bad - opc cards from 60's 70's 80's really low grade on most. about 5 or 6 much lower than i thought.
good - 1976 rose 8.5, 1976 rose opc 7 - pop 1 (none higher), 1975 brett 7 (iwas hoping for a 6.5, but i had no idea it would get a 7, centering is stout), 1994 mattingly finest refractor 9 - pop 1), 1975 ryan mini 7.5. definitely a lot of 6' and 7's.
overall the third submission wasn't as good as the last 2. but decent.
psa pop outs
1973 brooks psa 6 to sgc 8
1974 aaron psa 5 to sgc 6
1975 swann psa 5 to sgc 7
They have to be getting a ton of complaints, especially from dealers. If this is going to be the norm for PSA vintage card grading, who will use them going forward? Are they listening to their customers? Everyone loves getting 9s at PSA 6 prices but who's going to submit if that's the norm? And the worst thing is how inaccurate their service seems to be. I say 'seems' because I only have three recent orders of my own to measure directly. I have one more I submitted under the 70s special which will be the barometer for future engagement. If I get slammed on that one, I'm done with submitting to PSA until/unless they have a clear change in direction to bring grading back to reasonable standards.
I’ve had 81 orders to PSA this year, the questionable grades started in June for me. The last 2 I received were better but I still had serious questions on several. I have only 1 left at PSA and can’t submit anymore for the time being. Have cracked out dozens and sent to SGC with an average upgrade of 1.61 grades. Like olb, these grades were more inline with what they should be.
pop report on sgc would say otherwise, so would beckett. hardly any 9.5 or 10's for either. psa loaded with 10's. 1987 topps ryan psa 10 pop 700 sgc pop 10. thats a huge difference.
the psa lower grades are due to slight miniscule cardboard issues that 5 or 6 years ago were disregarded. if you can't see it with 20/20 vision, why would it matter.
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
Those are great turns and you'll make out better with those SGC prices/grades.
Good for you.
I have a stack of 80s that were graded this summer that will be following this same path soon. Also the reason why I didn't send any from the 80s in for the recent Holiday Special.
@RonSportscards said:
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
That;s awesome. Congrats. It looks like the SGC's sell for around 80% of PSA. If it's centered maybe the same price. I got $85 for an SGC 8 Pete rose topps game. That was equivalent to PSA. so sometimes it will work out great.
@RonSportscards said:
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
That;s awesome. Congrats. It looks like the SGC's sell for around 80% of PSA. If it's centered maybe the same price. I got $85 for an SGC 8 Pete rose topps game. That was equivalent to PSA. so sometimes it will work out great.
If people are consistently getting at least 1 grade more then this is going to start making sense for a LOT of people. If this was my business (it isn't), I could get them back in 1/4 the time, grades are at least 1 higher (most seem to average on here about 1.5) and return is the same/more then I'm sending everything there. Especially vintage, and especially anything from 1980-on.
@RonSportscards said:
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
That;s awesome. Congrats. It looks like the SGC's sell for around 80% of PSA. If it's centered maybe the same price. I got $85 for an SGC 8 Pete rose topps game. That was equivalent to PSA. so sometimes it will work out great.
If people are consistently getting at least 1 grade more then this is going to start making sense for a LOT of people. If this was my business (it isn't), I could get them back in 1/4 the time, grades are at least 1 higher (most seem to average on here about 1.5) and return is the same/more then I'm sending everything there. Especially vintage, and especially anything from 1980-on.
People aren't going to want to get their cards graded twice in order to get a fair grade.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@RonSportscards said:
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
That;s awesome. Congrats. It looks like the SGC's sell for around 80% of PSA. If it's centered maybe the same price. I got $85 for an SGC 8 Pete rose topps game. That was equivalent to PSA. so sometimes it will work out great.
If people are consistently getting at least 1 grade more then this is going to start making sense for a LOT of people. If this was my business (it isn't), I could get them back in 1/4 the time, grades are at least 1 higher (most seem to average on here about 1.5) and return is the same/more then I'm sending everything there. Especially vintage, and especially anything from 1980-on.
People aren't going to want to get their cards graded twice in order to get a fair grade.
From some of these posts many seem to disagree and are doing just that.
@RonSportscards said:
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
That;s awesome. Congrats. It looks like the SGC's sell for around 80% of PSA. If it's centered maybe the same price. I got $85 for an SGC 8 Pete rose topps game. That was equivalent to PSA. so sometimes it will work out great.
If people are consistently getting at least 1 grade more then this is going to start making sense for a LOT of people. If this was my business (it isn't), I could get them back in 1/4 the time, grades are at least 1 higher (most seem to average on here about 1.5) and return is the same/more then I'm sending everything there. Especially vintage, and especially anything from 1980-on.
People aren't going to want to get their cards graded twice in order to get a fair grade.
Didn't think I implied that but sorry for the confusion.
What I meant was that if it becomes a 'fact' throughout the hobby that PSA is 1-2 grades lower generally then folks won't even bother sending them in. Especially if you're doing this as a business. Once a company loses its premium reputation then all things start to turn very quickly...
@RonSportscards said:
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
That;s awesome. Congrats. It looks like the SGC's sell for around 80% of PSA. If it's centered maybe the same price. I got $85 for an SGC 8 Pete rose topps game. That was equivalent to PSA. so sometimes it will work out great.
If people are consistently getting at least 1 grade more then this is going to start making sense for a LOT of people. If this was my business (it isn't), I could get them back in 1/4 the time, grades are at least 1 higher (most seem to average on here about 1.5) and return is the same/more then I'm sending everything there. Especially vintage, and especially anything from 1980-on.
People aren't going to want to get their cards graded twice in order to get a fair grade.
From some of these posts many seem to disagree and are doing just that.
Let me get this straight.
You actually think that if you continuously get cards graded by company #1 and need to send them to company #2 in order to get a fair grade, people are going to continue to use company #1?
I don't think so.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@RonSportscards said:
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
That;s awesome. Congrats. It looks like the SGC's sell for around 80% of PSA. If it's centered maybe the same price. I got $85 for an SGC 8 Pete rose topps game. That was equivalent to PSA. so sometimes it will work out great.
If people are consistently getting at least 1 grade more then this is going to start making sense for a LOT of people. If this was my business (it isn't), I could get them back in 1/4 the time, grades are at least 1 higher (most seem to average on here about 1.5) and return is the same/more then I'm sending everything there. Especially vintage, and especially anything from 1980-on.
People aren't going to want to get their cards graded twice in order to get a fair grade.
From some of these posts many seem to disagree and are doing just that.
Let me get this straight.
You actually think that if you continuously get cards graded by company #1 and need to send them to company #2 in order to get a fair grade, people are going to continue to use company #1?
I don't think so.
I think whqt was meant is that the information being shared by people cracking out PSA slabs is going to get attention and people won't bother with sending to PSA. The new thing may be to buy cards in PSA slabs which appear to be graded too low and crack them out for a bump by SGC and a small profit in between. The unfortunate part is that the people selling are people like us who had faith in the reputation of a company who clearly is off track, has the data to confirm, is receiving open complaints via this board and their customer service line, and has not rectified the issue. I don't expect PSA to comment on this unless they get desperate and that could be years before it happens.
The set registry has many people feeling shackled to their investment and spending foolish money resubmitting to PSA.
This topic has been eating at me for almost a year now. PSA isn't far off the mark and it's frustrating that a small tweak could result in most of us being more in agreement with our grades and all of us sharing the good news with each other and elsewhere.
I'd like PSA to address it by either saying we're all wrong or they've had issues. If they become the bigger person and own the issue then I think people will stay put when they've seen the proof; otherwise PSA will keep eroding and lots of people hired within the past 4 years will be looking for work again while their former executives toast each other for the financial investment which made them all goooogles of cash.
I don't submit often but was disappointed with my last PSA sub, and with this thread in mind I sent just a couple of 70's cards to SGC. Got this back today. Would this also have been a PSA 10?
Jolley you are spreading too much info in that last post. Keep it on the down low. LOL!! I've have several PSA slabs of what i considered undergraded cards and plan on sending some in really soon. Keep in mind that you can only hops for a 1 grade upgrade when trying this.
@82FootballWaxMemorys said:
Had near 100 1960's-1990's Non-Sport Marvel cards and stickers, from Donruss, Topps, and FTCC in my "to grade" pile since the pandemic hit. Not wanting to have PSA4 or 5's on what should be 9's with a sprinkling of 10's , decided to send them to CGC since Comic Book related.
After calling CGC up with an issue on Comic Submission that required a return, and asking some Card questions got a nice bulk rate 20% lower than normal. I shipped them out yesterday.
Not that PSA cares about my business nor probably anyone else's on this forum, but I no longer will pay them to receive a metaphorical kick in the nards. My subs now are only SGC for Sports and only CGC for Comic Book related cards. This also includes new slab purchases when possible and on Comic Card stuff I may crack out any PSA I have that are not 9 or 10 and submit to CGC. Reason for that is I don't nor will I ever sell cards, and want uniformity of the slabs plus CGC slabs seem nicer made.
Update:
received the cards back from cgc a few weeks later.
70% received exactly the grade I expected
20% were either 1/2 or 1 grade lower than expected
10% were 1 grade higher than I anticipated.
The Numbers above were nearly identical to my results from PSA between 2000-2021!
P.S. I don't sell trading cards! If PSA is still top of heap when the time comes, and certainly no guarantee that will be the case, selling them will be a problem for my heirs. That said the stuff I submitted in Oct 2023 likley won't have a market regardless of who's flip is on the slab
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@JoeBanzai said:
^^Amazing!^^
I hope PSA is addressing this issue. If they ignore it, they are in trouble.
Does PSA consider it an issue or is it it by design?
With everything that I have experienced over the years, I'm inclined to believe that's the case. Why worry about vintage when it is maybe 10% of your business, and a modern card can be glanced at for 5 seconds to determine a grade?
Comments
Yes. Bumped this one about two years from a 7.5 to an 8. Honestly think it could have a chance at an 8.5 on a good day.
I’m sorry, all Baseball
1959 Topps thru 1976 Topps
Mostly 68, 71
sgc order mailed dec 11 received the 15 and graded the 27th. not bad. grades haven't posted just yet.
If it says post grading you should see grades Thursday or Friday.
Mine was submitted 12-8, received 12-13, graded 12-22. Still in post grading.
I did get a refund on 2 cards saying they're cards SGC cannot grade.
Bummer.
here's the good and bad.
bad - opc cards from 60's 70's 80's really low grade on most. about 5 or 6 much lower than i thought.
good - 1976 rose 8.5, 1976 rose opc 7 - pop 1 (none higher), 1975 brett 7 (iwas hoping for a 6.5, but i had no idea it would get a 7, centering is stout), 1994 mattingly finest refractor 9 - pop 1), 1975 ryan mini 7.5. definitely a lot of 6' and 7's.
overall the third submission wasn't as good as the last 2. but decent.
psa pop outs
1973 brooks psa 6 to sgc 8
1974 aaron psa 5 to sgc 6
1975 swann psa 5 to sgc 7
I’ve gotten some fairly harsh grades on OPC baseball from SGC as well fwiw.
Really from both PSA and SGC. I sent in a question about what I am to look for. Let's see if they give me any insight.
Very telling.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
ANd to me the SGC ones look the part. Brooks has like 9 centering. The SGC numbers are more in line, at least on these 3, than PSA.
They have to be getting a ton of complaints, especially from dealers. If this is going to be the norm for PSA vintage card grading, who will use them going forward? Are they listening to their customers? Everyone loves getting 9s at PSA 6 prices but who's going to submit if that's the norm? And the worst thing is how inaccurate their service seems to be. I say 'seems' because I only have three recent orders of my own to measure directly. I have one more I submitted under the 70s special which will be the barometer for future engagement. If I get slammed on that one, I'm done with submitting to PSA until/unless they have a clear change in direction to bring grading back to reasonable standards.
I’ve had 81 orders to PSA this year, the questionable grades started in June for me. The last 2 I received were better but I still had serious questions on several. I have only 1 left at PSA and can’t submit anymore for the time being. Have cracked out dozens and sent to SGC with an average upgrade of 1.61 grades. Like olb, these grades were more inline with what they should be.
You blew me away with the 81 orders comment.
Yeah I’m not too bright, 7034 cards this year.
Curious, does anyone care about SGC pops?
Don't you think there is a reason that the highest selling cards reside in SGC or BGS holders? More lenient and numerical grade matters.
I don’t think they are more lenient, I think SGC does a real good job. 10-15 day turnaround is good too
pop report on sgc would say otherwise, so would beckett. hardly any 9.5 or 10's for either. psa loaded with 10's. 1987 topps ryan psa 10 pop 700 sgc pop 10. thats a huge difference.
the psa lower grades are due to slight miniscule cardboard issues that 5 or 6 years ago were disregarded. if you can't see it with 20/20 vision, why would it matter.
My SGC sub finally popped.
Took longer than normal. 3 weeks ! LOL
5 cards were PSA crackouts. Here we go.
1) 95 Hoops Grant Hill exchange card. PSA7-->SGC10. Yup, I could not see how this got a PSA7. I though it had a real shot at a 10 and SGC agreed.
2) 89 TT Deion Sanders. PSA8-->SGC10. Another I thought had a real shot at a 10. SGC agreed. PSA not so much.
3) 95 Sportsflix UD3 Griffey Jr. PSA8-->SGC9. I had doubts on a 10, but I felt it was better than an 8. SGC was thinking along the same lines apparently.
4) 69 Topps Deckle Edge Ron Santo. PSA5-->SGC7. These are tricky with surface issues being common, but PSA5 was pretty tough. SGC agreed.
5) 89 Fleer Bo Jackson. PSA9-->SGC9.5. This was like my Randy Johnson in the other sub. I kinda used it as a baseline for where I expect the grades to be for my other cards. I expected 9-10 and thats what I got.
For the 7 cards that I thought had a very good shot at a 10, 4 came back 10s, 1 came back 9.5 and 2 came back 9s.
SGC so far seems to be grading more in line to what I expect. No real surprises.
They were maybe a little tough on the 2 '93 McDonalds Gameday perforated cards. Although they came back 8.5 and 9, I was expecting a little higher on these.
Those are great turns and you'll make out better with those SGC prices/grades.
Good for you.
I have a stack of 80s that were graded this summer that will be following this same path soon. Also the reason why I didn't send any from the 80s in for the recent Holiday Special.
That;s awesome. Congrats. It looks like the SGC's sell for around 80% of PSA. If it's centered maybe the same price. I got $85 for an SGC 8 Pete rose topps game. That was equivalent to PSA. so sometimes it will work out great.
If people are consistently getting at least 1 grade more then this is going to start making sense for a LOT of people. If this was my business (it isn't), I could get them back in 1/4 the time, grades are at least 1 higher (most seem to average on here about 1.5) and return is the same/more then I'm sending everything there. Especially vintage, and especially anything from 1980-on.
People aren't going to want to get their cards graded twice in order to get a fair grade.
From some of these posts many seem to disagree and are doing just that.
I have and more than made up for it
I’m happy for anyone who gets the grades they are hoping for and I appreciate people sharing their results; information is king.
A point point difference is understandable and maybe even anticipated but the 3-4 grade jumps are unnerving, to say the least.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Didn't think I implied that but sorry for the confusion.
What I meant was that if it becomes a 'fact' throughout the hobby that PSA is 1-2 grades lower generally then folks won't even bother sending them in. Especially if you're doing this as a business. Once a company loses its premium reputation then all things start to turn very quickly...
Let me get this straight.
You actually think that if you continuously get cards graded by company #1 and need to send them to company #2 in order to get a fair grade, people are going to continue to use company #1?
I don't think so.
I think whqt was meant is that the information being shared by people cracking out PSA slabs is going to get attention and people won't bother with sending to PSA. The new thing may be to buy cards in PSA slabs which appear to be graded too low and crack them out for a bump by SGC and a small profit in between. The unfortunate part is that the people selling are people like us who had faith in the reputation of a company who clearly is off track, has the data to confirm, is receiving open complaints via this board and their customer service line, and has not rectified the issue. I don't expect PSA to comment on this unless they get desperate and that could be years before it happens.
The set registry has many people feeling shackled to their investment and spending foolish money resubmitting to PSA.
This topic has been eating at me for almost a year now. PSA isn't far off the mark and it's frustrating that a small tweak could result in most of us being more in agreement with our grades and all of us sharing the good news with each other and elsewhere.
I'd like PSA to address it by either saying we're all wrong or they've had issues. If they become the bigger person and own the issue then I think people will stay put when they've seen the proof; otherwise PSA will keep eroding and lots of people hired within the past 4 years will be looking for work again while their former executives toast each other for the financial investment which made them all goooogles of cash.
New stuff is to plentiful to worry about the old stuff, imo.
I don't submit often but was disappointed with my last PSA sub, and with this thread in mind I sent just a couple of 70's cards to SGC. Got this back today. Would this also have been a PSA 10?
I think the slight tilt and mabe the top to bottom centering would get get a 8 or 8.5 the way PSA is grading. now.
Jolley you are spreading too much info in that last post. Keep it on the down low. LOL!! I've have several PSA slabs of what i considered undergraded cards and plan on sending some in really soon. Keep in mind that you can only hops for a 1 grade upgrade when trying this.
Update:
received the cards back from cgc a few weeks later.
70% received exactly the grade I expected
20% were either 1/2 or 1 grade lower than expected
10% were 1 grade higher than I anticipated.
The Numbers above were nearly identical to my results from PSA between 2000-2021!
P.S. I don't sell trading cards! If PSA is still top of heap when the time comes, and certainly no guarantee that will be the case, selling them will be a problem for my heirs. That said the stuff I submitted in Oct 2023 likley won't have a market regardless of who's flip is on the slab
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
With everything that I have experienced over the years, I'm inclined to believe that's the case. Why worry about vintage when it is maybe 10% of your business, and a modern card can be glanced at for 5 seconds to determine a grade?