IMO, PSA has 3 paths they can go to remedy the issue I perceive.
1 - Tell their graders to assign grades according to the standards published today.
2 - Remove published standards from their website altogether.
3 - Rewrite the published standards to accurately reflect the grades being assigned today.
Opinions of each -
1 - simply not gonna happen. For a variety of reasons.
2 - I’d find this acceptable but need something for folks to go by.
3 - The easiest and most reasonable remedy. If a card needs 55/45 centering + four razor corners + no spots/blemishes + no tilt in order to get a 9 - regardless of year of issue - I wish they’d just come out and say so.
@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.
Not following you. GM did not send the (75 Ryan Highlight) card out as it was never paid for (at $1775). They responded to me when I asked what was going on about the $1775 price (told me if was a mistake bid) but I did not get a response when I further inquired if they offered the card to the underbidder after the winner did not pay. It was then relisted and sold for $35.
It obviously took two crazy high bids to get to $1775. The winner at $1775 said he made the bid by mistake, My beef was there were two crazy bids which seems very sketchy. Something was up but we will never know.
@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?
@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?
definitely stinks of shilling...> @mcastaldi said:
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.
@Rainbow_Rim -- I too have some pretty nice 1975 cards from a set I got in a collection 6 years ago or so...a decent number of commons that look to be PSA 8-type condition...I'm not sure if I will ever get around to doing anything with them so would be happy to try to fill in some of your spots if you want...
@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...
Still waiting on my foolish comments in this thread. You called me out so you really should respond on what I said in this thread which is foolish. How am I going to improve myself unless I know what I did wrong?
If I were in charge of PSA I would have standards for prewar, postwar to 1980 and modern. The actual written standards to me are postwar. Prewar is more lenient and modern is silly with defects only detectible via magnification.
King for a day at PSA. Fun. I would change the labels to close the security loop. I would add RFID tags which are tied to your account and secured. I would use a single standard but with the new labels it would draw a line between old and new.
I prefer the single standard because there are actually vintage 10s and I don’t want to have 11s by reducing the requirements for a 10 for pre-whatever. It’s also simpler than trying to determine what scale is used on a particular issue.
Then I would count my money from regrades to the new standard.
@brad31 said:
If I were in charge of PSA I would have standards for prewar, postwar to 1980 and modern. The actual written standards to me are postwar. Prewar is more lenient and modern is silly with defects only detectible via magnification.
I'd go with AI for all years ..... but it's not my decision.
@mcastaldi said:
IMO, PSA has 3 paths they can go to remedy the issue I perceive.
1 - Tell their graders to assign grades according to the standards published today.
2 - Remove published standards from their website altogether.
3 - Rewrite the published standards to accurately reflect the grades being assigned today.
Opinions of each -
1 - simply not gonna happen. For a variety of reasons.
2 - I’d find this acceptable but need something for folks to go by.
3 - The easiest and most reasonable remedy. If a card needs 55/45 centering + four razor corners + no spots/blemishes + no tilt in order to get a 9 - regardless of year of issue - I wish they’d just come out and say so.
What effect would any of those have on the cards already graded?
@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.
Not following you. GM did not send the (75 Ryan Highlight) card out as it was never paid for (at $1775). They responded to me when I asked what was going on about the $1775 price (told me if was a mistake bid) but I did not get a response when I further inquired if they offered the card to the underbidder after the winner did not pay. It was then relisted and sold for $35.
It obviously took two crazy high bids to get to $1775. The winner at $1775 said he made the bid by mistake, My beef was there were two crazy bids which seems very sketchy. Something was up but we will never know.
That can be done just about anywhere eveneBay, , a friend or someone other than the seller drives the price up looking for more $$$. When the bid ends, he reneges.
Only full roof way is to ensure funds are available in advance.. is that possible ?
I think its just as simple as PSA does not want your vintage business. Or 80s early 90s business depending on the card stock. It just seems the new stuff is easier to grade, quicker to grade, people send it in in greater quantities. Just seems like there is a strong business case for steering toward modern.
They wont say they dont want vintage and older. They cant. Many wont want to admit it because it sucks which is how a lot of things work in life. (She's not returning my calls but I think its because she is busy. I'll call her in another couple days.)
I think its taken a lot of fun out of collecting. I look at these Vending boxes of cards or unopened boxes from 80s and earlier and think how much fun this could be. Then remember no it would be miserable. What a shame. In 2012 I spend what feels then like a lot of money on 70s and early 80s boxes and packs and there is a thrill that maybe I'll pull something nice. Often not but still fun. Now I would spend 500 to 1000% more on the unopened and the 10 then is 9 or an 8, the 9 then is an 8 or 7. Its close a guaranteed financial fail. Its not all about money but overspending off the charts is no fun. Its a shame. I used to enjoy that. But I cant kid myself. I wont win.
For a while it seemed like it could still be fun with SGC. But then PSA bought them and think that closed a door in a way. With the parent company looking over their shoulder I cant see them grading a lot more generously than PSA. It would be a bad look.
I agree, Ulysses. I'm willing to take a bit of a risk on the unopened if the grading is legit on vintage but these days they're not even in a close enough universe to go that route. I used to love ripping but I haven't picked up anything in all 2024 and won't be anytime soon either.
I'm just about through the stack of vintage I'd set aside for grading. When that's done then I'm done with all that until something changes on the grading side. I'm not holding my breath because it doesn't seem to be an issue to change.
@olb31 said:
i could use some 1975 commons also. I have about half the set or more. I will get a list together, if a couple of you are willing to help out.
Thank you mcastaldi and Kepper19 for your generous offers to help me fill a few holes in my 1975 set. I will message you as soon as I double check my list.
I am about 3/4 of the way, with just commons remaining. Technical grade of the set probably averages NM or less, but all cards are well printed (registration and color) and well centered with no tilt, which gives it a nice look.
I am a big fan of PSA in many ways. I think their slabs are by far the best for card safety and esthetics. I also enjoy their website, registry, Card Facts, APR, and message board, which are real public services for collectors.
BUT, I definitely agree that there is a problem with consistency, especially when card values and registry rank depend so much on grades.
I think PSA should: (1) return to published standards for vintage, (2) keep grading modern as is, and (3) annotate the published standards where they differ for modern. That way, PSA can signal the change to collectors without creating liability problems, grades for modern cards will remain consistent, and the problem of severely under graded vintage will eventually correct itself with re-submissions.
Most of all, grading needs to make sense again. Cards tend to wear down in a fairly uniform fashion. In most cases, a 5 should look like a 5, and a 9 should look like a 9, like they used to.
Well. . .PSA/SGC aren’t going back. Standards evolve. And then how do you grade a ton of cards one way, then change, and then go back? It’s just not practical.
I just wish PSA would change their published standards to match the grades actually coming out of the grading room. You shouldn’t be able to submit cards that objectively meet criteria for one grade and get them back 2-3 grades lower. Change the published standard to reflect current realities and the hobby will be better for it.
@olb31 said:
i could use some 1975 commons also. I have about half the set or more. I will get a list together, if a couple of you are willing to help out.
Send me the list may have some
thanks. i have most of the stars. i will go through them tonight.
@BBBrkrr said:
I agree, Ulysses. I'm willing to take a bit of a risk on the unopened if the grading is legit on vintage but these days they're not even in a close enough universe to go that route. I used to love ripping but I haven't picked up anything in all 2024 and won't be anytime soon either.
I'm just about through the stack of vintage I'd set aside for grading. When that's done then I'm done with all that until something changes on the grading side. I'm not holding my breath because it doesn't seem to be an issue to change.
More power to the modern collector though.
i popped open a few 1986 topps rack packs last night and there are small issues with the cardboard, maybe there always were. i just didn't scrutinize the cards as hard or something. this issue is the main difference in the new grading. the surface/cardboard flaws are causing the grades to start at 9 (or maybe 8) and go down from there -- at least for 1991 and older topps cards. probably the storing habits of the people who have the unopened caused the issues (i.e. a storage unit without temperature controls).
@olb31 said:
i popped open a few 1986 topps rack packs last night and there are small issues with the cardboard, maybe there always were. i just didn't scrutinize the cards as hard or something. this issue is the main difference in the new grading. the surface/cardboard flaws are causing the grades to start at 9 (or maybe 8) and go down from there -- at least for 1991 and older topps cards. probably the storing habits of the people who have the unopened caused the issues (i.e. a storage unit without temperature controls).
I picked up a 3-box rack case of 86T in very early 2000s. I opened one box back probably 2003 or 2004 and sent in 20-25 of the best. None came back higher than an 8. Even 20+ years ago PSA was brutal on 86T. If you can find them centered, and nicely registered, then the chipping is going to kill you. I couldn't possibly imagine how tough they are on 86T now. I still have the other two boxes. They remain unopened for reasons.
Comments
IMO, PSA has 3 paths they can go to remedy the issue I perceive.
1 - Tell their graders to assign grades according to the standards published today.
2 - Remove published standards from their website altogether.
3 - Rewrite the published standards to accurately reflect the grades being assigned today.
Opinions of each -
1 - simply not gonna happen. For a variety of reasons.
2 - I’d find this acceptable but need something for folks to go by.
3 - The easiest and most reasonable remedy. If a card needs 55/45 centering + four razor corners + no spots/blemishes + no tilt in order to get a 9 - regardless of year of issue - I wish they’d just come out and say so.
Not following you. GM did not send the (75 Ryan Highlight) card out as it was never paid for (at $1775). They responded to me when I asked what was going on about the $1775 price (told me if was a mistake bid) but I did not get a response when I further inquired if they offered the card to the underbidder after the winner did not pay. It was then relisted and sold for $35.
It obviously took two crazy high bids to get to $1775. The winner at $1775 said he made the bid by mistake, My beef was there were two crazy bids which seems very sketchy. Something was up but we will never know.
l/r and t/b centering say otherwise...a beauty of a card tho, yes
definitely stinks of shilling...
definitely stinks of shilling...> @mcastaldi said:
@Rainbow_Rim -- I too have some pretty nice 1975 cards from a set I got in a collection 6 years ago or so...a decent number of commons that look to be PSA 8-type condition...I'm not sure if I will ever get around to doing anything with them so would be happy to try to fill in some of your spots if you want...
Still waiting on my foolish comments in this thread. You called me out so you really should respond on what I said in this thread which is foolish. How am I going to improve myself unless I know what I did wrong?
If I were in charge of PSA I would have standards for prewar, postwar to 1980 and modern. The actual written standards to me are postwar. Prewar is more lenient and modern is silly with defects only detectible via magnification.
King for a day at PSA. Fun. I would change the labels to close the security loop. I would add RFID tags which are tied to your account and secured. I would use a single standard but with the new labels it would draw a line between old and new.
I prefer the single standard because there are actually vintage 10s and I don’t want to have 11s by reducing the requirements for a 10 for pre-whatever. It’s also simpler than trying to determine what scale is used on a particular issue.
Then I would count my money from regrades to the new standard.
What would that prove ?
I'd go with AI for all years ..... but it's not my decision.
What effect would any of those have on the cards already graded?
That can be done just about anywhere eveneBay, , a friend or someone other than the seller drives the price up looking for more $$$. When the bid ends, he reneges.
Only full roof way is to ensure funds are available in advance.. is that possible ?
I think its just as simple as PSA does not want your vintage business. Or 80s early 90s business depending on the card stock. It just seems the new stuff is easier to grade, quicker to grade, people send it in in greater quantities. Just seems like there is a strong business case for steering toward modern.
They wont say they dont want vintage and older. They cant. Many wont want to admit it because it sucks which is how a lot of things work in life. (She's not returning my calls but I think its because she is busy. I'll call her in another couple days.)
I think its taken a lot of fun out of collecting. I look at these Vending boxes of cards or unopened boxes from 80s and earlier and think how much fun this could be. Then remember no it would be miserable. What a shame. In 2012 I spend what feels then like a lot of money on 70s and early 80s boxes and packs and there is a thrill that maybe I'll pull something nice. Often not but still fun. Now I would spend 500 to 1000% more on the unopened and the 10 then is 9 or an 8, the 9 then is an 8 or 7. Its close a guaranteed financial fail. Its not all about money but overspending off the charts is no fun. Its a shame. I used to enjoy that. But I cant kid myself. I wont win.
For a while it seemed like it could still be fun with SGC. But then PSA bought them and think that closed a door in a way. With the parent company looking over their shoulder I cant see them grading a lot more generously than PSA. It would be a bad look.
I agree, Ulysses. I'm willing to take a bit of a risk on the unopened if the grading is legit on vintage but these days they're not even in a close enough universe to go that route. I used to love ripping but I haven't picked up anything in all 2024 and won't be anytime soon either.
I'm just about through the stack of vintage I'd set aside for grading. When that's done then I'm done with all that until something changes on the grading side. I'm not holding my breath because it doesn't seem to be an issue to change.
More power to the modern collector though.
i could use some 1975 commons also. I have about half the set or more. I will get a list together, if a couple of you are willing to help out.
Send me the list may have some
Thank you mcastaldi and Kepper19 for your generous offers to help me fill a few holes in my 1975 set. I will message you as soon as I double check my list.
I am about 3/4 of the way, with just commons remaining. Technical grade of the set probably averages NM or less, but all cards are well printed (registration and color) and well centered with no tilt, which gives it a nice look.
I am a big fan of PSA in many ways. I think their slabs are by far the best for card safety and esthetics. I also enjoy their website, registry, Card Facts, APR, and message board, which are real public services for collectors.
BUT, I definitely agree that there is a problem with consistency, especially when card values and registry rank depend so much on grades.
I think PSA should: (1) return to published standards for vintage, (2) keep grading modern as is, and (3) annotate the published standards where they differ for modern. That way, PSA can signal the change to collectors without creating liability problems, grades for modern cards will remain consistent, and the problem of severely under graded vintage will eventually correct itself with re-submissions.
Most of all, grading needs to make sense again. Cards tend to wear down in a fairly uniform fashion. In most cases, a 5 should look like a 5, and a 9 should look like a 9, like they used to.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone 🦃
Well. . .PSA/SGC aren’t going back. Standards evolve. And then how do you grade a ton of cards one way, then change, and then go back? It’s just not practical.
I just wish PSA would change their published standards to match the grades actually coming out of the grading room. You shouldn’t be able to submit cards that objectively meet criteria for one grade and get them back 2-3 grades lower. Change the published standard to reflect current realities and the hobby will be better for it.
AI is the answer
thanks. i have most of the stars. i will go through them tonight.
i popped open a few 1986 topps rack packs last night and there are small issues with the cardboard, maybe there always were. i just didn't scrutinize the cards as hard or something. this issue is the main difference in the new grading. the surface/cardboard flaws are causing the grades to start at 9 (or maybe 8) and go down from there -- at least for 1991 and older topps cards. probably the storing habits of the people who have the unopened caused the issues (i.e. a storage unit without temperature controls).
I picked up a 3-box rack case of 86T in very early 2000s. I opened one box back probably 2003 or 2004 and sent in 20-25 of the best. None came back higher than an 8. Even 20+ years ago PSA was brutal on 86T. If you can find them centered, and nicely registered, then the chipping is going to kill you. I couldn't possibly imagine how tough they are on 86T now. I still have the other two boxes. They remain unopened for reasons.