"If not already then soon, sellers will notice lower realized prices for pre 2022 slabs." The sky is falling oh no. Go ahead and bid only on pre 2022 slabs. I'll still take my chances with less competition.
@Harnessracing said:
100% agree. I’m glad I sold all of my collection during the craze. I had some stunners too. You can’t really buy FMV unless it’s in person and your buying the card not the holder
I am huge proponent of that but cards are now being graded not on what the naked human eye alone (assuming standard vision) can see...
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@Harnessracing said:
I have a pretty decent eye myself and has paid PSA over $47000 in grading fees this year alone and unfortunately have 11 more orders in and I can barely get a call back let alone anyone of any authority to call me. Damn I miss the days I could call Joe direct
For that amount of money you'd think they'd have a dedicated Account Representative assigned to you with a direct number for access. If I was running the place I know I'd have that service for folks spending that much.
I do wonder what the minimum amount PSA's current corporate overloads would start to "care about" enough to have an account rep 20x47k? 40x47k, 50x? Probstein level of business? Heritage Level of business, 4SC level of business?
One of the tenants of Corporate business is to give your largest clients the largest perks and keep them happy whatever that happens to entail. To do otherwise is not good business.
That how casinos do it
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
Many early graded cards (serial #'s 0xxxxxxx, 1xxxxxxx, 3xxxxxxx) are worthy of the assigned grade...and would grade very well or the same today under current grading standards.
I said something similar and a few read WAY too much into it and got defensive for some reason.
It can also be said there are plenty of today's grades that are accurate and beautiful and worthy. Not the point at all.
@mintonlypls said:
The smart collector/investor will buy the card, not the holder...pre-or post-slabbed cards to the apparent stricter grading standards currently.
100%. There are still overgraded Mint 9 cards in brand new holders (as Paulmaul pointed out in another thread) and undergraded cards in older slabs. Buy the card, not the holder. That should be every collector's mantra.
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.
Thanks for the post, OP. I’ve taken a break from vintage over the past ~2 years (still have a pile of cards waiting to be graded) and switched to collecting modern. I looked through my vintage grading pile the other day and found these beauties that need to be slabbed. Based on your post I will be sending these three mid 70s beauties to SGC.
Hard to see the image of the yaz on my phone. But is that a fake holder? Print looks large?
Edit to add
Well nope. Looks like its sold through 2 major auction houses.
@gemint said:
It would be crazy to be biased toward the slab. It should always be about the card. Would you overpay for this card graded since 2022?
Would you undercut or pass over mint looking cards in older holders that were reviewed by the Grader of Death?
If anything, I would be more skeptical of newer holdered vintage cards because of the crapshoot nature of how they're being graded.
Weirdly, I'd guess using AI to grade is an attempt to minimize inconsistency while also making things more efficient (saving tons of $$$).
The opposite seems to be happening. The consistency from sub-to-sub is off as well as compared to cards graded previously. Not only is it undermining collectors' confidence in any holdered card, but also causing folks to reconsider using other graders even if their prices aren't at a premium.
Can someone point me to anything from PSA that states that are using AI to grade?
I believe that they are being harsh - especially on 70s cards and believe that the result is a card graded harsher than in the past. There are a lot of possible reasons for this.
However, I try to keep up on things and have not read anywhere or watched a video where somebody from PSA says that AI is assisting with the grading process.
@brad31 said:
Can someone point me to anything from PSA that states that are using AI to grade?
I believe that they are being harsh - especially on 70s cards and believe that the result is a card graded harsher than in the past. There are a lot of possible reasons for this.
However, I try to keep up on things and have not read anywhere or watched a video where somebody from PSA says that AI is assisting with the grading process.
I agree it is somewhat of a mystery on the word or concept of AI in general but maybe computer assisted grading is a better string of words...Like you say to my knowledge PSA has not come forward stating they are experimenting or flat out using computer assistance in the grading of a card...but one thing that collectors seem to agree on is the grades on pre 79 cards have been markedly lower than expected suggesting a change in the grading process of some sort over the past six months or so...so eventually and hopefully this change will be communicated to the customer on some level...
I'm not sure about PSA's use of AI, but watch from the 16-minute mark of this video tour of SGC's facility and their magical VSC machine with Geoff Wilson and SGC's President Peter Steinberg. After inspecting a '53 Mantle with their naked eyes, they agreed that it was in the 4.5 to 5 range due to soft corners and marginal centering; however, after seeing a previously invisible "wrinkle" with the aid of the VSC machine they agreed that the card was severely flawed and no longer worthy of the previously agreed upon grade. Without hesitation, they bowed down to the AI master over the longstanding industry standard of "eye appeal" that they were in perfect agreement with just seconds earlier! Absolutely ridiculous! I'm afraid to send my beloved '70s OPC baseball cards to any grading company. God only knows how many microscopic "imperfections" their magical AI machines will discover that I will never be able to see for myself! Don't these people realize that those cards sold for a couple of cents each and therefore were produced for less than a penny each? Holding those cards to the same quality control standards as cards produced today is clearly an apples to oranges comparison! https://youtu.be/_YNOs6Xu80w?si=oHQT25XEsd3vLB3v
@reelinintheyears said:
I'm not sure about PSA's use of AI, but watch from the 16-minute mark of this video tour of SGC's facility and their magical VSC machine with Geoff Wilson and SGC's President Peter Steinberg. After inspecting a '53 Mantle with their naked eyes, they agreed that it was in the 4.5 to 5 range due to soft corners and marginal centering; however, after seeing a previously invisible "wrinkle" with the aid of the VSC machine they agreed that the card was severely flawed and no longer worthy of the previously agreed upon grade. Without hesitation, they bowed down to the AI master over the longstanding industry standard of "eye appeal" that they were in perfect agreement with just seconds earlier! Absolutely ridiculous! I'm afraid to send my beloved '70s OPC baseball cards to any grading company. God only knows how many microscopic "imperfections" their magical AI machines will discover that I will never be able to see for myself! Don't these people realize that those cards sold for a couple of cents each and therefore were produced for less than a penny each? Holding those cards to the same quality control standards as cards produced today is clearly an apples to oranges comparison!
Grading standards for a 4 says a light crease can be visible. So an invisible crease shouldn't drop the grade below 4.5.
Today, if a card starts at a 5 because of centering, for example, soft corners drops it to a 4. Edging issues drops it to a 3. Invisible wrinkle and it's now a 2.
In the past the card would retain it's 5 grade, if each flaw is within the standard grade definitions.
A 5 graded card with minor rounded corners is STILL a 5. With minor edge chipping, STILL a 5. Light surface scratches, STILL a 5.
Today that 5 is a 2 because the mindset of the grader is that each flaw equals to a -1 drop in grade.
What cards get the VSC machine treatment? Is it the big boys, Mantle, Ryan, Aaron, Mays, etc?
Is this what, according to another poster, PSA president spoke of in that Instagram post, that the big names get extra scrutiny?
While I don’t know if artificial intelligence is being utilized, I do believe it is possible that technological improvements are being incorporated into the process of grading.
I am currently working on the 1959 Bazooka set. I’m really just interested in a complete nice looking set and not chasing numeric grades; I mention it because the cards typically come back graded ‘Authentic’ unless you have the complete dash lines around the border. However, it serves as a good visual example of what I’m driving at when I say there’s new computer generated information for the grader. So play along and focus on the visual differences in the scans provided rather than the fact that it’s a low grade card destined for an authentic holder.
So, I recently sent in my ‘59 Bazooka Mays (it’s there now) and it presents beautifully but has visible damage to the blank back. Here’s my unaltered scans created with the default settings on y scanner which is a pretty close approximation of what it resembles in hand.
Now, as you watch your cards in process, there’s a ‘First View’ scan of your ‘cards on arrival.’ The current iteration of this scan seems to be set to highlight harder to see flaws by playing with the color, lighting and contrast of the image. As a result, you have produced what I would describe as a ‘cardboard condition evaluation scan’ that can be used by the grader alongside and in conjunction with the ‘card in hand’ portion of the evaluation. So the grader has a card in front of them that looks like the above but now also has a scan that looks like this:
It’s not like the same flaws aren’t visible in both scans because they most certainly are common to both. However, an amateur or professional grader with the ability to use the PSA scan that makes the flaws present on both the front and back stand out significantly more clearly will probably assign a lower grade than they would have without it.
This is just an observation of mine based on recent experiences and applying reason and logic to the situation. I fully acknowledge that the content of this entire post could be incorrect and it is not based on any insider knowledge; it’s just an educated guess.
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
First of all, AWESOME Mays. The color on that is beautiful and so rich. Very nice.
I agree on the scans. I have about 50 cards there now from the 60s and I was just looking at the scans yesterday they have up while they're graded. I also noticed they seem to have tweaked the settings to make any slight imperfection visible, and it's more noticeable on cards that have white borders/edges. Any slight change to the color and it really pops.
These scans are so much different than the naked eye, and I'd guess you're right. They're using these to help grade, and maybe do a big part of the grading. That's probably why we're seeing such toughness on vintage too, because they'll naturally have more edge and chipping flaws.
Interesting about the scans. My first views look a little different than yours. Also I noticed the machine used on mine has really bad scratches on the back scans. All my images have this scratch on the same spot.Would this affect anything? These are ones they have currently in grading. All cards have this scratch on the back
@handyman said:
Interesting about the scans. My first views look a little different than yours. Also I noticed the machine used on mine has really bad scratches on the back scans. All my images have this scratch on the same spot.Would this affect anything? These are ones they have currently in grading. All cards have this scratch on the back
Wow, that is an incredibly interesting and also worrisome observation. If the grades come back having been based on what would be perceived as surface damage, instead of the scratches being attributed to damage to the glass on the scanner bed, then you will have your answer. I'm sorry/nervous for you that your order seems to have become a science experiment in this way. If they are graded incorrectly due to that problem, I'm pretty sure PSA would make it right at no cost but it would take a long time and good amount of effort. Truly hoping for the best outcome for you on this! I think a lot of us here will be very curious to hear more about your grading order. I like to believe that a human employee would be able to detect this discrepancy. Hopefully someone does lay eyes on the cards vs. grading results instead of relying on AI now. Please post updates.
@handyman said:
Interesting about the scans. My first views look a little different than yours. Also I noticed the machine used on mine has really bad scratches on the back scans. All my images have this scratch on the same spot.Would this affect anything? These are ones they have currently in grading. All cards have this scratch on the back
I think PSA scans the cards in the penny holder you sent them in, for first view scans.
Scratches are on the penny holder, not the card.
I assume the same scratches would appear in the same place of each penny holder coming from the same pack, and would show the same given the same lighting conditions.
@handyman said:
Interesting about the scans. My first views look a little different than yours. Also I noticed the machine used on mine has really bad scratches on the back scans. All my images have this scratch on the same spot.Would this affect anything? These are ones they have currently in grading. All cards have this scratch on the back
I think PSA scans the cards in the penny holder you sent them in, for first view scans.
Scratches are on the penny holder, not the card.
I assume the same scratches would appear in the same place of each penny holder coming from the same pack, and would show the same given the same lighting conditions.
The scans up now on my orders are in done in the penny sleeve and the Card Holder too. The scan definitely shows scratches on the Card Holder.
It seems like they scan them directly out of the package they're shipped in without removing them from any sleeve. That's probably best policy due to probability of damage.
@handyman said:
Interesting about the scans. My first views look a little different than yours. Also I noticed the machine used on mine has really bad scratches on the back scans. All my images have this scratch on the same spot.Would this affect anything? These are ones they have currently in grading. All cards have this scratch on the back
I think PSA scans the cards in the penny holder you sent them in, for first view scans.
Scratches are on the penny holder, not the card.
I assume the same scratches would appear in the same place of each penny holder coming from the same pack, and would show the same given the same lighting conditions.
The scans up now on my orders are in done in the penny sleeve and the Card Holder too. The scan definitely shows scratches on the Card Holder.
It seems like they scan them directly out of the package they're shipped in without removing them from any sleeve. That's probably best policy due to probability of damage.
Makes sense to protect themselves, saying "THIS is how we received your card at PSA before we even touched it".
But they have to make First View scans available to us, even after they slab it and ship it.
I received my order in the mail yesterday and 1 card has a corner ding, and of course a much lower grade than I pregraded.
I can't see myself sending that card in with a corner ding, and it's not possible it got dinged during shipping, so I don't know.
I would like to be able to see the First View scan.
I did not mention, but a number of cards came back to me damaged as well. Check out this example. Lower left corner surface lifted up and was bent over on itself on this sharp Topps 1971 # Seaver. My best guess is it occurred when going in and out of the Card Savers/penny sleeve during grading...
Scratches are on the glass not on my case I sent. From the orders I’ve had I can tell every first image sava we had ther own unique wear. I’m guessing this is t the grading image as we guess
@Seaverfan said:
I did not mention, but a number of cards came back to me damaged as well. Check out this example. Lower left corner surface lifted up and was bent over on itself on this sharp Topps 1971 # Seaver. My best guess is it occurred when going in and out of the Card Savers/penny sleeve during grading...
First of all, AWESOME Mays. The color on that is beautiful and so rich. Very nice.
Thank you very much. As I stated, I’m not concerned with the backs of blank backed stuff and I thought the front was really sharp and it will look even better in the PSA holder.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
On a previous thread I had a picture of a 1950 Drake’s Preacher Roe.
Near prefect borders with the exception of a small Nick at the top.
Card came back with a CRUSHED corner. PSA must have hired chimps to seal the cards
@Harnessracing said:
On a previous thread I had a picture of a 1950 Drake’s Preacher Roe.
Near prefect borders with the exception of a small Nick at the top.
Card came back with a CRUSHED corner. PSA must have hired chimps to seal the cards
What the heck is going on at PSA. I have been reading more and more of cards coming back damaged lately . Maybe some of the damage was there before and just went unnoticed but it just seems that things are getting very bad with damaged cards coming back from PSA. Are the graders just too inexperienced or is it just typical because of the large volume of cards graded and that is an expected percentage of damage. There definitely seems to be much more issues lately. Cards being graded very differently where PSA 5 seems to be the new norm for vintage cards and PSA 10's appear to be near extinct. It would be nice to get back to a feeling of normalcy here instead of the feeling of things get worse and worse.
@mintonlypls said:
The smart collector/investor will buy the card, not the holder...pre-or post-slabbed cards to the apparent stricter grading standards currently.
Unfortunately most collectors do not go by that mantra and the number grade rules. If you thought a vintage card you sent in to PSA was a 9 and it grades a 7 or an 8; or an 8 comes back a 5, etc. and you sell these cards say on Ebay you are basically going to be screwed. Most collectors will pay the price for the number grade with consideration given to the centering. I buy ungraded vintage and get it graded and sell it on Ebay or some auction houses. I have been doing this for say 30 years. I am picky and anal and do my best to try to find cards that might grade a 9 or maybe and 8. And in an average year I am right on say 70 to 75% (say 35% on hoped-for 9s) of my anticipated grade. This year I sent in 40 cards to PSA. I would say maybe 80% were lower than I hoped for. No 9s (except 1) and usually I at least hit a few. Then there were 2 cards: one card was an 8 in all possible scenarios and somehow it graded a 9 with the other 7 cards 1 to 2 grades lower than I expected. And then in another submission, a 1964 card was a 6 under all possible grading circumstances and it miraculously graded a 7.5. However the overriding trend was 80% lower than anticipated (hoped for). So I usually make a profit on the cards I sale and I am able to use it to keep some cards for my collection and give the remaining profit to my boss (my wife). This year on 40 cards sent in I was lucky enough to break even. All for nothing. I had to sell cards from my collection to pay the boss. This is called taking the fun out of collecting .
@PatriotTrading said:
I still don't use penny sleeves for vintage cards. I never saw a need especially with how difficult it is to get them in there.
I'd seriously reconsider that position. I've had more than 1 card saved because it was in a penny sleeve from damage, and lots damaged because they weren't. They're cheap insurance.
@PatriotTrading said:
I still don't use penny sleeves for vintage cards. I never saw a need especially with how difficult it is to get them in there.
I'd seriously reconsider that position. I've had more than 1 card saved because it was in a penny sleeve from damage, and lots damaged because they weren't. They're cheap insurance.
And very easy to use once you get the hang of using them.
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.
@Harnessracing said:
Results of 15 more PSA crack outs sent to SGC
2- Down 1/2 grade
2- Same grade
1- Up 1/2 grade
4- Up 1 grade
4- Up 1-1/2 grades
2- Up 2 grades
Could you supply pics and context as to what cards and when they were graded by PSA.
Brad
Contact me thru the message system with your email for pics and pics of the old flips
Handyman
I only crack out if there is an upside to it. The new grades doubled its worth.
I’ve been getting near PSA prices and a few over VCP for PSA historical prices on my SGC’s
@Seaverfan said:
Here is a scan of the SGC 9 1973 Seaver...
Beautiful card.
I’m of the opinion PSA was significantly too strict, but SGC was slightly lenient on this submission as a whole. Neither is good. But SGC was a lot closer to reality.
card looks good to me. a 9 sounds about right. not many people really care that under 2000x magnification the cardboard that topps purchased for .000001 cent per yard isn't perfect.
That's a beautiful Seaver card no matter what holder it's in!
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.
Well, my first ever sub to SGC just popped. Just 9 cards total to test.
It included 4 crackouts from PSA, 3 that I thought were grossly misgraded.
Turns out, I was right.
Card 1
First is my 89 Hoops Jordan AS that PSA gave a EX 5 grade. I thought that it just couldn't be and I could not find any problem with the card, before and after cracking. I thought it had a shot at a 10. SGC agreed. SGC result: GEM MT 10 ! A 5 grade bump !
Card 2
This 94 Topps Sample Nolan Ryan was not graded by PSA because of min-size. I measured the card and it seemed fine, and I know it wasn't altered because I pulled it from a sealed factory set. SGC result: MINT+ 9.5 !! A 9.5 grade bump ! LOL
Card 3
Next was an 83 Topps Sticker panel that PSA gave a VG 4 grade. I thought that was really low. SGC agreed. SGC result: NM MT 8 ! A 4 grade bump !
Card 4
The final cracked card was an 89 Topps Randy Johnson that PSA gave a MT 9 grade. I thought it had a good shot at a 10, so I cracked it out just to see what SGC might grade. SGC result: MINT+ 9.5 ! 1/2 grade bump.
Maybe the 9.5s could have been 10s before all the handling of the card by PSA and myself cracking them out.
I did receive an unexpected SGC 4 on 1 of the cards, but all the others graded to what I was expecting.
Comments
"If not already then soon, sellers will notice lower realized prices for pre 2022 slabs." The sky is falling oh no. Go ahead and bid only on pre 2022 slabs. I'll still take my chances with less competition.
I meant to say Go ahead and bid only on "post" 2022 slabs. I'm in California and I have already had a couple of Friday beers.
The smart collector/investor will buy the card, not the holder...pre-or post-slabbed cards to the apparent stricter grading standards currently.
I am huge proponent of that but cards are now being graded not on what the naked human eye alone (assuming standard vision) can see...
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
That how casinos do it
There are plenty of old flip cards that are beautiful examples.
Many early graded cards (serial #'s 0xxxxxxx, 1xxxxxxx, 3xxxxxxx) are worthy of the assigned grade...and would grade very well or the same today under current grading standards.
There is nothing wrong with the early grades, that’s not the point. The point is will that early grades card still get a 9 today?
I said something similar and a few read WAY too much into it and got defensive for some reason.
It can also be said there are plenty of today's grades that are accurate and beautiful and worthy. Not the point at all.
100%. There are still overgraded Mint 9 cards in brand new holders (as Paulmaul pointed out in another thread) and undergraded cards in older slabs. Buy the card, not the holder. That should be every collector's mantra.
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.
Thanks for the post, OP. I’ve taken a break from vintage over the past ~2 years (still have a pile of cards waiting to be graded) and switched to collecting modern. I looked through my vintage grading pile the other day and found these beauties that need to be slabbed. Based on your post I will be sending these three mid 70s beauties to SGC.
It would be crazy to be biased toward the slab. It should always be about the card. Would you overpay for this card graded since 2022?
Would you undercut or pass over mint looking cards in older holders that were reviewed by the Grader of Death?
If anything, I would be more skeptical of newer holdered vintage cards because of the crapshoot nature of how they're being graded.
Hard to see the image of the yaz on my phone. But is that a fake holder? Print looks large?
Edit to add
Well nope. Looks like its sold through 2 major auction houses.
Weirdly, I'd guess using AI to grade is an attempt to minimize inconsistency while also making things more efficient (saving tons of $$$).
The opposite seems to be happening. The consistency from sub-to-sub is off as well as compared to cards graded previously. Not only is it undermining collectors' confidence in any holdered card, but also causing folks to reconsider using other graders even if their prices aren't at a premium.
Can someone point me to anything from PSA that states that are using AI to grade?
I believe that they are being harsh - especially on 70s cards and believe that the result is a card graded harsher than in the past. There are a lot of possible reasons for this.
However, I try to keep up on things and have not read anywhere or watched a video where somebody from PSA says that AI is assisting with the grading process.
50s to 70s
I agree it is somewhat of a mystery on the word or concept of AI in general but maybe computer assisted grading is a better string of words...Like you say to my knowledge PSA has not come forward stating they are experimenting or flat out using computer assistance in the grading of a card...but one thing that collectors seem to agree on is the grades on pre 79 cards have been markedly lower than expected suggesting a change in the grading process of some sort over the past six months or so...so eventually and hopefully this change will be communicated to the customer on some level...
I'm not sure about PSA's use of AI, but watch from the 16-minute mark of this video tour of SGC's facility and their magical VSC machine with Geoff Wilson and SGC's President Peter Steinberg. After inspecting a '53 Mantle with their naked eyes, they agreed that it was in the 4.5 to 5 range due to soft corners and marginal centering; however, after seeing a previously invisible "wrinkle" with the aid of the VSC machine they agreed that the card was severely flawed and no longer worthy of the previously agreed upon grade. Without hesitation, they bowed down to the AI master over the longstanding industry standard of "eye appeal" that they were in perfect agreement with just seconds earlier! Absolutely ridiculous! I'm afraid to send my beloved '70s OPC baseball cards to any grading company. God only knows how many microscopic "imperfections" their magical AI machines will discover that I will never be able to see for myself! Don't these people realize that those cards sold for a couple of cents each and therefore were produced for less than a penny each? Holding those cards to the same quality control standards as cards produced today is clearly an apples to oranges comparison!
https://youtu.be/_YNOs6Xu80w?si=oHQT25XEsd3vLB3v
Grading standards for a 4 says a light crease can be visible. So an invisible crease shouldn't drop the grade below 4.5.
Today, if a card starts at a 5 because of centering, for example, soft corners drops it to a 4. Edging issues drops it to a 3. Invisible wrinkle and it's now a 2.
In the past the card would retain it's 5 grade, if each flaw is within the standard grade definitions.
A 5 graded card with minor rounded corners is STILL a 5. With minor edge chipping, STILL a 5. Light surface scratches, STILL a 5.
Today that 5 is a 2 because the mindset of the grader is that each flaw equals to a -1 drop in grade.
What cards get the VSC machine treatment? Is it the big boys, Mantle, Ryan, Aaron, Mays, etc?
Is this what, according to another poster, PSA president spoke of in that Instagram post, that the big names get extra scrutiny?
While I don’t know if artificial intelligence is being utilized, I do believe it is possible that technological improvements are being incorporated into the process of grading.
I am currently working on the 1959 Bazooka set. I’m really just interested in a complete nice looking set and not chasing numeric grades; I mention it because the cards typically come back graded ‘Authentic’ unless you have the complete dash lines around the border. However, it serves as a good visual example of what I’m driving at when I say there’s new computer generated information for the grader. So play along and focus on the visual differences in the scans provided rather than the fact that it’s a low grade card destined for an authentic holder.
So, I recently sent in my ‘59 Bazooka Mays (it’s there now) and it presents beautifully but has visible damage to the blank back. Here’s my unaltered scans created with the default settings on y scanner which is a pretty close approximation of what it resembles in hand.
Now, as you watch your cards in process, there’s a ‘First View’ scan of your ‘cards on arrival.’ The current iteration of this scan seems to be set to highlight harder to see flaws by playing with the color, lighting and contrast of the image. As a result, you have produced what I would describe as a ‘cardboard condition evaluation scan’ that can be used by the grader alongside and in conjunction with the ‘card in hand’ portion of the evaluation. So the grader has a card in front of them that looks like the above but now also has a scan that looks like this:
It’s not like the same flaws aren’t visible in both scans because they most certainly are common to both. However, an amateur or professional grader with the ability to use the PSA scan that makes the flaws present on both the front and back stand out significantly more clearly will probably assign a lower grade than they would have without it.
This is just an observation of mine based on recent experiences and applying reason and logic to the situation. I fully acknowledge that the content of this entire post could be incorrect and it is not based on any insider knowledge; it’s just an educated guess.
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
^^^
First of all, AWESOME Mays. The color on that is beautiful and so rich. Very nice.
I agree on the scans. I have about 50 cards there now from the 60s and I was just looking at the scans yesterday they have up while they're graded. I also noticed they seem to have tweaked the settings to make any slight imperfection visible, and it's more noticeable on cards that have white borders/edges. Any slight change to the color and it really pops.
These scans are so much different than the naked eye, and I'd guess you're right. They're using these to help grade, and maybe do a big part of the grading. That's probably why we're seeing such toughness on vintage too, because they'll naturally have more edge and chipping flaws.
Interesting about the scans. My first views look a little different than yours. Also I noticed the machine used on mine has really bad scratches on the back scans. All my images have this scratch on the same spot.Would this affect anything? These are ones they have currently in grading. All cards have this scratch on the back
Wow, that is an incredibly interesting and also worrisome observation. If the grades come back having been based on what would be perceived as surface damage, instead of the scratches being attributed to damage to the glass on the scanner bed, then you will have your answer. I'm sorry/nervous for you that your order seems to have become a science experiment in this way. If they are graded incorrectly due to that problem, I'm pretty sure PSA would make it right at no cost but it would take a long time and good amount of effort. Truly hoping for the best outcome for you on this! I think a lot of us here will be very curious to hear more about your grading order. I like to believe that a human employee would be able to detect this discrepancy. Hopefully someone does lay eyes on the cards vs. grading results instead of relying on AI now. Please post updates.
I think PSA scans the cards in the penny holder you sent them in, for first view scans.
Scratches are on the penny holder, not the card.
I assume the same scratches would appear in the same place of each penny holder coming from the same pack, and would show the same given the same lighting conditions.
The scans up now on my orders are in done in the penny sleeve and the Card Holder too. The scan definitely shows scratches on the Card Holder.
It seems like they scan them directly out of the package they're shipped in without removing them from any sleeve. That's probably best policy due to probability of damage.
Makes sense to protect themselves, saying "THIS is how we received your card at PSA before we even touched it".
But they have to make First View scans available to us, even after they slab it and ship it.
I received my order in the mail yesterday and 1 card has a corner ding, and of course a much lower grade than I pregraded.
I can't see myself sending that card in with a corner ding, and it's not possible it got dinged during shipping, so I don't know.
I would like to be able to see the First View scan.
I did not mention, but a number of cards came back to me damaged as well. Check out this example. Lower left corner surface lifted up and was bent over on itself on this sharp Topps 1971 # Seaver. My best guess is it occurred when going in and out of the Card Savers/penny sleeve during grading...
And it still got a 6 lol
Scratches are on the glass not on my case I sent. From the orders I’ve had I can tell every first image sava we had ther own unique wear. I’m guessing this is t the grading image as we guess
The picture/printing quality is awesome.
Thank you very much. As I stated, I’m not concerned with the backs of blank backed stuff and I thought the front was really sharp and it will look even better in the PSA holder.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
On a previous thread I had a picture of a 1950 Drake’s Preacher Roe.
Near prefect borders with the exception of a small Nick at the top.
Card came back with a CRUSHED corner. PSA must have hired chimps to seal the cards
What the heck is going on at PSA. I have been reading more and more of cards coming back damaged lately . Maybe some of the damage was there before and just went unnoticed but it just seems that things are getting very bad with damaged cards coming back from PSA. Are the graders just too inexperienced or is it just typical because of the large volume of cards graded and that is an expected percentage of damage. There definitely seems to be much more issues lately. Cards being graded very differently where PSA 5 seems to be the new norm for vintage cards and PSA 10's appear to be near extinct. It would be nice to get back to a feeling of normalcy here instead of the feeling of things get worse and worse.
I went and checked, the before and after pics, PSA crushed it
I still don't use penny sleeves for vintage cards. I never saw a need especially with how difficult it is to get them in there.
Unfortunately most collectors do not go by that mantra and the number grade rules. If you thought a vintage card you sent in to PSA was a 9 and it grades a 7 or an 8; or an 8 comes back a 5, etc. and you sell these cards say on Ebay you are basically going to be screwed. Most collectors will pay the price for the number grade with consideration given to the centering. I buy ungraded vintage and get it graded and sell it on Ebay or some auction houses. I have been doing this for say 30 years. I am picky and anal and do my best to try to find cards that might grade a 9 or maybe and 8. And in an average year I am right on say 70 to 75% (say 35% on hoped-for 9s) of my anticipated grade. This year I sent in 40 cards to PSA. I would say maybe 80% were lower than I hoped for. No 9s (except 1) and usually I at least hit a few. Then there were 2 cards: one card was an 8 in all possible scenarios and somehow it graded a 9 with the other 7 cards 1 to 2 grades lower than I expected. And then in another submission, a 1964 card was a 6 under all possible grading circumstances and it miraculously graded a 7.5. However the overriding trend was 80% lower than anticipated (hoped for). So I usually make a profit on the cards I sale and I am able to use it to keep some cards for my collection and give the remaining profit to my boss (my wife). This year on 40 cards sent in I was lucky enough to break even. All for nothing. I had to sell cards from my collection to pay the boss. This is called taking the fun out of collecting .
I'd seriously reconsider that position. I've had more than 1 card saved because it was in a penny sleeve from damage, and lots damaged because they weren't. They're cheap insurance.
And very easy to use once you get the hang of using them.
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.
I don’t use either, I see no need to.
If it’s your preference, use them
By all means. I sincerely hope you don’t have the accidents I’ve had.
Shellz makes a penny sleeve with a cut corner, I started using them a little while ago, I like them.
Results of 15 more PSA crack outs sent to SGC
2- Down 1/2 grade
2- Same grade
1- Up 1/2 grade
4- Up 1 grade
4- Up 1-1/2 grades
2- Up 2 grades
Could you supply pics and context as to what cards and when they were graded by PSA.
What was the value gain after the extra grading? Would they sell for the same amount or more after the new grades?
Brad
Contact me thru the message system with your email for pics and pics of the old flips
Handyman
I only crack out if there is an upside to it. The new grades doubled its worth.
I’ve been getting near PSA prices and a few over VCP for PSA historical prices on my SGC’s
Beautiful card.
I’m of the opinion PSA was significantly too strict, but SGC was slightly lenient on this submission as a whole. Neither is good. But SGC was a lot closer to reality.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
card looks good to me. a 9 sounds about right. not many people really care that under 2000x magnification the cardboard that topps purchased for .000001 cent per yard isn't perfect.
Very nice 73 seaver card...That's the "RIGHT GRADE" for it!!!
That's a beautiful Seaver card no matter what holder it's in!
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.
Well, my first ever sub to SGC just popped. Just 9 cards total to test.
It included 4 crackouts from PSA, 3 that I thought were grossly misgraded.
Turns out, I was right.
Card 1
First is my 89 Hoops Jordan AS that PSA gave a EX 5 grade. I thought that it just couldn't be and I could not find any problem with the card, before and after cracking. I thought it had a shot at a 10. SGC agreed.
SGC result: GEM MT 10 ! A 5 grade bump !
Card 2
This 94 Topps Sample Nolan Ryan was not graded by PSA because of min-size. I measured the card and it seemed fine, and I know it wasn't altered because I pulled it from a sealed factory set.
SGC result: MINT+ 9.5 !! A 9.5 grade bump ! LOL
Card 3
Next was an 83 Topps Sticker panel that PSA gave a VG 4 grade. I thought that was really low. SGC agreed.
SGC result: NM MT 8 ! A 4 grade bump !
Card 4
The final cracked card was an 89 Topps Randy Johnson that PSA gave a MT 9 grade. I thought it had a good shot at a 10, so I cracked it out just to see what SGC might grade.
SGC result: MINT+ 9.5 ! 1/2 grade bump.
Maybe the 9.5s could have been 10s before all the handling of the card by PSA and myself cracking them out.
I did receive an unexpected SGC 4 on 1 of the cards, but all the others graded to what I was expecting.