... if you cant get a PSA 10 of a star or two you cant make the loot to stay in the game...

steel75

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:
ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

What about corners, edges and surface? 40+ year old PSA 10’s SHOULD be hard.

Agree 100%........card stock is completely different now.

olb31

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:
ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

What about corners, edges and surface? 40+ year old PSA 10’s SHOULD be hard.

SInce 2007 I've sent in many thousands of cards to get graded by PSA. And many thousand to get graded by Beckett.

So for instance I received a psa 5 for 1967 clemente and i thought it was a fair grade, nicely centered, corners decent, but it had a small indention.

This last grading I received a psa 5 for a 1984 topps tiffany mattingly. Sharp corners, no white on the back edges. Centering about an 8 or 9 range. I felt the worst i could get was an 8 . I got a PSA 5. There is a huge difference in conditions when comparing these two cards, one looks mint, the other not close. But according to PSA both are 5's.

The mattingly has no indentions.

Just be consistent, I think is what matters. I got one .5 grade and all the cards had near perfect centering. Originally this is what the .5 was for.

olb31

@athleticsfan said:
I sent in 29 cards under the $18 bulk special in November. Got them back in late December.

Was actually hoping for a 9 on this one

Nice!!!!

DBesse27

@olb31 said:

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:
ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

What about corners, edges and surface? 40+ year old PSA 10’s SHOULD be hard.

SInce 2007 I've sent in many thousands of cards to get graded by PSA. And many thousand to get graded by Beckett.

So for instance I received a psa 5 for 1967 clemente and i thought it was a fair grade, nicely centered, corners decent, but it had a small indention.

This last grading I received a psa 5 for a 1984 topps tiffany mattingly. Sharp corners, no white on the back edges. Centering about an 8 or 9 range. I felt the worst i could get was an 8 . I got a PSA 5. There is a huge difference in conditions when comparing these two cards, one looks mint, the other not close. But according to PSA both are 5's.

The mattingly has no indentions.

Just be consistent, I think is what matters. I got one .5 grade and all the cards had near perfect centering. Originally this is what the .5 was for.

To my knowledge, PSA never said the .5 was specifically for exceptional centering. Just that it was for exceptional traits, of which centering is one possibility. The hobby narrative has been that near perfect centering should get you the half grade bump, but I’d love to see where PSA themselves said that.

JoeBanzai

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:
ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

What about corners, edges and surface? 40+ year old PSA 10’s SHOULD be hard.

SInce 2007 I've sent in many thousands of cards to get graded by PSA. And many thousand to get graded by Beckett.

So for instance I received a psa 5 for 1967 clemente and i thought it was a fair grade, nicely centered, corners decent, but it had a small indention.

This last grading I received a psa 5 for a 1984 topps tiffany mattingly. Sharp corners, no white on the back edges. Centering about an 8 or 9 range. I felt the worst i could get was an 8 . I got a PSA 5. There is a huge difference in conditions when comparing these two cards, one looks mint, the other not close. But according to PSA both are 5's.

The mattingly has no indentions.

Just be consistent, I think is what matters. I got one .5 grade and all the cards had near perfect centering. Originally this is what the .5 was for.

To my knowledge, PSA never said the .5 was specifically for exceptional centering. Just that it was for exceptional traits, of which centering is one possibility. The hobby narrative has been that near perfect centering should get you the half grade bump, but I’d love to see where PSA themselves said that.

I believe you are correct, but I also seem to remember centering being mentioned above other "exceptional traits" as a reason for a .5 bump.
Of the cards I have sent in a VERY low percentage get a .5 and when they do, I haven't gotten any more $ because of it.
Seems rather pointless to discuss .5 to me.
My .02.

daltex

@olb31 said:

So for instance I received a psa 5 for 1967 clemente and i thought it was a fair grade, nicely centered, corners decent, but it had a small indention.

This last grading I received a psa 5 for a 1984 topps tiffany mattingly. Sharp corners, no white on the back edges. Centering about an 8 or 9 range. I felt the worst i could get was an 8 . I got a PSA 5. There is a huge difference in conditions when comparing these two cards, one looks mint, the other not close. But according to PSA both are 5's.

The mattingly has no indentions.

So were you able to figure out what's "wrong" with the Mattingly? I means PSA might be stricter on key cards, but not three grades stricter, so I'm sure that there is something you're missing there. No idea if it would be helpful for you to post an image here, but I'll bet if you took it to a knowledgeable friend he'd be able to show you why it's a 5. Surface wrinkle?

There are threads here with many, many pictures of cards with grades that are technically correct but are very aesthetically pleasing for the grade, if you don't look too close.

baz518

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:
ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

What about corners, edges and surface? 40+ year old PSA 10’s SHOULD be hard.

SInce 2007 I've sent in many thousands of cards to get graded by PSA. And many thousand to get graded by Beckett.

So for instance I received a psa 5 for 1967 clemente and i thought it was a fair grade, nicely centered, corners decent, but it had a small indention.

This last grading I received a psa 5 for a 1984 topps tiffany mattingly. Sharp corners, no white on the back edges. Centering about an 8 or 9 range. I felt the worst i could get was an 8 . I got a PSA 5. There is a huge difference in conditions when comparing these two cards, one looks mint, the other not close. But according to PSA both are 5's.

The mattingly has no indentions.

Just be consistent, I think is what matters. I got one .5 grade and all the cards had near perfect centering. Originally this is what the .5 was for.

To my knowledge, PSA never said the .5 was specifically for exceptional centering. Just that it was for exceptional traits, of which centering is one possibility. The hobby narrative has been that near perfect centering should get you the half grade bump, but I’d love to see where PSA themselves said that.

Even without saying it... look at .5s long enough and you'll see the large majority got the .5 grade for centering.

Actions speak louder than words... which is why it's also easy to say PSA is now much harder on grading in general, especially (and even more so) on iconic cards and sets.

Frozencaribou

In what I can only assume is a byproduct of gemamint or similar AI technology, some issues previously of no concern to graders are now penalized harshly.

Specifically, any minute surface indent on the front or back from the factory, even smaller than a pinprick, will downgrade the card to a 7 or 8.

For Topps and OPC, any discoloration for any reason on the back will be no greater than an 8. Tiny oil stains, naturally occurring fibers that are not the same color, or even uncorrected flaws in printing that are common to every example will now most likely be severely downgraded.

For some orders, OPC rough cuts will receive 6's or 7's and no higher. Other orders the rough cuts will have no effect on the grade.

4SC seems to be excluded from these new grading realities, as recently purchased freshly graded 10's have many of these defects, especially in relation to blemishes on the back.

In regard to .5 grades, I believe in some lean times PSA needed revenue and introducing the .5 grades created a new revenue stream and an incentive to resubmit previously graded PSA cards. The .5 grades were applied regularly for 5 years or so in raw orders, and it was common for 20% or so of slabbed cards sent for reviews to be successful. After the mini boom in 2015, less cards received .5 grades, and after COVID almost none receive that designation. Also, it seems that getting bumps on reviews are almost never granted either. For whatever reason, PSA is moving away from .5 grades. Perhaps it is not worth the trouble.

-Nathanael

olb31

@JoeBanzai said:

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:
ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

What about corners, edges and surface? 40+ year old PSA 10’s SHOULD be hard.

SInce 2007 I've sent in many thousands of cards to get graded by PSA. And many thousand to get graded by Beckett.

So for instance I received a psa 5 for 1967 clemente and i thought it was a fair grade, nicely centered, corners decent, but it had a small indention.

This last grading I received a psa 5 for a 1984 topps tiffany mattingly. Sharp corners, no white on the back edges. Centering about an 8 or 9 range. I felt the worst i could get was an 8 . I got a PSA 5. There is a huge difference in conditions when comparing these two cards, one looks mint, the other not close. But according to PSA both are 5's.

The mattingly has no indentions.

Just be consistent, I think is what matters. I got one .5 grade and all the cards had near perfect centering. Originally this is what the .5 was for.

To my knowledge, PSA never said the .5 was specifically for exceptional centering. Just that it was for exceptional traits, of which centering is one possibility. The hobby narrative has been that near perfect centering should get you the half grade bump, but I’d love to see where PSA themselves said that.

I believe you are correct, but I also seem to remember centering being mentioned above other "exceptional traits" as a reason for a .5 bump.
Of the cards I have sent in a VERY low percentage get a .5 and when they do, I haven't gotten any more $ because of it.
Seems rather pointless to discuss .5 to me.
My .02.

Here's an example for you. 1973 clemente psa 8 sells for around $400. an 8.5 last sold for $1100. I can list about 1,000 more examples.

olb31

@daltex said:

@olb31 said:

So for instance I received a psa 5 for 1967 clemente and i thought it was a fair grade, nicely centered, corners decent, but it had a small indention.

This last grading I received a psa 5 for a 1984 topps tiffany mattingly. Sharp corners, no white on the back edges. Centering about an 8 or 9 range. I felt the worst i could get was an 8 . I got a PSA 5. There is a huge difference in conditions when comparing these two cards, one looks mint, the other not close. But according to PSA both are 5's.

The mattingly has no indentions.

So were you able to figure out what's "wrong" with the Mattingly? I means PSA might be stricter on key cards, but not three grades stricter, so I'm sure that there is something you're missing there. No idea if it would be helpful for you to post an image here, but I'll bet if you took it to a knowledgeable friend he'd be able to show you why it's a 5. Surface wrinkle?

There are threads here with many, many pictures of cards with grades that are technically correct but are very aesthetically pleasing for the grade, if you don't look too close.

not yet. but it when a card has 0 sharp corners and an indention, it should not grade the same as a card that came straight out of a set and touched by maybe two people.

JoeBanzai

@olb31 said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:

@DBesse27 said:

@olb31 said:
ive sent over 300, commons, minor stars, and stars in my last 3 submissions. Barely get 9's. All I send in look like 10's for centering purposes.

What about corners, edges and surface? 40+ year old PSA 10’s SHOULD be hard.

SInce 2007 I've sent in many thousands of cards to get graded by PSA. And many thousand to get graded by Beckett.

So for instance I received a psa 5 for 1967 clemente and i thought it was a fair grade, nicely centered, corners decent, but it had a small indention.

This last grading I received a psa 5 for a 1984 topps tiffany mattingly. Sharp corners, no white on the back edges. Centering about an 8 or 9 range. I felt the worst i could get was an 8 . I got a PSA 5. There is a huge difference in conditions when comparing these two cards, one looks mint, the other not close. But according to PSA both are 5's.

The mattingly has no indentions.

Just be consistent, I think is what matters. I got one .5 grade and all the cards had near perfect centering. Originally this is what the .5 was for.

To my knowledge, PSA never said the .5 was specifically for exceptional centering. Just that it was for exceptional traits, of which centering is one possibility. The hobby narrative has been that near perfect centering should get you the half grade bump, but I’d love to see where PSA themselves said that.

I believe you are correct, but I also seem to remember centering being mentioned above other "exceptional traits" as a reason for a .5 bump.
Of the cards I have sent in a VERY low percentage get a .5 and when they do, I haven't gotten any more $ because of it.
Seems rather pointless to discuss .5 to me.
My .02.

Here's an example for you. 1973 clemente psa 8 sells for around $400. an 8.5 last sold for $1100. I can list about 1,000 more examples.

I'm just saying in my experience. Generally Killebrew cards.
Clemente collectors are much more competitive (insane?) than most.
I am also sure there are many others where the .5 made the seller more.

olb31

Nathaniel's post is dead on. Tske a look at a 1989 opc sakic psa 10 that just sold from the sharp corner guys on ebay. and the cardboard issues, have been stretched from an 8 to 7.

milbroco

olb31

good job.

dan89

0-15 in last sub that just popped which was the pre 89 special. Thought minimum 3-4 or more were solid locks for 10’s. Did get many nines, however more 8’s than I projected as well.

miwlvrn

@dan89 said:
0-15 in last sub that just popped which was the pre 89 special. Thought minimum 3-4 or more were solid locks for 10’s. Did get many nines, however more 8’s than I projected as well.

This was my experience as well. I sent in approx 40 1983 Topps about a year ago or so that looked like they had a great shot. Only one came back 10. Most were 9's and a few 8's.

olb31

i sent in 115 and got 0 10's 1985 and older.

JoeBanzai

@olb31 said:
i sent in 115 and got 0 10's 1985 and older.

Ouch!

Care to post a scan or two?

handyman

Stars or just commons? 115. You where mainly going for 9 or better type stuff?

detroitfan2

@miwlvrn said:

@dan89 said:
0-15 in last sub that just popped which was the pre 89 special. Thought minimum 3-4 or more were solid locks for 10’s. Did get many nines, however more 8’s than I projected as well.

This was my experience as well. I sent in approx 40 1983 Topps about a year ago or so that looked like they had a great shot. Only one came back 10. Most were 9's and a few 8's.

And let me guess, ZERO 8.5s, which of course makes no statistical sense.

olb31

all hofers and stars. i received 0 8.5's. i got a 6.5 1976 brett and a 7.5 1979 eddie murray. only two 1/2's. very few 9's. maybe 10.

Bosox1976

Couple of good hits from the great COVID backup at PSA, but many nice 80’s cards returned with a dinged corner or edge 🤨

BBBrkrr

Love that Ripken.

brad31

Love the Palmer!