@bgr said:
There are approximately 4 hundred million certs below 99999999 that are unused with the largest available space in the 0xxxxxxx - 3xxxxxxx number series. Certs that were never used.
I meant what I said about PSA reusing certs from the past for this case but I also fully expect that they will “fill in the gaps” with new certifications before they flip to the billions. Which I think would be stupid in the same way I think what they’re doing on review certs now. Toyota came up with the production coding scheme everyone sane is using today in the 1970s which uses date coded serial numbers.
Anyways. All I was saying is. Here is an example of a problem that’s going to most likely get bigger before it’s solved properly. There are certs with old numbers that were first ever card graded in 2024. I’m not speaking to anything else.
PSA has not gone backwards since the initiation of the sequential cert run progression they implemented a number of years back. Your example is unique because the card was assigned a cert number when it was holdered by PSA/DNA so they used the same cert when they added the card grade, same as they do when a card is reholdered or bumped via review.
Will they go back and "fill in the blanks" once they teach 999XXX? That remains to be seen. I'd venture to say there aren't that many retroactive runs with an 8-digit cert left and it's more likely (imo) that they will simply add a digit to the cert number on the flip.
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 was complaining about harsh grading on 1975s 10 years ago. This was the last one I ever submitted. I sent in six super nice ones and got all 7s and 8s. Never again!
@bgr said:
There are approximately 4 hundred million certs below 99999999 that are unused with the largest available space in the 0xxxxxxx - 3xxxxxxx number series. Certs that were never used.
I meant what I said about PSA reusing certs from the past for this case but I also fully expect that they will “fill in the gaps” with new certifications before they flip to the billions. Which I think would be stupid in the same way I think what they’re doing on review certs now. Toyota came up with the production coding scheme everyone sane is using today in the 1970s which uses date coded serial numbers.
Anyways. All I was saying is. Here is an example of a problem that’s going to most likely get bigger before it’s solved properly. There are certs with old numbers that were first ever card graded in 2024. I’m not speaking to anything else.
PSA has not gone backwards since the initiation of the sequential cert run progression they implemented a number of years back. Your example is unique because the card was assigned a cert number when it was holdered by PSA/DNA so they used the same cert when they added the card grade, same as they do when a card is reholdered or bumped via review.
Will they go back and "fill in the blanks" once they teach 999XXX? That remains to be seen. I'd venture to say there aren't that many retroactive runs with an 8-digit cert left and it's more likely (imo) that they will simply add a digit to the cert number on the flip.
I just want to clarify. The card that was graded was not in the PSA/DNA database. It was in the PSA database.
Here is another example. Graded in June 2024. This was never a PSA/DNA cert. The card was graded authentic and the signature was graded a 10.
Here is the original slab.
So my comment was only about how someone might not have a rubric to use to understand when this 2xxxxxxx cert might have been graded so as to characterize how it might have been considered by PSA’s standard du jour.
As to whether PSA will compound their dilemma or not by “filling in the blank space in the database” I don’t know. But. I think it’s a likely possibility if for no reason other than they seem to avoid good decisions. But my point was: there are examples which produce this specific flavor of ambiguity.
Also. Last time I check in late 2023 the database had over four hundred million certs unused. I’m sure at the time they started they thought we would never need more. Bill Gates made a similar mistake of foresight so it’s understandable.
@bgr said:
There are approximately 4 hundred million certs below 99999999 that are unused with the largest available space in the 0xxxxxxx - 3xxxxxxx number series. Certs that were never used.
I meant what I said about PSA reusing certs from the past for this case but I also fully expect that they will “fill in the gaps” with new certifications before they flip to the billions. Which I think would be stupid in the same way I think what they’re doing on review certs now. Toyota came up with the production coding scheme everyone sane is using today in the 1970s which uses date coded serial numbers.
Anyways. All I was saying is. Here is an example of a problem that’s going to most likely get bigger before it’s solved properly. There are certs with old numbers that were first ever card graded in 2024. I’m not speaking to anything else.
PSA has not gone backwards since the initiation of the sequential cert run progression they implemented a number of years back. Your example is unique because the card was assigned a cert number when it was holdered by PSA/DNA so they used the same cert when they added the card grade, same as they do when a card is reholdered or bumped via review.
Will they go back and "fill in the blanks" once they teach 999XXX? That remains to be seen. I'd venture to say there aren't that many retroactive runs with an 8-digit cert left and it's more likely (imo) that they will simply add a digit to the cert number on the flip.
I just want to clarify. The card that was graded was not in the PSA/DNA database. It was in the PSA database.
Here is another example. Graded in June 2024. This was never a PSA/DNA cert. The card was graded authentic and the signature was graded a 10.
Here is the original slab.
So my comment was only about how someone might not have a rubric to use to understand when this 2xxxxxxx cert might have been graded so as to characterize how it might have been considered by PSA’s standard du jour.
As to whether PSA will compound their dilemma or not by “filling in the blank space in the database” I don’t know. But. I think it’s a likely possibility if for no reason other than they seem to avoid good decisions. But my point was: there are examples which produce this specific flavor of ambiguity.
Also. Last time I check in late 2023 the database had over four hundred million certs unused. I’m sure at the time they started they thought we would never need more. Bill Gates made a similar mistake of foresight so it’s understandable.
Yes, but the Monte card was previously holdered. That is not surprising they'd reuse the cert for the same exact previously holdered card. They do the same thing with reviews when the grade is newly changed. I think that's the part you are missing here. Can you show me one recently graded card that wasn't previously holdered with a retroactive cert number?
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.
Also, 4 million unused certs would be a drop in the bucket..PSA grades well over 1 million cards per month.
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.
Not a competition LOL. I was genuinely curious if you could provide an example of a recently graded card that wasn't previously holdered with a retroactive cert number and am still interested should you find one to post here. Enjoy!
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.
@grote15 said:
Not a competition LOL. I was genuinely curious if you could provide an example of a recently graded card that wasn't previously holdered with a retroactive cert number and am still interested should you find one to post here. Enjoy!
I can’t provide that example because I don’t have one and I’m not aware that one exists yet and I can’t say as fact that one will ever exist. I’m only saying that there are examples where you wouldn’t know what standard a card was graded to as you once did and there were two examples of that. While I understand it’s a limited example currently I never said it was anything more.
@grote15 said:
Not a competition LOL. I was genuinely curious if you could provide an example of a recently graded card that wasn't previously holdered with a retroactive cert number and am still interested should you find one to post here. Enjoy!
I can’t provide that example because I don’t have one and I’m not aware that one exists yet and I can’t say as fact that one will ever exist. I’m only saying that there are examples where you wouldn’t know what standard a card was graded to as you once did and there were two examples of that. While I understand it’s a limited example currently I never said it was anything more.
Fair enough. PSA has been quite consistent with sequential cert number sequencing since they decided to start doing so a number of years ago.
Some people will reholder older flip graded cards to make it seem like they were recently graded but you can distinguish those if you've been submitting and collecting for many years. I suppose another reason is that the newer flips are tougher to tamper with, also.
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.
This one I just looked over a few times over a 5 minute period. All I could find is this edge chip and very slight edge wear to bring it down to an 8. Tough.
The Tug McGraw is a low Pop 10 but that's not what I expected. I've looked this over multiple times and can't find any surface blemishes so its gotta be the centering. I feel like what someone expressed earlier, If I have to actually look under a 10x loupe for a flaw to convince myself there is one, is it really an 8? Thoughts?
@PatriotTrading said:
The Tug McGraw is a low Pop 10 but that's not what I expected. I've looked this over multiple times and can't find any surface blemishes so its gotta be the centering. I feel like what someone expressed earlier, If I have to actually look under a 10x loupe for a flaw to convince myself there is one, is it really an 8? Thoughts?
That McGraw is sharp and I can certainly see that card in a PSA 9 holder. Minis with pink/yellow combo were on the edge of the sheet (one reason they are tougher in high grade) and are often a bit taller out of the pack vs normal mini sized cards. Centering is very nice on that one and well within parameters for Mint 9 grade. Unless there's a surface issue, I think that's just a really high end 8. I really wish PSA would use proper holders for these, though. The "floating" effect isn't especially appealing to me as a collector.
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.
@PatriotTrading said:
The Tug McGraw is a low Pop 10 but that's not what I expected. I've looked this over multiple times and can't find any surface blemishes so its gotta be the centering. I feel like what someone expressed earlier, If I have to actually look under a 10x loupe for a flaw to convince myself there is one, is it really an 8? Thoughts?
That McGraw is sharp and I can certainly see that card in a PSA 9 holder. Minis with pink/yellow combo were on the edge of the sheet (one reason they are tougher in high grade) and are often a bit taller out of the pack vs normal mini sized cards. Centering is very nice on that one and well within parameters for Mint 9 grade. Unless there's a surface issue, I think that's just a really high end 8. I really wish PSA would use proper holders for these, though. The "floating" effect isn't especially appealing to me as a collector.
Appreciate the feedback. I keep looking it over. Its difficult to tell if there is a flaw on the surface or just the natural look of the cardboard under the print, if that makes sense. After reviewing it for the 10th time under a bright LCD light, at the right angle I could see something on the right border edge that look almost like a dob of wax and also the top right corner. I might crack, do a wipe down and resub. I look at the 8's on ebay and this one looks way better.
That Tug Mcgraw looks 9-10 range to me...maybe I'm biased because when I played little league baseball my coach gave me a ball with wording as Most improved player and nick named me TUG...
sometimes graders just get stuck in a rut with the same grade, imo...I sent in 25 or so 1977 Star Wars, all from the blue series, and every single one got an 8 grade...how is that possible...no 7's, no 9's, no half grades? Sometimes I think a grader gets thru a bunch of similar cards from the same set quickly by just giving them the same grade, and 8 is a safe grade, as it isn't horrible but not great...
I'm only speaking about the Tug McGraw when I say that was perfect time for PSA to have used the .5 because you'd still wonder why it didn't get a 9, but not as vocally.
If PSA was not soooo late in scanning every graded card - they would have had a nice image database to train graders with. Now any attempt at doing that will cement the higher standards. To me all it did was make the range of each grade huge with significant overlap for each grade. There was always overlap but now the best 6s of 70s cards are better than the lower end 8s.
@brad31 said:
If PSA was not soooo late in scanning every graded card - they would have had a nice image database to train graders with. Now any attempt at doing that will cement the higher standards. To me all it did was make the range of each grade huge with significant overlap for each grade. There was always overlap but now the best 6s of 70s cards are better than the lower end 8s.
Agree with this 100%. Having 6s that look better than 8s also makes absolutely no sense in the scheme of the hobby, their reputation or their business.
Also, on 2 of my recent subs they never even put scans of the cards up as they were received. It's just a blank so I can't even review the orders to confirm/compare to what I'll ultimately get. I've gotten in the habit of saving those scans in case (!) I get graded cards back that have creases that weren't there when they were sent out from my house.
I reviewed my last submissions of 1960-1970 PSA 8's that I felt should have been higher and noticed that they down graded the card due to print defects. The McGraw has very small, white print defects in the colored areas. PSA has to be knocking the card down for this, because that card is mint. If the card has any paper defects such as bubbles or knots on the face or back - PSA will give the card a massive drop. I believe PSA is allowing AI to grade the cards and because of this we will hardly see high graded cards in the future. The new PSA 8 is the old PSA 10.
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
@mintonlypls said:
I believe PSA grades today are about a grade lower than “back in the day” grades. So…10s are just a dream. And today’s 9s are yesterday’s 10s. JMHO
I must have been the worst submitter ever. I sucked 20 years ago, I sucked 10 years ago, I sucked the last time I submitted and if I ever do submit again, I'll suck. So tired of the old vs new cert comparison of immediately dismissing the old as trash and the new as gold. The grade within the grade.... yep, it's real... the one I want to buy is "high end", the one I want to sell is "low end". Getting way too technical for a casual collector.
Comments
PSA has not gone backwards since the initiation of the sequential cert run progression they implemented a number of years back. Your example is unique because the card was assigned a cert number when it was holdered by PSA/DNA so they used the same cert when they added the card grade, same as they do when a card is reholdered or bumped via review.
Will they go back and "fill in the blanks" once they teach 999XXX? That remains to be seen. I'd venture to say there aren't that many retroactive runs with an 8-digit cert left and it's more likely (imo) that they will simply add a digit to the cert number on the flip.
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 was complaining about harsh grading on 1975s 10 years ago. This was the last one I ever submitted. I sent in six super nice ones and got all 7s and 8s. Never again!
I just want to clarify. The card that was graded was not in the PSA/DNA database. It was in the PSA database.
Here is another example. Graded in June 2024. This was never a PSA/DNA cert. The card was graded authentic and the signature was graded a 10.
Here is the original slab.
So my comment was only about how someone might not have a rubric to use to understand when this 2xxxxxxx cert might have been graded so as to characterize how it might have been considered by PSA’s standard du jour.
As to whether PSA will compound their dilemma or not by “filling in the blank space in the database” I don’t know. But. I think it’s a likely possibility if for no reason other than they seem to avoid good decisions. But my point was: there are examples which produce this specific flavor of ambiguity.
Also. Last time I check in late 2023 the database had over four hundred million certs unused. I’m sure at the time they started they thought we would never need more. Bill Gates made a similar mistake of foresight so it’s understandable.
Yes, but the Monte card was previously holdered. That is not surprising they'd reuse the cert for the same exact previously holdered card. They do the same thing with reviews when the grade is newly changed. I think that's the part you are missing here. Can you show me one recently graded card that wasn't previously holdered with a retroactive cert number?
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.
Also, 4 million unused certs would be a drop in the bucket..PSA grades well over 1 million cards per month.
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.
4 hundred. 400,000,000.
You can win this one though. Im chillin.
Not a competition LOL. I was genuinely curious if you could provide an example of a recently graded card that wasn't previously holdered with a retroactive cert number and am still interested should you find one to post here. Enjoy!
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 can’t provide that example because I don’t have one and I’m not aware that one exists yet and I can’t say as fact that one will ever exist. I’m only saying that there are examples where you wouldn’t know what standard a card was graded to as you once did and there were two examples of that. While I understand it’s a limited example currently I never said it was anything more.
Fair enough. PSA has been quite consistent with sequential cert number sequencing since they decided to start doing so a number of years ago.
Some people will reholder older flip graded cards to make it seem like they were recently graded but you can distinguish those if you've been submitting and collecting for many years. I suppose another reason is that the newer flips are tougher to tamper with, also.
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.
This one I just looked over a few times over a 5 minute period. All I could find is this edge chip and very slight edge wear to bring it down to an 8. Tough.
The Tug McGraw is a low Pop 10 but that's not what I expected. I've looked this over multiple times and can't find any surface blemishes so its gotta be the centering. I feel like what someone expressed earlier, If I have to actually look under a 10x loupe for a flaw to convince myself there is one, is it really an 8? Thoughts?
That McGraw is sharp and I can certainly see that card in a PSA 9 holder. Minis with pink/yellow combo were on the edge of the sheet (one reason they are tougher in high grade) and are often a bit taller out of the pack vs normal mini sized cards. Centering is very nice on that one and well within parameters for Mint 9 grade. Unless there's a surface issue, I think that's just a really high end 8. I really wish PSA would use proper holders for these, though. The "floating" effect isn't especially appealing to me as a collector.
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.
Appreciate the feedback. I keep looking it over. Its difficult to tell if there is a flaw on the surface or just the natural look of the cardboard under the print, if that makes sense. After reviewing it for the 10th time under a bright LCD light, at the right angle I could see something on the right border edge that look almost like a dob of wax and also the top right corner. I might crack, do a wipe down and resub. I look at the 8's on ebay and this one looks way better.
That Tug Mcgraw looks 9-10 range to me...maybe I'm biased because when I played little league baseball my coach gave me a ball with wording as Most improved player and nick named me TUG...
sometimes graders just get stuck in a rut with the same grade, imo...I sent in 25 or so 1977 Star Wars, all from the blue series, and every single one got an 8 grade...how is that possible...no 7's, no 9's, no half grades? Sometimes I think a grader gets thru a bunch of similar cards from the same set quickly by just giving them the same grade, and 8 is a safe grade, as it isn't horrible but not great...
Does seem like assembly line mentality at times.
That's what it is.
I'm only speaking about the Tug McGraw when I say that was perfect time for PSA to have used the .5 because you'd still wonder why it didn't get a 9, but not as vocally.
If PSA was not soooo late in scanning every graded card - they would have had a nice image database to train graders with. Now any attempt at doing that will cement the higher standards. To me all it did was make the range of each grade huge with significant overlap for each grade. There was always overlap but now the best 6s of 70s cards are better than the lower end 8s.
Agree with this 100%. Having 6s that look better than 8s also makes absolutely no sense in the scheme of the hobby, their reputation or their business.
Also, on 2 of my recent subs they never even put scans of the cards up as they were received. It's just a blank so I can't even review the orders to confirm/compare to what I'll ultimately get. I've gotten in the habit of saving those scans in case (!) I get graded cards back that have creases that weren't there when they were sent out from my house.
And speaking of PSA scans. They really need to change the way they're scanning the backs.
The light glare blocks the view of the edges and corners.
Why are they using the wrong slabs for the minis? That would drive me crazy.
I reviewed my last submissions of 1960-1970 PSA 8's that I felt should have been higher and noticed that they down graded the card due to print defects. The McGraw has very small, white print defects in the colored areas. PSA has to be knocking the card down for this, because that card is mint. If the card has any paper defects such as bubbles or knots on the face or back - PSA will give the card a massive drop. I believe PSA is allowing AI to grade the cards and because of this we will hardly see high graded cards in the future. The new PSA 8 is the old PSA 10.
I believe PSA grades today are about a grade lower than “back in the day” grades. So…10s are just a dream. And today’s 9s are yesterday’s 10s. JMHO
Wish the 9s sold for 10 prices. It is hard to pay a higher price and get lower results.
I saw some 11s then in UFFDah's thread...
I must have been the worst submitter ever. I sucked 20 years ago, I sucked 10 years ago, I sucked the last time I submitted and if I ever do submit again, I'll suck. So tired of the old vs new cert comparison of immediately dismissing the old as trash and the new as gold. The grade within the grade.... yep, it's real... the one I want to buy is "high end", the one I want to sell is "low end". Getting way too technical for a casual collector.