Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

93 SP Jeter fresh from pack. What would you grade it?

I have pulled a few Jeter 93 SP from packs recently and sent to get graded. It's my only experience with PSA so Im curious, if you sent the card below in, fresh from a pack, what would you expect it to grade? Corners are not perfect. Assume the grade is based only on what is visible. I understand that they have more involved analysis tools than viewing a JPEG. I'm not happy or mad with the actual grade, but, moreso, just want to see what people would expect so that I can get an idea on future PSA submissions.

Comments

  • GrooGroo Posts: 226 ✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2024 1:31PM

    HIGHLY Condition sensitive sub issue. 7-8 is most common on the 93 SP foils. If .5s were common I'd say you have a 7.5

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They are really tough on that card. Assuming there are no obscured wrinkles on the surface that don’t show in the photos I would put my chips on ‘7’.

  • Not sure if its the scan but the top left doesn't look perfect. I'm saying a 8

  • handymanhandyman Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭✭✭

    5

  • BBBrkrrBBBrkrr Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @handyman said:
    5

    That seems to be the grade I've been getting on vintage more than anything lately. :'(

  • RufussCkingstonRufussCkingston Posts: 1,640 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 15, 2024 9:54AM

    God I hate posts like this.......

    Probably the surface scratching and the edges...... And that front bottom right corner....

  • You all were pretty spot on. I have pulled 15 Jeters fresh from packs this summer and sent 12 into PSA. They all were 6.5-7.5 (majority were 7s) and I'm fine with that and can call it a bad investment buying 93 SP boxes. I just wanted to see what the board thought of it before telling the grade and to see if I had a tough grader. Of course, I'm glad I got responses before rufuss joined the conversation.

    I've only used PSA one other time, about 10 years ago, to grade the 93 SP Jeter I had growing up. That one graded an 8 and these 12 from the packs are better quality from what I see. For sure at least some are. None are perfect, but I did expect 8-9s. In my experience, with these grades, it doesnt make sense to pay 2k for 93 SP boxes if you get an average of one Jeter per box and it grades a 7. Not sure how the market supports that.

    I have heard that PSA has gotten tougher and that opens up a whole other discussion. My Jeter graded 10 years ago with multiple, visible damaged corners is worth more than every single one that I recently pulled from a pack. That's quite a feat.

    I appreciate the input. I wanted to hear from the board before deciding whether to pay to send the other 3 in and share my experience with PSA then and now.

  • handymanhandyman Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 15, 2024 11:30AM

    I just can't believe you have sent in 15 Jeter's and never received a 5 before! That is hard to do.

  • RufussCkingstonRufussCkingston Posts: 1,640 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Most cards graded 10+ years ago are probably over-graded by 1 or 2 numbers compared to how they grade today. Maybe send one to BGS for poops & giggles!

  • BLUEJAYWAYBLUEJAYWAY Posts: 9,102 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @82FootballWaxMemorys said:

    @RufussCkingston said:
    Most cards graded 10+ years ago are probably over-graded by 1 or 2 numbers compared to how they grade today. Maybe send one to BGS for poops & giggles!

    Most cards graded 3-18 years ago are probably correctly graded compared to how they grade today

    I wholeheartedly agree. things have gotten too "strict" lately. pop control seems to be a real thing

    I remember selling a few of those SP boxes for $85 each. The risk/reward for a buy in realtion to the price of the box,were one to open it for a minimum 9 Jeter,is prohibitive what with the strict grading existing today.

    Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
  • 82FootballWaxMemorys82FootballWaxMemorys Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @82FootballWaxMemorys said:

    @RufussCkingston said:
    Most cards graded 10+ years ago are probably over-graded by 1 or 2 numbers compared to how they grade today. Maybe send one to BGS for poops & giggles!

    Most cards graded 3-18 years ago are probably correctly graded compared to how they grade today

    I wholeheartedly agree. things have gotten too "strict" lately. pop control seems to be a real thing

    On Cards like the Jeter, 80 Henderson, 84 Donruss Mattingly, etc, for a long time it's been grade by the census medians not by the card. The difference on those cards is at one time those median enforcements applied equally to everyone.

    It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bigxbomber11

    Do you wipe the cards down with a microfiber cloth before you send them to PSA? (Maybe even also hit it first with a can of compressed air to free it of any dust or debris with these foil/high gloss/finish cards?)

    I ask because, from what I have read on various message boards including here, is that it can make a difference with these cards in many cases.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • GrooGroo Posts: 226 ✭✭✭
    edited October 18, 2024 5:22AM

    If dust particles factor into PSAs grading that is downright nasty on their part. Not disagreeing with you BTW as sadly its certainly plausible :(

    On those 93SP foils I'd be worried that any cloth could leave a light line in it's wake.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Groo said:
    If dust particles factor into PSAs grading that is downright nasty on their part. Not disagreeing with you BTW as sadly its certainly plausible :(

    On those 93SP foils I'd be worried that any cloth could leave a light line in it's wake.

    I don’t think they penalize for dust but ANY particles present on the card or in the holder have potential to damage the foil as it is slid in and out of the holder for evaluation.

    Not to mention fingerprints and any other minor surface issues that get magnified by the foil.

    So, like DeShaun Watson might say, blow it off and rub it down.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • olb31olb31 Posts: 3,342 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like an 8.5 to me. Send a few to SGC and see what they say.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • handymanhandyman Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like 3-4 long scratches starting from his fingers/chest going to his feet? Or is that on the PSA case?

  • olb31olb31 Posts: 3,342 ✭✭✭✭✭

    i'm assuming the scratches aren't on the card. If they are, then the card is over graded.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • FredJRIFredJRI Posts: 390 ✭✭✭

    I have heard that PSA has gotten tougher and that opens up a whole other discussion. My Jeter graded 10 years ago with multiple, visible damaged corners is worth more than every single one that I recently pulled from a pack. That's quite a feat.

    I appreciate the input. I wanted to hear from the board before deciding whether to pay to send the other 3 in and share my experience with PSA then and now.


    I had a 'puff' 86 Jordan and a great 79 Gretsky I sent into PSA about 3-6 months ago ... both came back a PSA 4 ..so does that = a PSA 8 ??? lololol

    I'm holding off sending in my 55 Ted Williams, 63 signed rose, 64 ROTY Rose, 1980 Henderson, 2000 Bowman Tom Brady Mint 10, 2000 Bowman Tom Brady Promotion and 1933 Goudey signed Babe Ruth.

    Don't ask me why !!!

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FredJRI said:
    I have heard that PSA has gotten tougher and that opens up a whole other discussion. My Jeter graded 10 years ago with multiple, visible damaged corners is worth more than every single one that I recently pulled from a pack. That's quite a feat.

    I appreciate the input. I wanted to hear from the board before deciding whether to pay to send the other 3 in and share my experience with PSA then and now.


    I had a 'puff' 86 Jordan and a great 79 Gretsky I sent into PSA about 3-6 months ago ... both came back a PSA 4 ..so does that = a PSA 8 ??? lololol

    I'm holding off sending in my 55 Ted Williams, 63 signed rose, 64 ROTY Rose, 1980 Henderson, 2000 Bowman Tom Brady Mint 10, 2000 Bowman Tom Brady Promotion and 1933 Goudey signed Babe Ruth.

    Don't ask me why !!!

    I know why.

  • @BLUEJAYWAY said:

    @craig44 said:

    @82FootballWaxMemorys said:

    @RufussCkingston said:
    Most cards graded 10+ years ago are probably over-graded by 1 or 2 numbers compared to how they grade today. Maybe send one to BGS for poops & giggles!

    Most cards graded 3-18 years ago are probably correctly graded compared to how they grade today

    I wholeheartedly agree. things have gotten too "strict" lately. pop control seems to be a real thing

    I remember selling a few of those SP boxes for $85 each. The risk/reward for a buy in realtion to the price of the box,were one to open it for a minimum 9 Jeter,is prohibitive what with the strict grading existing today.

    Good call selling the boxes. It is prohibitive from my not-so-small sample size.

  • @olb31 said:
    i'm assuming the scratches aren't on the card. If they are, then the card is over graded.

    Yes they are on the case

  • @FredJRI said:
    I have heard that PSA has gotten tougher and that opens up a whole other discussion. My Jeter graded 10 years ago with multiple, visible damaged corners is worth more than every single one that I recently pulled from a pack. That's quite a feat.

    I appreciate the input. I wanted to hear from the board before deciding whether to pay to send the other 3 in and share my experience with PSA then and now.


    I had a 'puff' 86 Jordan and a great 79 Gretsky I sent into PSA about 3-6 months ago ... both came back a PSA 4 ..so does that = a PSA 8 ??? lololol

    I'm holding off sending in my 55 Ted Williams, 63 signed rose, 64 ROTY Rose, 1980 Henderson, 2000 Bowman Tom Brady Mint 10, 2000 Bowman Tom Brady Promotion and 1933 Goudey signed Babe Ruth.

    Don't ask me why !!!

    Your PSA 4 = 2008 PSA 8 pretty much. They need AI on these cards and take the human element out of it. My guess is in a few years, Ill break the PSA Jeters open and resubmit when AI takes over the grading.

  • GrooGroo Posts: 226 ✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2024 1:47PM

    @bigxbomber11 said:

    @FredJRI said:
    I have heard that PSA has gotten tougher and that opens up a whole other discussion. My Jeter graded 10 years ago with multiple, visible damaged corners is worth more than every single one that I recently pulled from a pack. That's quite a feat.

    I appreciate the input. I wanted to hear from the board before deciding whether to pay to send the other 3 in and share my experience with PSA then and now.


    I had a 'puff' 86 Jordan and a great 79 Gretsky I sent into PSA about 3-6 months ago ... both came back a PSA 4 ..so does that = a PSA 8 ??? lololol

    I'm holding off sending in my 55 Ted Williams, 63 signed rose, 64 ROTY Rose, 1980 Henderson, 2000 Bowman Tom Brady Mint 10, 2000 Bowman Tom Brady Promotion and 1933 Goudey signed Babe Ruth.

    Don't ask me why !!!

    Your PSA 4 = 2008 PSA 8 pretty much. They need AI on these cards and take the human element out of it. My guess is in a few years, Ill break the PSA Jeters open and resubmit when AI takes over the grading.

    Until AI decides humans are the root cause of most card damage. Then it's bye bye to all of the root cause

  • FredJRIFredJRI Posts: 390 ✭✭✭

    Yep !!!

Sign In or Register to comment.