My ten card PSA Submission pops…

1951WheatiesPremium

…and I am sad.

Really, really sad.

ldferg

Nice selection. No doubt there's a new standard for vintage grading.

Chicago1976

Some tough grades there. I can only guess surface or back issues? And that 1969 Transogram holder is really...odd.

1951WheatiesPremium

@Chicago1976 said:
Some tought grades there. I can only guess surface or back issues? And that 1969 Transogram holder is really...odd.

Are you asking me if the cards have flaws? Yes, they have flaws.

GroceryRackPack

hey 51Wheaties...
that's still a Cool Lookin' Mick...Nice & Vintagey...

1951WheatiesPremium

These are the backs.

It is what it is. Maybe the next one goes better.

azvike

Minimum 1-2 grades better if all those cards were commons from those years IMO.

BBBrkrr

I don’t get why any of those are 1s.

swish54

Those are some really nice eye appeal cards! My guess is the ones that are OC were dropped 2 grades without the OC qualifier. Also, the 60 & 61 have stains on the backs, so again, without the ST qualifier they were dropped by 2 grades.

threeofsix

Spectacular cards….
thanks for sharing.

PaulMaul

@swish54 said:
Those are some really nice eye appeal cards! My guess is the ones that are OC were dropped 2 grades without the OC qualifier. Also, the 60 & 61 have stains on the backs, so again, without the ST qualifier they were dropped by 2 grades.

I don’t think that’s the way it is supposed to work. The theoretical “2 grade drop” should not affect grades which already allow the card to be OC. In other words, a PSA 5 can already be 85/15…why lower the grade from there?

JolleyWrencher

How many people would buy those on ebay and expect to resubmit for higher grades, assuming no creases or major imprints? I have a feeling most people would be all over it.

Can PSA have the graders comment to inform us all of the misunderstanding this entire board seems to have? We can all chip in $5 to get a few hours of their time and then we can all be happier knowing what the bottom line is here. This seems to be a recurring theme in 2023.

divecchia

Wow, those are some nice cards and I believe the graders were tough on them.

Donato

4for4

@threeofsix said:
Spectacular cards….
thanks for sharing.

Beautiful cards.

nendee

Wow. Grades were tragic based on those nice looking cards.

1951WheatiesPremium

I share quite often on these boards and if you never share the ‘losses’ then it seems like all you do is win.

I think everyone on the boards has had tough results of their own and I appreciate everyone’s kind words.

Sometimes you’re the bug, sometimes you’re the windshield.

😉

bswhiten

Think of it this way Tim - with 1’s and 2’s you will be less tempted to sell them
Nice selection of Mick cards.

jeffv96masters

@divecchia said:
Wow, those are some nice cards and I believe the graders were tough on them.

Donato

Bro your alive ??

Cs223406

these cards look fantastic, irrespective of technical grade

Cakes

@4for4 said:

@threeofsix said:
Spectacular cards….
thanks for sharing.

Beautiful cards.
Don’t let their “opinions” ruin anything. Great cards.

I get your point but the damage has already been done! Many of us have committed to PSA over the last 10 to 20 years, and it will take us awhile to come to terms with just how strict their grading has become.

I sent in a similar 58 all star card roughly 8 years ago and it graded a 4. Pic attached.

BBBrkrr

@Cakes said:

@4for4 said:

@threeofsix said:
Spectacular cards….
thanks for sharing.

Beautiful cards.
Don’t let their “opinions” ruin anything. Great cards.

I get your point but the damage has already been done! Many of us have committed to PSA over the last 10 to 20 years, and it will take us awhile to come to terms with just how strict their grading has become.

I sent in a similar 58 all star card roughly 8 years ago and it graded a 4. Pic attached.

I'm a PSA guy too, and try to keep everything I own in their holders.

A good buddy of mine is 100% convinced that PSA is slowly undermining their own dominance in the grading game and that other companies (SGC?) will overtake them. He never crosses over or cracks/subs cards to PSA because of that.

There's no way to know for sure, but if there's one that thinks that there have to be others.

mark_dak

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I share quite often on these boards and if you never share the ‘losses’ then it seems like all you do is win.

I think everyone on the boards has had tough results of their own and I appreciate everyone’s kind words.

Sometimes you’re the bug, sometimes you’re the windshield.

😉

Still a nice group of cards. I feel your pain. Don't really feel like dropping a boatload of money to get cards back months later at a grade that will force me to sell at a discount from previously graded ones.

It appears this is a case of making a market but grades like these will derail the business IMHO. Let a 10 be a 10 and a 2 be a 2... PERIOD! I think I'll hold my vintage stuff for a while... obviously missed the boat by not sending them in years ago.

Mark

4for4

@BBBrkrr said:

@Cakes said:

@4for4 said:

@threeofsix said:
Spectacular cards….
thanks for sharing.

Beautiful cards.
Don’t let their “opinions” ruin anything. Great cards.

I get your point but the damage has already been done! Many of us have committed to PSA over the last 10 to 20 years, and it will take us awhile to come to terms with just how strict their grading has become.

I sent in a similar 58 all star card roughly 8 years ago and it graded a 4. Pic attached.

I'm a PSA guy too, and try to keep everything I own in their holders.

A good buddy of mine is 100% convinced that PSA is slowly undermining their own dominance in the grading game and that other companies (SGC?) will overtake them. He never crosses over or cracks/subs cards to PSA because of that.

There's no way to know for sure, but if there's one that thinks that there have to be others.

Perhaps.
My thinking is being known as the toughest grading company in the business strengthens their brand instead of weakening it.

olb31

the 1960 should be a 4.

Cakes

Cakes

Please crack anything 2 and below and sub them again to whomever. I will donate to the sub if others do.

1951WheatiesPremium

Thanks, everyone. I appreciate all the comments. Truly.

I would only ask that no one says anything to get themselves in trouble here in this thread.

It will accomplish exactly nothing and I’ll end up feeling responsible.

Ahmanfan

This is the kind of sub that reinforces my decision to submit on occasion to SGC. Too lenient or too harsh, either way the grades are INACCURATE from PSA. I feel like they are not understanding that. They think the more undergraded the cards are, the more they did their job.

Honestly I think they hired a bunch of inexperienced graders during the boom who graded All modern cards and are now (under)grading vintage. Meanwhile SGC has had the same experienced graders grading the same vintage cards for years much more consistently.
John

BBBrkrr

I was curious what other '68 PSA 1s look like and this was one of the first ones I found on Ebay. In comparison yours looks great and this one should probably have a negative number. It does make for an interesting comparison. There are big creases here that yours doesn't seem to have, and your corners seem better. I'd rather have yours.

jay0791

Low grades or not......feel blessed to own such nice Mantle cards. The general consensus is that grading standards have risen the last few years.

JolleyWrencher

Standards have risen?
The descriptions haven't changed but possibly the employees and leadership have. Probably worth probing into since it seems many are disappointed. It would be interesting to see these get graded at a booth.

lwehlers

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
These are the backs.

It is what it is. Maybe the next one goes better.

psa was a little hard on some of the cards you had. great looking mantles some of them look like they were graded lower then they could have.

RonSportscards

Just my opinions based off pics:

Managers Dream is properly graded, maybe even overgraded given the surface wear.
Mantle/Aaron is properly graded.
'61 MVP is properly graded, maybe even overgraded given the back staining/discoloring.
'58 All Star makes no sense as a 2.
'69 Transogram also makes no sense as a 3.
'67 Topps is ridiculous as a 1.5
'62 All Star is properly graded as a 4. Maybe a gift, given the back appears 100/0 centering, close to miscut.
'60 Topps is maybe undergraded as a 2, given the back staining.
'66 Topps is undergraded as a 1, by 1 or 2 grades.
'68 Topps is undergraded as a 1. Although they may consider the corners as paper loss vs. wear.

When I think of 1s, 1.5s or even 2s, I think of heavy wear, obvious creases, dings, chips, etc.
I don't see any that warrant a 1 or 1.5

daltex

@BBBrkrr said:
I was curious what other '68 PSA 1s look like and this was one of the first ones I found on Ebay. In comparison yours looks great and this one should probably have a negative number. It does make for an interesting comparison. There are big creases here that yours doesn't seem to have, and your corners seem better. I'd rather have yours.

Well, this is the nature of any bounded system. Below a certain level, all cards will (must) be graded the same. With only eighteen grades, it's even more of an issue, but a high end one will look very different from a low end one.

1959

PSA is hammering vintage stars. Mantles, MAYS, AARONS, KOUFAX. ETC. Not just yours. But SCG seems to be doing the same. Could be new graders or AI scanning. ??? Same graders grading modern and vintage.

JolleyWrencher

Someday people will be selling labels for big money without the cards because they will be a scarce collector vintage item.

2dueces

Very nice cards and all I can say is “Ouch.”