@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
Ok, well right or wrong, you've got all the answers. The crackout and send to GMC scenario is the dirty little secret. You just uncovered it.
I'm wrong a lot. I made two mistakes yesterday at work. Let's discuss the topic instead of talking about me. Pointing out how some recent raw sales on EBAY are going for crazy prices is a legit topic to discuss. That's why we have a message board - to discuss issues about our hobby.
Regarding the crack out and send to GM I know it has been discussed before. My question is how prevalent do you guys think it is? Is it common or rare?
@Yankees70 said:
Card sold for $1775. PSA 9's usually sell for under $200. Does anyone think this has a realistic chance of getting a PSA 10? I know people who recently submitted over a hundred 1975 Topps Baseball cards straight from vending and did not receive one 10.
A smarter gamble is to take the 1775 to a casino, goto roulette table and play it on one number.
A banana duct taped to a wall recently sold for over 5 million at Sotheby's live auction. Over 6 million when including the fees. Point being, crazy prices on cards, or on any type of item, cannot always have a logical reason for a realized amount. People with money to burn will find ways to enjoy burning it.
@BBBrkrr said:
In this day and age I don't think ANY vintage card has a realistic chance of a 10. If a vintage card gets a 10 then it's a small miracle.
It's interesting that an industrial cog in the wheel has ultimate control over the distribution of small miracles. That being said, one must consider how many cards have gone through the system, including all the gems that made it out the door for the past 30+ years. There must not be much left to sift through in the vintage world, as so many cards have already been found, handled, graded, resold, added to Registry sets, etc. The percentages are lower because there's just not that much stuff which once came out from vending or wax, racks and cellos and went into collections that got liquidated. Dealers thrived.
It's not the same now. It is and should be VERY difficult to get a 10.
@Yankees70 said:
Card sold for $1775. PSA 9's usually sell for under $200. Does anyone think this has a realistic chance of getting a PSA 10? I know people who recently submitted over a hundred 1975 Topps Baseball cards straight from vending and did not receive one 10.
Wow that's a crazy price. I bet someone could get 1 or 2 really nice NM-MT raw complete sets for that price.
It never hurts to peek inside the window of these anomalies. The '75T Ryan Leaders #7 which went for $1775 in early October was fueled by two people, the other of which bid $1750. TWO people caused a sensation which has our dear friend Yankees70 questioning the validity of the results. I would question it, too. Look also at the dates and time these bids were placed. The second underbidder offered FOURTEEN DOLLARS for the card!! The other lower bids were a pocketful of coins. If you want to question legitimacy, that's a good place to start. And yet, what if the winning bidder paid up at $1775? Then there is no question. It must be legit. THAT'S CRAZY!!
@BBBrkrr said:
In this day and age I don't think ANY vintage card has a realistic chance of a 10. If a vintage card gets a 10 then it's a small miracle.
It's interesting that an industrial cog in the wheel has ultimate control over the distribution of small miracles. That being said, one must consider how many cards have gone through the system, including all the gems that made it out the door for the past 30+ years. There must not be much left to sift through in the vintage world, as so many cards have already been found, handled, graded, resold, added to Registry sets, etc. The percentages are lower because there's just not that much stuff which once came out from vending or wax, racks and cellos and went into collections that got liquidated. Dealers thrived.
It's not the same now. It is and should be VERY difficult to get a 10.
Agree. That's as good a reason as any not to expect a vintage 10.
I don’t follow that Ryan card, but the logic for me goes like this…..
If that is one of the better known examples of that card, and the best examples sell for 1700, then the sale makes sense. The fact that PSA changed their grading standards and that the card likely won’t gem doesn’t make it a lesser example of that card.
As shocking as this may seem, a lot of folks collect cards not grades.
@Yankees70 said:
Question to see what you guys think. Do you think there are a decent amount of collectors who consign their raw cards to GM who have cracked out there recent 5's and 6's that look like 8/9's?
I'm asking because I heard some collectors at a local card shop saying they do this. They were discussing how PSA is currently tough on vintage and they are receiving many 5's and 6's because of microscopic surface issues. On cards like this they claim they are cracking them out of the holders and consigning the raw cards to GM. In turn they will most likely receive a NM-MT + or better grade and then have a collector pay double or triple what the card would be worth in a PSA 8 holder.
Do you think this is an anomaly?
When you have to submit a MINIMUM of $5000 consignment that’s a lot of holders to crack. I don’t think it happens but then again I send them cards every other month . Plus unless they are stars OR high grade 71’s the prices drop significantly after 1965/66 for the most part. This Simmons are just one of hundreds of cards I would consider overpaid for but why would anyone care if someone paid too much for anything. I scratched my head when 9-1974 Topps Football commons I sent them sold for $41 each. It happens. I could send the same 9 again and not get $2 each. Well centered stars from GM bring big $$$ ungraded especially cards older than 1966
@BBBrkrr said:
In this day and age I don't think ANY vintage card has a realistic chance of a 10. If a vintage card gets a 10 then it's a small miracle.
I don’t know I’ve received over 100 10s this year from 1964-1977.
Now this year I’ll submit between 4000-5000 cards none modern . Lower than past years but still not bad. There was a period when they were really bad grading, when the serial numbers were mid 6000 to mid 7000. They were awful. Don’t know why but it’s gotten much much more consistent
@BBBrkrr said:
In this day and age I don't think ANY vintage card has a realistic chance of a 10. If a vintage card gets a 10 then it's a small miracle.
I don’t know I’ve received over 100 10s this year from 1964-1977.
Now this year I’ll submit between 4000-5000 cards none modern . Lower than past years but still not bad. There was a period when they were really bad grading, when the serial numbers were mid 6000 to mid 7000. They were awful. Don’t know why but it’s gotten much much more consistent
That's good to see. I don't sub that many and certainly don't get those return percentages on the ones I send.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
It never hurts to peek inside the window of these anomalies. The '75T Ryan Leaders #7 which went for $1775 in early October was fueled by two people, the other of which bid $1750. TWO people caused a sensation which has our dear friend Yankees70 questioning the validity of the results. I would question it, too. Look also at the dates and time these bids were placed. The second underbidder offered FOURTEEN DOLLARS for the card!! The other lower bids were a pocketful of coins. If you want to question legitimacy, that's a good place to start. And yet, what if the winning bidder paid up at $1775? Then there is no question. It must be legit. THAT'S CRAZY!!
which has our dear friend Yankees70 questioning the validity of the results.
I'm not questioning the results. I believe the card sold for that much. Regarding our dear friend comment - Once again why are you talking about me? You need to stop thinking about me as its not healthy. Dude sorry but I don't swing that way. I love the ladies and I'm happily married. Comment on my comments and try to avoid your comments about me. This is a sports card/coin website. Not a website about Yankees 70.
@Yankees70 said:
Question to see what you guys think. Do you think there are a decent amount of collectors who consign their raw cards to GM who have cracked out there recent 5's and 6's that look like 8/9's?
I'm asking because I heard some collectors at a local card shop saying they do this. They were discussing how PSA is currently tough on vintage and they are receiving many 5's and 6's because of microscopic surface issues. On cards like this they claim they are cracking them out of the holders and consigning the raw cards to GM. In turn they will most likely receive a NM-MT + or better grade and then have a collector pay double or triple what the card would be worth in a PSA 8 holder.
Do you think this is an anomaly?
When you have to submit a MINIMUM of $5000 consignment that’s a lot of holders to crack. I don’t think it happens but then again I send them cards every other month . Plus unless they are stars OR high grade 71’s the prices drop significantly after 1965/66 for the most part. This Simmons are just one of hundreds of cards I would consider overpaid for but why would anyone care if someone paid too much for anything. I scratched my head when 9-1974 Topps Football commons I sent them sold for $41 each. It happens. I could send the same 9 again and not get $2 each. Well centered stars from GM bring big $$$ ungraded especially cards older than 1966
Yes that would be a lot to crack. I'm talking about a collector submitting a handful of cracked 5's and 6's into a submission of 25+ cards. Just wondering if this is a common practice. I have received three vintage cards from GM that came back altered that were described as NM-MT + or better. I received a refund but I'm still out the $60 it cost to have the cards graded.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
If you're just gonna be crass and make foolish comments, then yeah we don't need to chat. Anyways, cards cards cards cards cards cards cards........
@Yankees70 said:
Card sold for $1775. PSA 9's usually sell for under $200. Does anyone think this has a realistic chance of getting a PSA 10? I know people who recently submitted over a hundred 1975 Topps Baseball cards straight from vending and did not receive one 10.
A smarter gamble is to take the 1775 to a casino, goto roulette table and play it on one number.
@mcastaldi said:
PSA10 vs PSA9 was arbitrary when I was building a graded 75T set back in 2003. Usually came down to how the grader was feeling that day.
Now, with PSA completely ignoring their published specs for each grade, your odds are probably better at a LV casino than in PSA’s grading room.
All I know is that between today's grading fees and what seems like an impossibility to pull a 10 on anything vintage, let alone a 9, I am pretty much out of the submission game. I used to enjoy hunting for and purchasing raw to see how they would grade (obviously a lot more people doing that now and driving up raw costs). Nothing really shocks or surprises me anymore on what people will pay. Their money, their choices.
@Mefer said:
All I know is that between today's grading fees and what seems like an impossibility to pull a 10 on anything vintage, let alone a 9, I am pretty much out of the submission game. I used to enjoy hunting for and purchasing raw to see how they would grade (obviously a lot more people doing that now and driving up raw costs). Nothing really shocks or surprises me anymore on what people will pay. Their money, their choices.
Once upon a time, I built 2 graded sets. All PSA8 or better.
Then I dropped out of the hobby for >15 years.
So you can imagine when I came back earlier this year to see that the published grading standards I was used to - the same ones on PSA's website today - are now just completely ignored. Because they certainly don't align with the numbers on slabs coming out of the grading room. At least for what I collect anyway.
So what that means to me is that I can build my own raw sets with cards that I confrim align to PSA's published standard for what I feel is "good enough". In my case, 1974-1979 Topps in NM+ and 1980-1984 T/F/D in NM/MT+. Because I trust my ability to evaluate a card against PSA's published criteria a whole lot more than I trust the graders they have working today.
So that means I get to pick up a TON of PSA & SGC 7s and 7.5s that by any objective measure meet the published standard for an 8 (or 9) - without having to pay the premium for the number on the holder.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
If you're just gonna be crass and make foolish comments, then yeah we don't need to chat. Anyways, cards cards cards cards cards cards cards........
Still waiting on the foolish comments I made in this thread.
@olb31 said:
psa 7's go for about $150. It's hard to imagine getting psa 8's on 1971 cards at this point. Very tough to do. The odds of this working out for the buyer seem slim. and if it's a raw set, i think its really tough.
The price just blew my mind.
PSA 7' lots for over $200to $300 .
on EBay ....not for me.
Lots of interesting comments here and there are probably many different answers for different collectors. For me, certain qualities are more important than others. A card has to have good print registration and strong color. If it is poorly printed, I don't want it, period. Next comes centering, which is important but not a deal breaker. After that, I am a lot more flexible. I can live with soft corners, a light crease, etc. But other other people are different. Some need 4 sharp corners and can live with poor print registration.
Perhaps the Simmons card had the exact qualities that the buyer wanted and could not find elsewhere, regardless of grade or price. There are many PSA cards of all grades with great image quality and centering. There are also many PSA 7, 8 and 9 cards that I find unappealing. If the buyer had been searching for a 71 Simmons for a set or player run and that card spoke to him, then the price may have been reasonable to him, even if it seems unreasonable to someone who would be happy with any old PSA 7.
I am doing the same thing, but on a smaller scale. I am building a raw 75 set. I but commons individually on eBay. I pay too much in postage and tax. I crack out graded cards (mostly 6 and 7) for the album, which reduces their value. I am losing money, but I am happy with my set.
@BBBrkrr said:
In this day and age I don't think ANY vintage card has a realistic chance of a 10. If a vintage card gets a 10 then it's a small miracle.
I don’t know I’ve received over 100 10s this year from 1964-1977.
Now this year I’ll submit between 4000-5000 cards none modern . Lower than past years but still not bad. There was a period when they were really bad grading, when the serial numbers were mid 6000 to mid 7000. They were awful. Don’t know why but it’s gotten much much more consistent
That's good to see. I don't sub that many and certainly don't get those return percentages on the ones I send.
That’s because you don’t have an infinite number of vintage cards from cut card cases like harnessracing! I think he is single-handedly responsible for about 75% of the 1974 PSA 10 Seavers that exist.
Yankees70 posted on Nov 22nd to have someone explain the 75 Ryan Highlight card.
I can explain it as I submitted the card to GM. The winning bid of $1775 was reneged (not paid) by the buyer who said it was a mistake. It was relisted later and sold for around $35. I asked why they did not offer to the underbidder (who bid $1750) but did not receive a reply as they just relisted the card. Some tomfollery in my opinion.
It’s a good thing they relisted it , normally they don’t and you have to request it back or they will keep it.
I’ve had a few people that didn’t pay either and they don’t block non paying bidders
@Harnessracing said:
It’s a good thing they relisted it , normally they don’t and you have to request it back or they will keep it.
I’ve had a few people that didn’t pay either and they don’t block non paying bidders
Just on the sheer volume of listings GM does, I'm not sure how reasonable it would be to expect them to.
I have believed that most of the cards > @loyalty60 said:
Yankees70 posted on Nov 22nd to have someone explain the 75 Ryan Highlight card.
I can explain it as I submitted the card to GM. The winning bid of $1775 was reneged (not paid) by the buyer who said it was a mistake. It was relisted later and sold for around $35. I asked why they did not offer to the underbidder (who bid $1750) but did not receive a reply as they just relisted the card. Some tomfollery in my opinion.
@loyalty60 said:
Yankees70 posted on Nov 22nd to have someone explain the 75 Ryan Highlight card.
I can explain it as I submitted the card to GM. The winning bid of $1775 was reneged (not paid) by the buyer who said it was a mistake. It was relisted later and sold for around $35. I asked why they did not offer to the underbidder (who bid $1750) but did not receive a reply as they just relisted the card. Some tomfollery in my opinion.
Wow I'm really sorry that happened to you. How can GM not respond to you with a reply? Plus how do you bid ample times on an item and then call it a mistake?
@Harnessracing said:
It’s a good thing they relisted it , normally they don’t and you have to request it back or they will keep it.
I’ve had a few people that didn’t pay either and they don’t block non paying bidders
Just on the sheer volume of listings GM does, I'm not sure how reasonable it would be to expect them to.
When a card goes for over $1,000 to less than $50 they owe the seller a response on what happened. I have personally sent emails to GM about 5-6 times and I have always received a response within 48 hours.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
LOL. "The buyer will lose double what he paid". Makes no sense. He's gonna lose a cool 1000 bucks plus? Try again.
Time to rename this place PSA Argument Grading Raw Psycho Prices Math Skills Gone Bad Forum.
Makes no sense? The buyer paid $505 plus postage. If he submits the card to PSA and receives a 7 or lower he lost much more than 50% of what he paid. I just checked EBAY and the last five sales for a PSA 7 are all under $200. Hopefully the buyer will keep the card raw otherwise he's going to lose at least 50% of what he paid.
You have to add in the chance that it could receive a PSA 8.5 or PSA 9. For some of the raw collectors they have hit big in the past and the chance to hit again is a big reason why they pay so much. Unfortunately since PSA changed their grading standards the chances to hit big have been greatly reduced.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
LOL. "The buyer will lose double what he paid". Makes no sense. He's gonna lose a cool 1000 bucks plus? Try again.
Time to rename this place PSA Argument Grading Raw Psycho Prices Math Skills Gone Bad Forum.
Makes no sense? The buyer paid $505 plus postage. If he submits the card to PSA and receives a 7 or lower he lost much more than 50% of what he paid. I just checked EBAY and the last five sales for a PSA 7 are all under $200. Hopefully the buyer will keep the card raw otherwise he's going to lose at least 50% of what he paid.
You have to add in the chance that it could receive a PSA 8.5 or PSA 9. For some of the raw collectors they have hit big in the past and the chance to hit again is a big reason why they pay so much. Unfortunately since PSA changed their grading standards the chances to hit big have been greatly reduced.
Agree years ago it would be worth the gamble as the buyer might get an 8. Today very little chance that happens. My best buddy recently submitted a bunch of 71's that looked right out of the box with nice centering and mostly received 6's and a couple of 7's.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
LOL. "The buyer will lose double what he paid". Makes no sense. He's gonna lose a cool 1000 bucks plus? Try again.
Time to rename this place PSA Argument Grading Raw Psycho Prices Math Skills Gone Bad Forum.
Makes no sense? The buyer paid $505 plus postage. If he submits the card to PSA and receives a 7 or lower he lost much more than 50% of what he paid. I just checked EBAY and the last five sales for a PSA 7 are all under $200. Hopefully the buyer will keep the card raw otherwise he's going to lose at least 50% of what he paid.
You have to add in the chance that it could receive a PSA 8.5 or PSA 9. For some of the raw collectors they have hit big in the past and the chance to hit again is a big reason why they pay so much. Unfortunately since PSA changed their grading standards the chances to hit big have been greatly reduced.
Agree years ago it would be worth the gamble as the buyer might get an 8. Today very little chance that happens. My best buddy recently submitted a bunch of 71's that looked right out of the box with nice centering and mostly received 6's and a couple of 7's.
Buddy of mine just got grades back on a bunch of vintage too that were all 4-7s. He was PISSED. I'd been warning him for weeks and weeks trying to grind down his expectations about current grading but it did no good.
PSA is doing a great job of pissing off every vintage collector around. He hadn't had a membership in years, reupped and got a completely different result than what he'd been seeing years ago. He's done and won't go back and will let his membership expire.
while I am not always happy with my grades, sometimes down right ticked, I will say that a lot of times it's my fault for not reviewing the card properly. I wear contacts because I am near-sighted. But the contacts distort my up close vision. Even when I wear -150 bifocals, it's not as good as it could be. So I decided to review the cards with no contacts in and boy was there a difference. I can see perfectly up close without my contacts. The small corner glitches or print marks were much easier to see.
Plus the hard plastic top loaders really distort the view of the card. i removed them from there and put all of them in Card saver 1 or 2 depending on there size. This helped with the surface review greatly.
@loyalty60 said:
Yankees70 posted on Nov 22nd to have someone explain the 75 Ryan Highlight card.
I can explain it as I submitted the card to GM. The winning bid of $1775 was reneged (not paid) by the buyer who said it was a mistake. It was relisted later and sold for around $35. I asked why they did not offer to the underbidder (who bid $1750) but did not receive a reply as they just relisted the card. Some tomfoolery in my opinion.
Hummm ... I never send a card unless it's paid for fully.
@BBBrkrr said:
In this day and age I don't think ANY vintage card has a realistic chance of a 10. If a vintage card gets a 10 then it's a small miracle.
I don’t know I’ve received over 100 10s this year from 1964-1977.
Now this year I’ll submit between 4000-5000 cards none modern . Lower than past years but still not bad. There was a period when they were really bad grading, when the serial numbers were mid 6000 to mid 7000. They were awful. Don’t know why but it’s gotten much much more consistent
100 - 10's out of 5,000 cards is roughly 2% graded PSA 10.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@Mefer said:
All I know is that between today's grading fees and what seems like an impossibility to pull a 10 on anything vintage, let alone a 9, I am pretty much out of the submission game. I used to enjoy hunting for and purchasing raw to see how they would grade (obviously a lot more people doing that now and driving up raw costs). Nothing really shocks or surprises me anymore on what people will pay. Their money, their choices.
Once upon a time, I built 2 graded sets. All PSA8 or better.
Then I dropped out of the hobby for >15 years.
So you can imagine when I came back earlier this year to see that the published grading standards I was used to - the same ones on PSA's website today - are now just completely ignored. Because they certainly don't align with the numbers on slabs coming out of the grading room. At least for what I collect anyway.
So what that means to me is that I can build my own raw sets with cards that I confrim align to PSA's published standard for what I feel is "good enough". In my case, 1974-1979 Topps in NM+ and 1980-1984 T/F/D in NM/MT+. Because I trust my ability to evaluate a card against PSA's published criteria a whole lot more than I trust the graders they have working today.
So that means I get to pick up a TON of PSA & SGC 7s and 7.5s that by any objective measure meet the published standard for an 8 (or 9) - without having to pay the premium for the number on the holder.
Did we just become best friends? You want to go do karate in the garage? LOL!!!! Exact same experience. While I love PSA and fully support the brand, it's no longer viable in my book to grade 70s to 80s cards which is my prime collecting interest and era. From my very small sample size, the standards have tightened considerably. Am I wrong to believe that? Possibly but when I am experiencing that as a long time collector and PSA supporter and I read the same from countless other long time hobbyists and PSA supporters, it seems more and more plausible. My last few batches of submissions were shocking in results. This is after thousands of cards submitted over 25 plus years. I am no expert but I like to think I have developed somewhat of an eye over the years. In any event, I will continue to buy and collect PSA but submission usage is stopping giving the price and lockdown on grades. Your mileage can and HOPEFULLY will vary!
@Mefer said:
All I know is that between today's grading fees and what seems like an impossibility to pull a 10 on anything vintage, let alone a 9, I am pretty much out of the submission game. I used to enjoy hunting for and purchasing raw to see how they would grade (obviously a lot more people doing that now and driving up raw costs). Nothing really shocks or surprises me anymore on what people will pay. Their money, their choices.
Once upon a time, I built 2 graded sets. All PSA8 or better.
Then I dropped out of the hobby for >15 years.
So you can imagine when I came back earlier this year to see that the published grading standards I was used to - the same ones on PSA's website today - are now just completely ignored. Because they certainly don't align with the numbers on slabs coming out of the grading room. At least for what I collect anyway.
So what that means to me is that I can build my own raw sets with cards that I confrim align to PSA's published standard for what I feel is "good enough". In my case, 1974-1979 Topps in NM+ and 1980-1984 T/F/D in NM/MT+. Because I trust my ability to evaluate a card against PSA's published criteria a whole lot more than I trust the graders they have working today.
So that means I get to pick up a TON of PSA & SGC 7s and 7.5s that by any objective measure meet the published standard for an 8 (or 9) - without having to pay the premium for the number on the holder.
Did we just become best friends? You want to go do karate in the garage? LOL!!!! Exact same experience. While I love PSA and fully support the brand, it's no longer viable in my book to grade 70s to 80s cards which is my prime collecting interest and era. From my very small sample size, the standards have tightened considerably. Am I wrong to believe that? Possibly but when I am experiencing that as a long time collector and PSA supporter and I read the same from countless other long time hobbyists and PSA supporters, it seems more and more plausible. My last few batches of submissions were shocking in results. This is after thousands of cards submitted over 25 plus years. I am no expert but I like to think I have developed somewhat of an eye over the years. In any event, I will continue to buy and collect PSA but submission usage is stopping giving the price and lockdown on grades. Your mileage can and HOPEFULLY will vary!
You quoting the Step Brothers movie is hilarious! For me it's an all time great comedy movie that belongs with Animal House, Caddyshack, etc.
You stated " published grading standards I was used to - the same ones on PSA's website today - are now just completely ignored. " IMHO the above is a ticking time bomb that will eventually blow up if not semi corrected.
I hope Harnessracing is right and there was a period when they were really bad grading and it’s gotten much much more consistent. If not I will continue to not submit vintage for grading. My bulk submission that I didn't get in before the pandemic of 130 cards will continue to grow and sit on the sidelines ungraded.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Some of the comments being made here support the notion that PSA grading has become less attractive than before and the prices being paid for legitimate raw card transactions should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the market and participated throughout PSA's recent grading history. High quality raw card collections are coming back from the dead. Happy days. Who needs all that bulky plastic anyways...
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
Some of the comments being made here support the notion that PSA grading has become less attractive than before and the prices being paid for legitimate raw card transactions should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the market and participated throughout PSA's recent grading history. High quality raw card collections are coming back from the dead. Happy days. Who needs all that bulky plastic anyways...
Would you agree that this is due in some/large part due to PSA ignoring their published standards, at least for vintage, thereby making submitting much more of a crap shoot than it used to be?
My problem isn't that PSA has tightened the standards for the grades their graders assign. These things evolve.
My beef is that standard is wildly different than the one PSA publishes and it's this misalignment of expectations that's driving away a fair number of folks.
@BBBrkrr said:
In this day and age I don't think ANY vintage card has a realistic chance of a 10. If a vintage card gets a 10 then it's a small miracle.
I don’t know I’ve received over 100 10s this year from 1964-1977.
Now this year I’ll submit between 4000-5000 cards none modern . Lower than past years but still not bad. There was a period when they were really bad grading, when the serial numbers were mid 6000 to mid 7000. They were awful. Don’t know why but it’s gotten much much more consistent
100 - 10's out of 5,000 cards is roughly 2% graded PSA 10.
Over 100 10’s out of 3166 cards (141 actual 10s) with 1103 at PSA now. No cards newer than 1978 and most from 1974, 1977, and 1961 and 1964. Even got a couple of 1959s and a 57. So it’s about 4.5%.
Good thoughts here by many. Special thanks is directed towards PSA in allowing us to discuss this constructively. We are all PSA supporters but yeah my view is something is off. I would like to start submitting again but that miscalibration paired with cost makes me an easy no. I do hope that changes but I will need to see something from fellow hobbyists to support that.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
Some of the comments being made here support the notion that PSA grading has become less attractive than before and the prices being paid for legitimate raw card transactions should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the market and participated throughout PSA's recent grading history. High quality raw card collections are coming back from the dead. Happy days. Who needs all that bulky plastic anyways...
Would you agree that this is due in some/large part due to PSA ignoring their published standards, at least for vintage, thereby making submitting much more of a crap shoot than it used to be?
My problem isn't that PSA has tightened the standards for the grades their graders assign. These things evolve.
My beef is that standard is wildly different than the one PSA publishes and it's this misalignment of expectations that's driving away a fair number of folks.
I don't know if it would be fair of me to criticize their application of standards. I did pretty well during my grading years. But that ended over 10 years ago. I'd known of and supported the benefits of PSA grading from the time I was first introduced to the concept in 1992. I was fortunate to have access to a healthy inventory for several years and sent large orders.
Your comment about misalignment of expectations makes sense. It's troublesome because the costs have inflated so dramatically and spending a lot of money to persistently fall short of expectations would absolutely drive people away. I suppose the inference that modern product is getting better results than vintage these days will only reinforce that notion.
I think they've created standards based on how cards are made these days and are using them across all years in the past. That does make perfect sense in terms of consistency.
The problem is that most vintage were never the same quality from year to year (or series to series) and certainly never as good as any current printing.
I get what they're doing and even appreciate the ambition, but it's like half your round pegs are going in round holes and you're shoving the rest into square and triangular holes and hoping everyone has round pegs.
Comments
I'm wrong a lot. I made two mistakes yesterday at work. Let's discuss the topic instead of talking about me. Pointing out how some recent raw sales on EBAY are going for crazy prices is a legit topic to discuss. That's why we have a message board - to discuss issues about our hobby.
Regarding the crack out and send to GM I know it has been discussed before. My question is how prevalent do you guys think it is? Is it common or rare?
A smarter gamble is to take the 1775 to a casino, goto roulette table and play it on one number.
A banana duct taped to a wall recently sold for over 5 million at Sotheby's live auction. Over 6 million when including the fees. Point being, crazy prices on cards, or on any type of item, cannot always have a logical reason for a realized amount. People with money to burn will find ways to enjoy burning it.
It's interesting that an industrial cog in the wheel has ultimate control over the distribution of small miracles. That being said, one must consider how many cards have gone through the system, including all the gems that made it out the door for the past 30+ years. There must not be much left to sift through in the vintage world, as so many cards have already been found, handled, graded, resold, added to Registry sets, etc. The percentages are lower because there's just not that much stuff which once came out from vending or wax, racks and cellos and went into collections that got liquidated. Dealers thrived.
It's not the same now. It is and should be VERY difficult to get a 10.
Enjoy the go.
Wow that's a crazy price. I bet someone could get 1 or 2 really nice NM-MT raw complete sets for that price.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
It never hurts to peek inside the window of these anomalies. The '75T Ryan Leaders #7 which went for $1775 in early October was fueled by two people, the other of which bid $1750. TWO people caused a sensation which has our dear friend Yankees70 questioning the validity of the results. I would question it, too. Look also at the dates and time these bids were placed. The second underbidder offered FOURTEEN DOLLARS for the card!! The other lower bids were a pocketful of coins. If you want to question legitimacy, that's a good place to start. And yet, what if the winning bidder paid up at $1775? Then there is no question. It must be legit. THAT'S CRAZY!!
Enjoy the go.
Agree. That's as good a reason as any not to expect a vintage 10.
I don’t follow that Ryan card, but the logic for me goes like this…..
If that is one of the better known examples of that card, and the best examples sell for 1700, then the sale makes sense. The fact that PSA changed their grading standards and that the card likely won’t gem doesn’t make it a lesser example of that card.
As shocking as this may seem, a lot of folks collect cards not grades.
" TWO people caused a sensation which has our dear friend Yankees70 questioning the validity of the results. I would question it, too." says ELmago
When you have to submit a MINIMUM of $5000 consignment that’s a lot of holders to crack. I don’t think it happens but then again I send them cards every other month . Plus unless they are stars OR high grade 71’s the prices drop significantly after 1965/66 for the most part. This Simmons are just one of hundreds of cards I would consider overpaid for but why would anyone care if someone paid too much for anything. I scratched my head when 9-1974 Topps Football commons I sent them sold for $41 each. It happens. I could send the same 9 again and not get $2 each. Well centered stars from GM bring big $$$ ungraded especially cards older than 1966
I don’t know I’ve received over 100 10s this year from 1964-1977.
Now this year I’ll submit between 4000-5000 cards none modern . Lower than past years but still not bad. There was a period when they were really bad grading, when the serial numbers were mid 6000 to mid 7000. They were awful. Don’t know why but it’s gotten much much more consistent
That's good to see. I don't sub that many and certainly don't get those return percentages on the ones I send.
which has our dear friend Yankees70 questioning the validity of the results.
I'm not questioning the results. I believe the card sold for that much. Regarding our dear friend comment - Once again why are you talking about me? You need to stop thinking about me as its not healthy. Dude sorry but I don't swing that way. I love the ladies and I'm happily married. Comment on my comments and try to avoid your comments about me. This is a sports card/coin website. Not a website about Yankees 70.
Yes that would be a lot to crack. I'm talking about a collector submitting a handful of cracked 5's and 6's into a submission of 25+ cards. Just wondering if this is a common practice. I have received three vintage cards from GM that came back altered that were described as NM-MT + or better. I received a refund but I'm still out the $60 it cost to have the cards graded.
If you're just gonna be crass and make foolish comments, then yeah we don't need to chat. Anyways, cards cards cards cards cards cards cards........
Enjoy the go.
What foolish comments did I make in this thread?
PSA10 vs PSA9 was arbitrary when I was building a graded 75T set back in 2003. Usually came down to how the grader was feeling that day.
Now, with PSA completely ignoring their published specs for each grade, your odds are probably better at a LV casino than in PSA’s grading room.
You know that a Richard Simmons 2024xGAS card can be bought for$50 or best offer ..just saying.
All I know is that between today's grading fees and what seems like an impossibility to pull a 10 on anything vintage, let alone a 9, I am pretty much out of the submission game. I used to enjoy hunting for and purchasing raw to see how they would grade (obviously a lot more people doing that now and driving up raw costs). Nothing really shocks or surprises me anymore on what people will pay. Their money, their choices.
Once upon a time, I built 2 graded sets. All PSA8 or better.
Then I dropped out of the hobby for >15 years.
So you can imagine when I came back earlier this year to see that the published grading standards I was used to - the same ones on PSA's website today - are now just completely ignored. Because they certainly don't align with the numbers on slabs coming out of the grading room. At least for what I collect anyway.
So what that means to me is that I can build my own raw sets with cards that I confrim align to PSA's published standard for what I feel is "good enough". In my case, 1974-1979 Topps in NM+ and 1980-1984 T/F/D in NM/MT+. Because I trust my ability to evaluate a card against PSA's published criteria a whole lot more than I trust the graders they have working today.
So that means I get to pick up a TON of PSA & SGC 7s and 7.5s that by any objective measure meet the published standard for an 8 (or 9) - without having to pay the premium for the number on the holder.
Still waiting on the foolish comments I made in this thread.
PSA 7' lots for over $200to $300 .
on EBay ....not for me.
Lots of interesting comments here and there are probably many different answers for different collectors. For me, certain qualities are more important than others. A card has to have good print registration and strong color. If it is poorly printed, I don't want it, period. Next comes centering, which is important but not a deal breaker. After that, I am a lot more flexible. I can live with soft corners, a light crease, etc. But other other people are different. Some need 4 sharp corners and can live with poor print registration.
Perhaps the Simmons card had the exact qualities that the buyer wanted and could not find elsewhere, regardless of grade or price. There are many PSA cards of all grades with great image quality and centering. There are also many PSA 7, 8 and 9 cards that I find unappealing. If the buyer had been searching for a 71 Simmons for a set or player run and that card spoke to him, then the price may have been reasonable to him, even if it seems unreasonable to someone who would be happy with any old PSA 7.
I am doing the same thing, but on a smaller scale. I am building a raw 75 set. I but commons individually on eBay. I pay too much in postage and tax. I crack out graded cards (mostly 6 and 7) for the album, which reduces their value. I am losing money, but I am happy with my set.
Buy the card and not the holder!
@Rainbow_Rim DM me your list of the 75s you need and what sort of condition you find ‘good enough’ and I’ll see what duplicates I can find for you.
That’s because you don’t have an infinite number of vintage cards from cut card cases like harnessracing! I think he is single-handedly responsible for about 75% of the 1974 PSA 10 Seavers that exist.
Yankees70 posted on Nov 22nd to have someone explain the 75 Ryan Highlight card.
I can explain it as I submitted the card to GM. The winning bid of $1775 was reneged (not paid) by the buyer who said it was a mistake. It was relisted later and sold for around $35. I asked why they did not offer to the underbidder (who bid $1750) but did not receive a reply as they just relisted the card. Some tomfollery in my opinion.
It’s a good thing they relisted it , normally they don’t and you have to request it back or they will keep it.
I’ve had a few people that didn’t pay either and they don’t block non paying bidders
Just on the sheer volume of listings GM does, I'm not sure how reasonable it would be to expect them to.
The story sounds scammy.
I have believed that most of the cards > @loyalty60 said:
now this is what the whole post is about.
Wow I'm really sorry that happened to you. How can GM not respond to you with a reply? Plus how do you bid ample times on an item and then call it a mistake?
When a card goes for over $1,000 to less than $50 they owe the seller a response on what happened. I have personally sent emails to GM about 5-6 times and I have always received a response within 48 hours.
Things that make you go hummm.
You have to add in the chance that it could receive a PSA 8.5 or PSA 9. For some of the raw collectors they have hit big in the past and the chance to hit again is a big reason why they pay so much. Unfortunately since PSA changed their grading standards the chances to hit big have been greatly reduced.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Agree years ago it would be worth the gamble as the buyer might get an 8. Today very little chance that happens. My best buddy recently submitted a bunch of 71's that looked right out of the box with nice centering and mostly received 6's and a couple of 7's.
Buddy of mine just got grades back on a bunch of vintage too that were all 4-7s. He was PISSED. I'd been warning him for weeks and weeks trying to grind down his expectations about current grading but it did no good.
PSA is doing a great job of pissing off every vintage collector around. He hadn't had a membership in years, reupped and got a completely different result than what he'd been seeing years ago. He's done and won't go back and will let his membership expire.
while I am not always happy with my grades, sometimes down right ticked, I will say that a lot of times it's my fault for not reviewing the card properly. I wear contacts because I am near-sighted. But the contacts distort my up close vision. Even when I wear -150 bifocals, it's not as good as it could be. So I decided to review the cards with no contacts in and boy was there a difference. I can see perfectly up close without my contacts. The small corner glitches or print marks were much easier to see.
Plus the hard plastic top loaders really distort the view of the card. i removed them from there and put all of them in Card saver 1 or 2 depending on there size. This helped with the surface review greatly.
Scanning your cards in high res is another way to thin the herd - good scans are very revealing.
Hummm ... I never send a card unless it's paid for fully.
I have two very nice scanners.
100 - 10's out of 5,000 cards is roughly 2% graded PSA 10.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Did we just become best friends? You want to go do karate in the garage? LOL!!!! Exact same experience. While I love PSA and fully support the brand, it's no longer viable in my book to grade 70s to 80s cards which is my prime collecting interest and era. From my very small sample size, the standards have tightened considerably. Am I wrong to believe that? Possibly but when I am experiencing that as a long time collector and PSA supporter and I read the same from countless other long time hobbyists and PSA supporters, it seems more and more plausible. My last few batches of submissions were shocking in results. This is after thousands of cards submitted over 25 plus years. I am no expert but I like to think I have developed somewhat of an eye over the years. In any event, I will continue to buy and collect PSA but submission usage is stopping giving the price and lockdown on grades. Your mileage can and HOPEFULLY will vary!
You quoting the Step Brothers movie is hilarious! For me it's an all time great comedy movie that belongs with Animal House, Caddyshack, etc.
You stated " published grading standards I was used to - the same ones on PSA's website today - are now just completely ignored. " IMHO the above is a ticking time bomb that will eventually blow up if not semi corrected.
I hope Harnessracing is right and there was a period when they were really bad grading and it’s gotten much much more consistent. If not I will continue to not submit vintage for grading. My bulk submission that I didn't get in before the pandemic of 130 cards will continue to grow and sit on the sidelines ungraded.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Some of the comments being made here support the notion that PSA grading has become less attractive than before and the prices being paid for legitimate raw card transactions should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the market and participated throughout PSA's recent grading history. High quality raw card collections are coming back from the dead. Happy days. Who needs all that bulky plastic anyways...
Enjoy the go.
Would you agree that this is due in some/large part due to PSA ignoring their published standards, at least for vintage, thereby making submitting much more of a crap shoot than it used to be?
My problem isn't that PSA has tightened the standards for the grades their graders assign. These things evolve.
My beef is that standard is wildly different than the one PSA publishes and it's this misalignment of expectations that's driving away a fair number of folks.
Over 100 10’s out of 3166 cards (141 actual 10s) with 1103 at PSA now. No cards newer than 1978 and most from 1974, 1977, and 1961 and 1964. Even got a couple of 1959s and a 57. So it’s about 4.5%.
Good thoughts here by many. Special thanks is directed towards PSA in allowing us to discuss this constructively. We are all PSA supporters but yeah my view is something is off. I would like to start submitting again but that miscalibration paired with cost makes me an easy no. I do hope that changes but I will need to see something from fellow hobbyists to support that.
I don't know if it would be fair of me to criticize their application of standards. I did pretty well during my grading years. But that ended over 10 years ago. I'd known of and supported the benefits of PSA grading from the time I was first introduced to the concept in 1992. I was fortunate to have access to a healthy inventory for several years and sent large orders.
Your comment about misalignment of expectations makes sense. It's troublesome because the costs have inflated so dramatically and spending a lot of money to persistently fall short of expectations would absolutely drive people away. I suppose the inference that modern product is getting better results than vintage these days will only reinforce that notion.
Enjoy the go.
I think they've created standards based on how cards are made these days and are using them across all years in the past. That does make perfect sense in terms of consistency.
The problem is that most vintage were never the same quality from year to year (or series to series) and certainly never as good as any current printing.
I get what they're doing and even appreciate the ambition, but it's like half your round pegs are going in round holes and you're shoving the rest into square and triangular holes and hoping everyone has round pegs.