Some of you guys are as harsh as the graders you complain about.
The Carew probably shouldn't be a 10, but it's a 9 all day.
The problem is, of course, inconsistency.
Because when you start comparing the Carew to other existing 8s, 9s, and 10s, and to recently returned subs, then there is going to be a lot of frustration.
And yes, I have better looking 9s, but that doesn't mean the Carew should be an 8, it just means my 9 should be a 10.
So my personal experiment is now complete when it comes to one of the topics raised here. I sent some 50s cards that had been PSA graded over to SGC as crossovers and some raw that I originally purchased feeling I would send to PSA. My overall general feeling is I will probably heavily limit buying raw 50s cards with the intention of getting them graded by anyone again. There was a tendency for SGC to be a half or a full point higher on my 1956 Topps. Which is nice but a lot of them were purchased at NM or better prices in auctions where I have to believe many others saw them in a higher grade. PSA did give one 8 but then the rest all 5s or 5.5s. SGC 6 was the best on that year. So just across the board I think PSA and SGC see lower grades than Greg Morris and the people who bid on those cards. I did get one 8 from SGC in a 57 Topps football Art Donovan and that was nice. And some of the bumps matter more and make me glad I tried this. But I think a lot of them you say what is it worth in a PSA holder and what discount do you apply to the grade in an SGC holder in comparison to PSA and what is the cost to get it reviewed, not so much of a net gain. Just feels like people appreciate raw cards at a certain value and it drops when holdered whoever it is. Buy 50s raw and send to PSA it is a fail +3 and send to SGC and it is a fail +1 or +2. Neither one feels like a great investment. If its fun, I get it. But think my fun will be buying already graded. For older stuff. Interestingly I did some 90s 2020s crossover attempts and no bump but all but one of quite a few 30s 50s 60s got a bump. Got a 89 Score Marino into a 9.5 holder and not a huge win but kind of like the way it looks and not like they see it different, they just have a grade PSA does not. Felt my Hank Aaron grades were lower than they should have been so maybe that is consistent wherever you go.
Have three orders with PSA and one is 70s and older and 2 are 2023 and think I stick with just modern on subs. But maybe 60s 70s 80s. More on the fence there.
I love the 72 set, but I'm not sure Topps ever put out any that were centered. Just terrible on almost all you see.
That 74 Aaron is a tough 3 for sure. Is there some small wrinkle on there? Otherwise, tough to see why it's pulling that.
I used to buy a lot of other brands, crack and send to PSA and had a good track record of getting the same or at least a 1 or 2 bump. That's harder these days and I've had to be a lot more picky about what I'm buying to crack.
I'll have to take a closer look when they are returned, just working from their scans provided now, but I did not see it on the 74 Aaron. It has a real rough cut on one edge like the worst of the OPCs but I have thought that sometimes is excused. It was included in a batch of cards at a show for a reasonably cheap price so not a major loss. I was just hoping for a home run. The 72 Aaron centering is weak but feel like you see that on 7s and sometimes even 8s. Was hoping for a 7 with a grader who was having a nice day but only gave it like a 30% chance. 5 feels low with such minor corner wear. But guess that is where we are now. I have a PSA 7 that does not look much nicer, if at all.
Have been thinking about it and some of the 56T that were sent to SGC were listed as EX-MT so some not far off from the Greg Morris grade at all. The 68 Leaders was listed as NR-MINT so that was a match.
@Harnessracing said:
What I’m seeing is a complete disregard for their own published standard.
I also see that is you have say a card that’s a $50 card in 8, you’ll get the 8 BUT if it’s a $200 card in 8 you’ll get the 7. My submission that popped yesterday and another this morning were both that way. If it’s an expensive card, guaranteed you will get a grade or 2 lower than what you expect.
When 90% of the submitters here are all saying the same thing. Something is up
This 1000%. No exaggeration every single vintage card I sent to PSA this year that was a high profile player/year card came back one grade lower than the average grade for the less valuable cards in any given submission. Ronnie Lott, L.T., and Joe Montana? 7, 6, 7. The rest of the '82 NFL cards I sent in? Average 8, couple of 9's. Oh yeah Walter Payton? 7. This was on top of the lower grades all vintage cards have been getting. Every single time.
WOW!!! I get to add to this thread!! I am so honored that I just received my first PSA 7, 7.5, or 8, in a PSA 5 case!!!! Oh what a wonderful life!!! I can't wait to break it out and place it in a magnetic holder where it will get the respect it deserves. Oddly enough, I won't be getting my 100+ 1957 Topps graded! They are just fine the way they are, and worth more in the magnetic holder.
I now have trouble trying to build a sub as I’ve lost confidence in my eyes and what is now a problem or comes back with added wear. I’ll make a sub and then doubt the whole thing. Keep making others, and starting it over. I’m frustrated and I am just waiting for my last special to pop. Before I try again. Just to much going on with grading right now.
It’s funny you said additional wear. I’ve had a few that I thought were much better but once back I’ve seen corner issues that I would of caught pre submission
Funny you say the corners look more worn and you think you would have caught it. Maybe they did get worse after they left your hands. I only noticed a scratch to the right of Lawrence's shoulder way after I took a pic and sent it to SGC to see if they could go 9.5. Was waiting for grades and took a look again and was thinking okay, lost on that one, waste of money. Then was looking at the pic I took before I sent to PSA to be graded and it looks pretty clean. Noticed that with two other Lawrence cards that there were hard hard dents on the reverse after saying what on Earth I thought this was a 10 but they came back 6. Then flip it over and it looks like someone pushed into it with a butter knife. Could have been that way before but just seemed odd. Maybe someone cant stand Trevor. But just seems like whoever sold it to me, how does that get there. They probably go from pack to penny sleeve to top loader very very delicately knowing they just pulled a prize, not running some Dracula nail hard across the back. Wondering if attempts to improve turnaround and automate and be more efficient has cards getting pressed by metal. I dont remember seeing any cards with those types of marks/dents until recently.
I do love that Aaron. Your 5 is better than my 5. Your 5 is more of a 7 than my 5 is a 7. 😂
I got a 78 Klecko back recently that had a similar indention arced along the front bottom. It definitely wasn't there when I sent it ( ). I think it came back as a 4, but don't remember. I set it aside because it's basically worthless now.
I am with you all in the anger and frustration on so many fronts. I can live with price increases and I can live with slow turnaround times. PSA damaging my cards while in their possession, and PSA changing its grading outcomes without changing its grading standards, are the two most difficult things to accept.
Here's a typical PSA 5 1955 parkhurst from the 2010 era of PSA grading.
And here's a PSA 5 today...
Begs the question, what would that card need to look like to get a 6? If unrealistic standards are here to stay, vintage high grade cards will be the exclusive domain of card doctors submissions.
@Frozencaribou said:
I am with you all in the anger and frustration on so many fronts. I can live with price increases and I can live with slow turnaround times. PSA damaging my cards while in their possession, and PSA changing its grading outcomes without changing its grading standards, are the two most difficult things to accept.
Here's a typical PSA 5 1955 parkhurst from the 2010 era of PSA grading.
And here's a PSA 5 today...
Begs the question, what would that card need to look like to get a 6? If unrealistic standards are here to stay, vintage high grade cards will be the exclusive domain of card doctors submissions.
My 80s special 50-card sub POPPED today!!
Gotta say, I'm not mad. Although there were definitely a few head scratchers.
Overall, 27 out of 50 matched my grade. 7 were over my grade. 11 were under by 1 grade. And 5 were 2+ grades under.
6-10s / 23-9s / 11-8s / 2-7s / 6-6s / 1-4 / 1-3
The perforated cards took the biggest hits.
I don't think the graders are familiar with some of these and how they are packaged.
I had 8s, 9s and even a shot at a 10 on some of these, but saw 6s and a 4.
My biggest hit was the 1984 TOPPS RUB DOWNS which I thought was very high grade, but it somehow got a 3.
This is certainly one I wish came with an explanation.
My other takeaway is, I think I'm done sending in Nolan Ryan and Pete Rose cards.
They just don't seem to get equal treatment.
I cherry pick 4-5 of same year/same high quality cards and the "lesser" star players get 9s and the Ryan gets a 7?
I just had 4 pop today that were 2023 which leaves my recent experiences like this:
2023 Disney Lorcana cards: Phenomenal. Exceeded expectations
Other 2000 and later Pokemon and modern sports: appealing and a great experience, a lot of great wins and even surprises to the upside. Some disappointments but they balance out and maybe more on the good side, a very positive experience. I really feel good about the Upper Deck Young Guns grades that come back.
90s: dont play much here. Can depend on the day and who you get. 93 95 Finest Refractors they usually dont seem to want to give out great grades and some surprising low grades when you are talking about razor sharp cards. Then some of my most pleasant surprises in terms of exceeded expectations were late 90s Bowman Chrome refractors.
80s: slightly disappointing but not shocking or jaw-dropping awful. Even in like 2008 I could be disappointed with 1980s Topps results in a similar way. Now just have grown to accept there wont be a 10. Can feel nice about some 9s but some come back 8s that seem like 9s. Probably have done enough there. Did a lot of 1984 Topps Nestle hand cut and it just feels like a huge variance there so probably done there too. 84 Donruss very close to meeting expectations. Interestingly, Garbage Pail Kids I felt like results surpassed expectations.
70s-similar to 1980 Topps where there are very few pleasant surprises. Maybe one grade lower than I hoped. Kind of a 😐 experience.
60s-not much here
50s-limited subs but real bad from PSA and mildly disappointing from SGC. Maybe its me but I get it, my attentions should go elsewhere when it comes to raw.
@UlyssesExtravaganza said:
I just had 4 pop today that were 2023 which leaves my recent experiences like this:
2023 Disney Lorcana cards: Phenomenal. Exceeded expectations
Other 2000 and later Pokemon and modern sports: appealing and a great experience, a lot of great wins and even surprises to the upside. Some disappointments but they balance out and maybe more on the good side, a very positive experience. I really feel good about the Upper Deck Young Guns grades that come back.
90s: dont play much here. Can depend on the day and who you get. 93 95 Finest Refractors they usually dont seem to want to give out great grades and some surprising low grades when you are talking about razor sharp cards. Then some of my most pleasant surprises in terms of exceeded expectations were late 90s Bowman Chrome refractors.
80s: slightly disappointing but not shocking or jaw-dropping awful. Even in like 2008 I could be disappointed with 1980s Topps results in a similar way. Now just have grown to accept there wont be a 10. Can feel nice about some 9s but some come back 8s that seem like 9s. Probably have done enough there. Did a lot of 1984 Topps Nestle hand cut and it just feels like a huge variance there so probably done there too. 84 Donruss very close to meeting expectations. Interestingly, Garbage Pail Kids I felt like results surpassed expectations.
70s-similar to 1980 Topps where there are very few pleasant surprises. Maybe one grade lower than I hoped. Kind of a 😐 experience.
60s-not much here
50s-limited subs but real bad from PSA and mildly disappointing from SGC. Maybe its me but I get it, my attentions should go elsewhere when it comes to raw.
I had (4) 84 Nestle's that I thought were 9s with a couple shots at a 10.
They came back 3-9s / 1-8. Disappointed of course, but within reason.
My '80s sub and the '90s+ sub were mostly on point. About 90% within 1 grade.
The trouble seems to be pre-80 stuff and some oddballs where 75% of my subs were 2+ grades below my grade.
Seems unlikely one can accurately grade 80s+ and be so far off on pre-80s vs PSA grades, so something is going on.
I have a stack of mostly 70s ready to go, but I'm hesitant.
If a 70s special pops up, I'll do it, but if they come back like the other pre-80s, I'll have to rethink and limit what I sub.
@hyperchipper09 said:
This has been happening for a few years in the lighthouse era:
I have a 89 Jordan like that. I've checked it thoroughly with a 30x loupe, and still can't see why mine got a 5.
They also seem to be pretty stingy with the 10s on late 80s/early 90s RC of bigger stars.
My cherry picked Bo Jacksons and Randy Johnsons, for example, can't get better than a 9.
@hyperchipper09 said:
This has been happening for a few years in the lighthouse era:
I have a 89 Jordan like that. I've checked it thoroughly with a 30x loupe, and still can't see why mine got a 5.
They also seem to be pretty stingy with the 10s on late 80s/early 90s RC of bigger stars.
My cherry picked Bo Jacksons and Randy Johnsons, for example, can't get better than a 9.
Ouch ,that is one nice looking card. Don't most 5's have surface ware and rounded corners.
@Harnessracing said:
It’s funny you said additional wear. I’ve had a few that I thought were much better but once back I’ve seen corner issues that I would of caught pre submission
This. I also swear they are switching cards or mishandling them causing damage and then not owning up to it. I have also had cards come back with a ding or bent corner too big for me to have missed before sending in. I'm staring at a slab thinking, " no effing way I sent a card looking like this in for grading".
My contribution to this thread. The print markings on the card are typical of this issue, and they appear on PSA 7s and 8s, so I cannot say for sure that they are the reason for the 5 grade. There are no scratches or surface issues whatsoever. Everything about this card, front and back, is razor sharp. The centering is remarkable, as well.
Well, I’m hopeful that the cards received en masse from the 50’s and 60’s specials are viewed as an opportunity by PSA to highlight some notable differences in how cards from the time period differ considerably from modern cards to their graders.
The difference in stock type alone is something that I believe changes the evaluation considerably, or at least it should. Cards today are printed to be better cards and it’s reflected in the price and quality of said cards. The average card produced today gets to the end user with considerably better centering, corners, borders, surface and print jobs than cards of yesteryear because better technology and better materials have made it so. Those same attributes, though, are all over the map with vintage cards and that does not really seem to be factored in accordingly at this time.
But I do believe that PSA will get this right, too. I’ve said this before because I try to stay level headed about things as I’ve gotten older (especially since I sucked at it as a young man) but the amount and quality of improvements that have been made over the last 3-5 years are truly nothing short of remarkable and they’re often taken for granted soon after they’ve been introduced.
And, by the way, this is all from someone who is also pretty frustrated…
…but, again, I do think we’re going to start seeing better results soon. Things often get worse before they get better - that’s always how real change happens.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@UlyssesExtravaganza said:
Funny you say the corners look more worn and you think you would have caught it. Maybe they did get worse after they left your hands. I only noticed a scratch to the right of Lawrence's shoulder way after I took a pic and sent it to SGC to see if they could go 9.5. Was waiting for grades and took a look again and was thinking okay, lost on that one, waste of money. Then was looking at the pic I took before I sent to PSA to be graded and it looks pretty clean. Noticed that with two other Lawrence cards that there were hard hard dents on the reverse after saying what on Earth I thought this was a 10 but they came back 6. Then flip it over and it looks like someone pushed into it with a butter knife. Could have been that way before but just seemed odd. Maybe someone cant stand Trevor. But just seems like whoever sold it to me, how does that get there. They probably go from pack to penny sleeve to top loader very very delicately knowing they just pulled a prize, not running some Dracula nail hard across the back. Wondering if attempts to improve turnaround and automate and be more efficient has cards getting pressed by metal.** I dont remember seeing any cards with those types of marks/dents until recently.**
I opened a lot of football Optic from 2016-2020. Those "nail indents" you see on the back of Optic have been there every year. I check for it when I sub Optic. It must be from the printing process because it is random and shows up on all cards in the set.
I understand that mabe some new graders are getting vintage wrong. But each of these cards are supposed to be reviewed by more experienced graders. Are they really being re-looked at? I don't think so.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Well, I’m hopeful that the cards received en masse from the 50’s and 60’s specials are viewed as an opportunity by PSA to highlight some notable differences in how cards from the time period differ considerably from modern cards to their graders.
The difference in stock type alone is something that I believe changes the evaluation considerably, or at least it should. Cards today are printed to be better cards and it’s reflected in the price and quality of said cards. The average card produced today gets to the end user with considerably better centering, corners, borders, surface and print jobs than cards of yesteryear because better technology and better materials have made it so. Those same attributes, though, are all over the map with vintage cards and that does not really seem to be factored in accordingly at this time.
But I do believe that PSA will get this right, too. I’ve said this before because I try to stay level headed about things as I’ve gotten older (especially since I sucked at it as a young man) but the amount and quality of improvements that have been made over the last 3-5 years are truly nothing short of remarkable and they’re often taken for granted soon after they’ve been introduced.
And, by the way, this is all from someone who is also pretty frustrated…
…but, again, I do think we’re going to start seeing better results soon. Things often get worse before they get better - that’s always how real change happens.
Jesus those Mantles are beauties. What a shame on the grades. I hope your optimism is correct and it does get better. I might have to change my strategy. Instead of submitting raw and getting crushed on the grades, I may buy up all of the PSA 5's and below with the 700 series cert #'s and when grading standards get better, crack and resub those cards.
@sayheywyo said:
I wonder if there will be many takers on the current '50's special. It just seems like a call for low grade to get slabbed.
I sent a handful (13) in and am hoping for middle-of-the-road on most. Nothing really should be in the upper third.
Now that I see what those Mantles got I'm having serious 2nd thoughts about even sending those. If they come back 1, 2 or 3s then I'm going to have to take a major pause on subbing, and I have a stack of about 300 from the 70s I'm ready to send.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Well, I’m hopeful that the cards received en masse from the 50’s and 60’s specials are viewed as an opportunity by PSA to highlight some notable differences in how cards from the time period differ considerably from modern cards to their graders.
The difference in stock type alone is something that I believe changes the evaluation considerably, or at least it should. Cards today are printed to be better cards and it’s reflected in the price and quality of said cards. The average card produced today gets to the end user with considerably better centering, corners, borders, surface and print jobs than cards of yesteryear because better technology and better materials have made it so. Those same attributes, though, are all over the map with vintage cards and that does not really seem to be factored in accordingly at this time.
But I do believe that PSA will get this right, too. I’ve said this before because I try to stay level headed about things as I’ve gotten older (especially since I sucked at it as a young man) but the amount and quality of improvements that have been made over the last 3-5 years are truly nothing short of remarkable and they’re often taken for granted soon after they’ve been introduced.
And, by the way, this is all from someone who is also pretty frustrated…
…but, again, I do think we’re going to start seeing better results soon. Things often get worse before they get better - that’s always how real change happens.
Jesus those Mantles are beauties. What a shame on the grades. I hope your optimism is correct and it does get better. I might have to change my strategy. Instead of submitting raw and getting crushed on the grades, I may buy up all of the PSA 5's and below with the 700 series cert #'s and when grading standards get better, crack and resub those cards.
For sure; there’s a lot of cards out there right now that would benefit from liberation.
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Well, I’m hopeful that the cards received en masse from the 50’s and 60’s specials are viewed as an opportunity by PSA to highlight some notable differences in how cards from the time period differ considerably from modern cards to their graders.
The difference in stock type alone is something that I believe changes the evaluation considerably, or at least it should. Cards today are printed to be better cards and it’s reflected in the price and quality of said cards. The average card produced today gets to the end user with considerably better centering, corners, borders, surface and print jobs than cards of yesteryear because better technology and better materials have made it so. Those same attributes, though, are all over the map with vintage cards and that does not really seem to be factored in accordingly at this time.
But I do believe that PSA will get this right, too. I’ve said this before because I try to stay level headed about things as I’ve gotten older (especially since I sucked at it as a young man) but the amount and quality of improvements that have been made over the last 3-5 years are truly nothing short of remarkable and they’re often taken for granted soon after they’ve been introduced.
And, by the way, this is all from someone who is also pretty frustrated…
…but, again, I do think we’re going to start seeing better results soon. Things often get worse before they get better - that’s always how real change happens.
Those cards probably look better than the PSA 5 I got.
That Gibson had a hamster take a bite out of it. Must have lined the cage. Hey, is just me, it seems all the under grades of pre 1990 cards is a PSA 5. This thread is full of PSA 5's. Mine also is a PSA 5. PSA 5 must be the max an older card can get. Cool.
Instead of submitting raw and getting crushed on the grades, I may buy up all of the PSA 5's and below with the 700 series cert #'s and when grading standards get better, crack and resub those cards.
The problem with that strategy is the inconsistency. As the Gibson shows, not all orders are hammered these days. Many orders do get hammered, some get graded in line with historical norms and a small percentage of orders get laughably high grades. I just bought a PSA 9 1961 common in the new holder and it in no way is a 9. Two corners are touched including one with a paper break where it had previously been bent.
@Chargers49ersLakers said:
That Gibson had a hamster take a bite out of it. Must have lined the cage. Hey, is just me, it seems all the under grades of pre 1990 cards is a PSA 5. This thread is full of PSA 5's. Mine also is a PSA 5. PSA 5 must be the max an older card can get. Cool.
This whole microscopic, micro management of cards has really dampened for some the enjoyment of collecting. Where the value has superceded just the simple enjoyment of collecting. I understand that value is a part of collecting for some, and you will get no argument from me if that is your choice. But it seems that the grading aspect is more about said value and if that value is diminished the card enjoyment is less. My card collecting interest goes back so far that I remember when the value was not a factor. Just what player we wanted to collect devoid of value. Such simpler times were those with more enjoyment from a collecting standpoint. I wish everyone, and hope that those who are discouraged with collecting from the grading fatigue standpoint, find some solace within their collecting world. It is still a great hobby.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
Comments
Guys are judging before even seeing the back? Come on it will change yalls minds that the grade fits.
But yes I want that grader.
Some of you guys are as harsh as the graders you complain about.
The Carew probably shouldn't be a 10, but it's a 9 all day.
The problem is, of course, inconsistency.
Because when you start comparing the Carew to other existing 8s, 9s, and 10s, and to recently returned subs, then there is going to be a lot of frustration.
And yes, I have better looking 9s, but that doesn't mean the Carew should be an 8, it just means my 9 should be a 10.
I wouldn’t say anything if it was a 9 but it’s not.
Especially when I’ve seen scores of 8’s without a touch on them.
So my personal experiment is now complete when it comes to one of the topics raised here. I sent some 50s cards that had been PSA graded over to SGC as crossovers and some raw that I originally purchased feeling I would send to PSA. My overall general feeling is I will probably heavily limit buying raw 50s cards with the intention of getting them graded by anyone again. There was a tendency for SGC to be a half or a full point higher on my 1956 Topps. Which is nice but a lot of them were purchased at NM or better prices in auctions where I have to believe many others saw them in a higher grade. PSA did give one 8 but then the rest all 5s or 5.5s. SGC 6 was the best on that year. So just across the board I think PSA and SGC see lower grades than Greg Morris and the people who bid on those cards. I did get one 8 from SGC in a 57 Topps football Art Donovan and that was nice. And some of the bumps matter more and make me glad I tried this. But I think a lot of them you say what is it worth in a PSA holder and what discount do you apply to the grade in an SGC holder in comparison to PSA and what is the cost to get it reviewed, not so much of a net gain. Just feels like people appreciate raw cards at a certain value and it drops when holdered whoever it is. Buy 50s raw and send to PSA it is a fail +3 and send to SGC and it is a fail +1 or +2. Neither one feels like a great investment. If its fun, I get it. But think my fun will be buying already graded. For older stuff. Interestingly I did some 90s 2020s crossover attempts and no bump but all but one of quite a few 30s 50s 60s got a bump. Got a 89 Score Marino into a 9.5 holder and not a huge win but kind of like the way it looks and not like they see it different, they just have a grade PSA does not. Felt my Hank Aaron grades were lower than they should have been so maybe that is consistent wherever you go.
Have three orders with PSA and one is 70s and older and 2 are 2023 and think I stick with just modern on subs. But maybe 60s 70s 80s. More on the fence there.
I love the 72 set, but I'm not sure Topps ever put out any that were centered. Just terrible on almost all you see.
That 74 Aaron is a tough 3 for sure. Is there some small wrinkle on there? Otherwise, tough to see why it's pulling that.
I used to buy a lot of other brands, crack and send to PSA and had a good track record of getting the same or at least a 1 or 2 bump. That's harder these days and I've had to be a lot more picky about what I'm buying to crack.
I'll have to take a closer look when they are returned, just working from their scans provided now, but I did not see it on the 74 Aaron. It has a real rough cut on one edge like the worst of the OPCs but I have thought that sometimes is excused. It was included in a batch of cards at a show for a reasonably cheap price so not a major loss. I was just hoping for a home run. The 72 Aaron centering is weak but feel like you see that on 7s and sometimes even 8s. Was hoping for a 7 with a grader who was having a nice day but only gave it like a 30% chance. 5 feels low with such minor corner wear. But guess that is where we are now. I have a PSA 7 that does not look much nicer, if at all.
Have been thinking about it and some of the 56T that were sent to SGC were listed as EX-MT so some not far off from the Greg Morris grade at all. The 68 Leaders was listed as NR-MINT so that was a match.
This 1000%. No exaggeration every single vintage card I sent to PSA this year that was a high profile player/year card came back one grade lower than the average grade for the less valuable cards in any given submission. Ronnie Lott, L.T., and Joe Montana? 7, 6, 7. The rest of the '82 NFL cards I sent in? Average 8, couple of 9's. Oh yeah Walter Payton? 7. This was on top of the lower grades all vintage cards have been getting. Every single time.
WOW!!! I get to add to this thread!! I am so honored that I just received my first PSA 7, 7.5, or 8, in a PSA 5 case!!!! Oh what a wonderful life!!! I can't wait to break it out and place it in a magnetic holder where it will get the respect it deserves. Oddly enough, I won't be getting my 100+ 1957 Topps graded! They are just fine the way they are, and worth more in the magnetic holder.
Great looking Aaron card.
Here are a few from my last couple SGC submissions. Not all great results , have had some head scratchers but overall pleased.
I now have trouble trying to build a sub as I’ve lost confidence in my eyes and what is now a problem or comes back with added wear. I’ll make a sub and then doubt the whole thing. Keep making others, and starting it over. I’m frustrated and I am just waiting for my last special to pop. Before I try again. Just to much going on with grading right now.
It’s funny you said additional wear. I’ve had a few that I thought were much better but once back I’ve seen corner issues that I would of caught pre submission
Funny you say the corners look more worn and you think you would have caught it. Maybe they did get worse after they left your hands. I only noticed a scratch to the right of Lawrence's shoulder way after I took a pic and sent it to SGC to see if they could go 9.5. Was waiting for grades and took a look again and was thinking okay, lost on that one, waste of money. Then was looking at the pic I took before I sent to PSA to be graded and it looks pretty clean. Noticed that with two other Lawrence cards that there were hard hard dents on the reverse after saying what on Earth I thought this was a 10 but they came back 6. Then flip it over and it looks like someone pushed into it with a butter knife. Could have been that way before but just seemed odd. Maybe someone cant stand Trevor. But just seems like whoever sold it to me, how does that get there. They probably go from pack to penny sleeve to top loader very very delicately knowing they just pulled a prize, not running some Dracula nail hard across the back. Wondering if attempts to improve turnaround and automate and be more efficient has cards getting pressed by metal. I dont remember seeing any cards with those types of marks/dents until recently.
I do love that Aaron. Your 5 is better than my 5. Your 5 is more of a 7 than my 5 is a 7. 😂
And to be fair, I dont have this card in hand now. That scratch may be on the holder but it looks more like a card scratch to me.
I got a 78 Klecko back recently that had a similar indention arced along the front bottom. It definitely wasn't there when I sent it (
). I think it came back as a 4, but don't remember. I set it aside because it's basically worthless now.
Are the robots handling the cards? Maybe they can make them with softer hands.
I am with you all in the anger and frustration on so many fronts. I can live with price increases and I can live with slow turnaround times. PSA damaging my cards while in their possession, and PSA changing its grading outcomes without changing its grading standards, are the two most difficult things to accept.
Here's a typical PSA 5 1955 parkhurst from the 2010 era of PSA grading.
And here's a PSA 5 today...
Begs the question, what would that card need to look like to get a 6? If unrealistic standards are here to stay, vintage high grade cards will be the exclusive domain of card doctors submissions.
Ouch.
My 80s special 50-card sub POPPED today!!
Gotta say, I'm not mad. Although there were definitely a few head scratchers.
Overall, 27 out of 50 matched my grade. 7 were over my grade. 11 were under by 1 grade. And 5 were 2+ grades under.
6-10s / 23-9s / 11-8s / 2-7s / 6-6s / 1-4 / 1-3
The perforated cards took the biggest hits.
I don't think the graders are familiar with some of these and how they are packaged.
I had 8s, 9s and even a shot at a 10 on some of these, but saw 6s and a 4.
My biggest hit was the 1984 TOPPS RUB DOWNS which I thought was very high grade, but it somehow got a 3.
This is certainly one I wish came with an explanation.
My other takeaway is, I think I'm done sending in Nolan Ryan and Pete Rose cards.
They just don't seem to get equal treatment.
I cherry pick 4-5 of same year/same high quality cards and the "lesser" star players get 9s and the Ryan gets a 7?
I just had 4 pop today that were 2023 which leaves my recent experiences like this:
2023 Disney Lorcana cards: Phenomenal. Exceeded expectations
Other 2000 and later Pokemon and modern sports: appealing and a great experience, a lot of great wins and even surprises to the upside. Some disappointments but they balance out and maybe more on the good side, a very positive experience. I really feel good about the Upper Deck Young Guns grades that come back.
90s: dont play much here. Can depend on the day and who you get. 93 95 Finest Refractors they usually dont seem to want to give out great grades and some surprising low grades when you are talking about razor sharp cards. Then some of my most pleasant surprises in terms of exceeded expectations were late 90s Bowman Chrome refractors.
80s: slightly disappointing but not shocking or jaw-dropping awful. Even in like 2008 I could be disappointed with 1980s Topps results in a similar way. Now just have grown to accept there wont be a 10. Can feel nice about some 9s but some come back 8s that seem like 9s. Probably have done enough there. Did a lot of 1984 Topps Nestle hand cut and it just feels like a huge variance there so probably done there too. 84 Donruss very close to meeting expectations. Interestingly, Garbage Pail Kids I felt like results surpassed expectations.
70s-similar to 1980 Topps where there are very few pleasant surprises. Maybe one grade lower than I hoped. Kind of a 😐 experience.
60s-not much here
50s-limited subs but real bad from PSA and mildly disappointing from SGC. Maybe its me but I get it, my attentions should go elsewhere when it comes to raw.
This has been happening for a few years in the lighthouse era:
Man, those are some tough grades. How's that Jordan a 2?
Beautiful cards though. No matter the grade. With those grades you'll have more luck cracking and selling raw unfortunately.
I had (4) 84 Nestle's that I thought were 9s with a couple shots at a 10.
They came back 3-9s / 1-8. Disappointed of course, but within reason.
My '80s sub and the '90s+ sub were mostly on point. About 90% within 1 grade.
The trouble seems to be pre-80 stuff and some oddballs where 75% of my subs were 2+ grades below my grade.
Seems unlikely one can accurately grade 80s+ and be so far off on pre-80s vs PSA grades, so something is going on.
I have a stack of mostly 70s ready to go, but I'm hesitant.
If a 70s special pops up, I'll do it, but if they come back like the other pre-80s, I'll have to rethink and limit what I sub.
I have a 89 Jordan like that. I've checked it thoroughly with a 30x loupe, and still can't see why mine got a 5.
They also seem to be pretty stingy with the 10s on late 80s/early 90s RC of bigger stars.
My cherry picked Bo Jacksons and Randy Johnsons, for example, can't get better than a 9.
Ouch ,that is one nice looking card. Don't most 5's have surface ware and rounded corners.
This. I also swear they are switching cards or mishandling them causing damage and then not owning up to it. I have also had cards come back with a ding or bent corner too big for me to have missed before sending in. I'm staring at a slab thinking, " no effing way I sent a card looking like this in for grading".
Here's a 5 for you I just got back this week on the 80s special (have no idea) ...
Maybe they should grade them like Beckett used to list the grade by ,corners ,centering and surface.
My contribution to this thread. The print markings on the card are typical of this issue, and they appear on PSA 7s and 8s, so I cannot say for sure that they are the reason for the 5 grade. There are no scratches or surface issues whatsoever. Everything about this card, front and back, is razor sharp. The centering is remarkable, as well.
Andy
Wow, that Yaz is sharp
I wonder if there will be many takers on the current '50's special. It just seems like a call for low grade to get slabbed.
Waiting to hear the 60s special reaction when those pop.
I had a stack ready to sub, then decided against sending it in.
I'm not planning to sub anything. I'd rather keep them raw at this point.
I was wondering the same thing.
Well, I’m hopeful that the cards received en masse from the 50’s and 60’s specials are viewed as an opportunity by PSA to highlight some notable differences in how cards from the time period differ considerably from modern cards to their graders.
The difference in stock type alone is something that I believe changes the evaluation considerably, or at least it should. Cards today are printed to be better cards and it’s reflected in the price and quality of said cards. The average card produced today gets to the end user with considerably better centering, corners, borders, surface and print jobs than cards of yesteryear because better technology and better materials have made it so. Those same attributes, though, are all over the map with vintage cards and that does not really seem to be factored in accordingly at this time.
But I do believe that PSA will get this right, too. I’ve said this before because I try to stay level headed about things as I’ve gotten older (especially since I sucked at it as a young man) but the amount and quality of improvements that have been made over the last 3-5 years are truly nothing short of remarkable and they’re often taken for granted soon after they’ve been introduced.
And, by the way, this is all from someone who is also pretty frustrated…
…but, again, I do think we’re going to start seeing better results soon. Things often get worse before they get better - that’s always how real change happens.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I opened a lot of football Optic from 2016-2020. Those "nail indents" you see on the back of Optic have been there every year. I check for it when I sub Optic. It must be from the printing process because it is random and shows up on all cards in the set.
I've been subbing ultra modern and I think the standards are pretty consistent. Are other ulta-modern subs seeing the same thing?
Results will get better when submitted volumes come down. Thats what I’m waiting on.
I understand that mabe some new graders are getting vintage wrong. But each of these cards are supposed to be reviewed by more experienced graders. Are they really being re-looked at? I don't think so.
Jesus those Mantles are beauties. What a shame on the grades. I hope your optimism is correct and it does get better. I might have to change my strategy. Instead of submitting raw and getting crushed on the grades, I may buy up all of the PSA 5's and below with the 700 series cert #'s and when grading standards get better, crack and resub those cards.
I sent a handful (13) in and am hoping for middle-of-the-road on most. Nothing really should be in the upper third.
Now that I see what those Mantles got I'm having serious 2nd thoughts about even sending those. If they come back 1, 2 or 3s then I'm going to have to take a major pause on subbing, and I have a stack of about 300 from the 70s I'm ready to send.
For sure; there’s a lot of cards out there right now that would benefit from liberation.
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
These are some really beautiful cards. I'm sorry you guys have received some unfavorable grades.
Those cards probably look better than the PSA 5 I got.
This is on a Heritage auction right now...
That Gibson had a hamster take a bite out of it. Must have lined the cage. Hey, is just me, it seems all the under grades of pre 1990 cards is a PSA 5. This thread is full of PSA 5's. Mine also is a PSA 5. PSA 5 must be the max an older card can get. Cool.
Instead of submitting raw and getting crushed on the grades, I may buy up all of the PSA 5's and below with the 700 series cert #'s and when grading standards get better, crack and resub those cards.
The problem with that strategy is the inconsistency. As the Gibson shows, not all orders are hammered these days. Many orders do get hammered, some get graded in line with historical norms and a small percentage of orders get laughably high grades. I just bought a PSA 9 1961 common in the new holder and it in no way is a 9. Two corners are touched including one with a paper break where it had previously been bent.
I’ve already started
PSA Chaz -1
This whole microscopic, micro management of cards has really dampened for some the enjoyment of collecting. Where the value has superceded just the simple enjoyment of collecting. I understand that value is a part of collecting for some, and you will get no argument from me if that is your choice. But it seems that the grading aspect is more about said value and if that value is diminished the card enjoyment is less. My card collecting interest goes back so far that I remember when the value was not a factor. Just what player we wanted to collect devoid of value. Such simpler times were those with more enjoyment from a collecting standpoint. I wish everyone, and hope that those who are discouraged with collecting from the grading fatigue standpoint, find some solace within their collecting world. It is still a great hobby.