Grading Consistency
gaspipe26
Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭
I recently purchased 16 PSA graded commons all from the same year. They were all graded PSA 9 (NQ). They were purchased from 2 of PSA's larger submitters. 7 of these cards were in simple terms, HORRIBLE. 5 had touches on 2 corners and 2 had touches on 3. I returned them to PSA along with 6-PSA 8's from the same year that I had submitted previously. These 6 had minor touches on 1 corner.
Well today I was told that all 7 of the 9's were correctly graded 9. 2 of the 8's were being raised to 9's. The funny thing is I wasnt looking for the 8's to get raised. I wanted to use them as an example because they were better than the cards in the 9 holders. I could accept them in 8. I should because they always come back 8 with 1 touch. What I cant accept is the 7-9's that are so bad I wont resell them. Why is it so hard to be consistent? Or is the larger submitter getting better grades? I dont have an answer and I'm not getting one from PSA. I've submitted over 10000 cards in the last 2 years and well I'm not sure whats an 8 or 9 anymore. Many of you have bought from me and know I send you some real nice looking 8's and super 9's. Are we the collector and small ebay seller graded on the normal grading scale? I'm not complaining about the grades I receive. Its the grades on the cards I purchase that show inconsistency. Whats your opinion?
Well today I was told that all 7 of the 9's were correctly graded 9. 2 of the 8's were being raised to 9's. The funny thing is I wasnt looking for the 8's to get raised. I wanted to use them as an example because they were better than the cards in the 9 holders. I could accept them in 8. I should because they always come back 8 with 1 touch. What I cant accept is the 7-9's that are so bad I wont resell them. Why is it so hard to be consistent? Or is the larger submitter getting better grades? I dont have an answer and I'm not getting one from PSA. I've submitted over 10000 cards in the last 2 years and well I'm not sure whats an 8 or 9 anymore. Many of you have bought from me and know I send you some real nice looking 8's and super 9's. Are we the collector and small ebay seller graded on the normal grading scale? I'm not complaining about the grades I receive. Its the grades on the cards I purchase that show inconsistency. Whats your opinion?
0
Comments
NAXCOM
<< <i>10000 cards in the last 2 years >>
It goes without question that you know what you are talking about. Lets hope that PSA does not leave a customer (like yourself) unanswered for too much longer.
Also....were the original submitters of those sixteen cards "twins" ?
John
Could this damage be solely from insertion into the holder only? I've often wondered about that process.
If you have 4 perfectly sharp corners (verified under magnification before insertion) what is the likelyhood of any minute corner damage?
BOTR
I myself don't know what to think anymore. I can tell you this
I have submitted over 5000 cards varying from 60's to 81's and
a handful of modern...Most of my cards are graded to speck I
have my peaves yet am usually happy...I can say this my eye
is very good I usually miss the occasional wrinkle or at times
wax just because I'm so oriented on centering and corners...
The reason I'm happy with my grades is because I'm happy with
the cards I send in...Clean!!!!!!!!!!
Now in the past 6 months I've purchased an array of cards from
the 60's and 70's alot have been from major submitters..The rule
is as follows...I have never bought and undergraded card yet..
Sometimes your lucky if it's within 2 grades...I have bought 10's
that are just straight 9's..10's are supposed to be gems or what
I call blazers, drippin with gloss clean and razors. Not a touch
print and borderline centering....Now I have only had my probs
from major submitters....I went through all 120 psa 10's from 81's
and they put out a hell of a card yet I submitted them....
I was told once from a major submitter authorized dealer...I purchased
some 8's from him all of which had visible touches on three corners. 7's
at best...I asked him why he even submitted that crap..He replied
because they give me the grades..I'd be stupid not to as I'm in it
for the $$$$$ as they all are....Psa is pressured to give them the
benifit for the fact if they don't the price they pay for the raw they
will break even at best...These guys have no clue on case runs nor
do they half to...The bottom line is Psa's revenue is based on large
submitters..Not only do they get the benifit they get the price break!!
Its a win win situation..I think the story go's like this rob peter to pay
paul....The people that notice this stuff is folks like us bob that submit
high #'s of cards...Or the ones that have a great eye...I mean at first
I thought I was crazy now I hear it from everyone put it together...
Will they buy them back we'll see as I have a whole box full of stuff
but I can see it now oh the graders opinion. Well with corner touches
on 9's are they going to rewrite the grading standards either way
they look at it I have a box of my mystery 8's and a box of volume
submitters trash box...
As we speak at the moment I see the pops jump in my last submission
and guess what they 8'd me out on 90 topps mets which I was doing
Mr. Pantmanfish a favor by searching through 2 fresh vending cases to
pull the best mets and send them in and guess what I get 8's out of 25
examples of each card am I blind...NO I'm not so here we have it again
mystery 8's I can't follow through with a deal..I'm out and I'm pissed..
I can't explain the unexplainable which this is starting to be the normal
and always will untill some folks come to the conclusion it's a raw deal..
So I'm glad I held the best of my vintage for they will soon find the correct
holder....And it doesn't start with P.............Yet rymes with it for I have
never seen a overgraded card yet...
Sorry,,,
No sir, after doing it so many times you can do it with your eyes
closed. Plus you have the 10x when they're in the holder with
no explanation...
<< <i>Also....were the original submitters of those sixteen cards "twins" ? >>
aconte
I still don't believe large volume submitters get favorable grades. I just think the large volumes they submit results in larger quantities of misgrades. If Joe Collector submits 25 cards and gets 1 "slider" nobody notices. If PSA dealer X submits 25000 cards and gets 1000 sliders, everyone notices when those 1000 hit the market. I believe most graders are pretty accurate but there might be one or two graders that are ultra tough and one or two that are very lenient.
I can certainly sympathize with you Bob regarding making a profit from selling graded cards. I submit on average about 200 cards per month. I mostly get 8's and many of those have a hard time recouping the grading fee let alone the cost of the raw card. I'm glad PSA is offering $5 specials on limited issues as long as it doesn't affect the quality of their grading. I think PSA will have to consider extending this back to the late 60s as well. There are fewer and fewer 1968 and 1969 commons commanding large premiums with many selling for $6-8 in PSA 8 and 7's, as always, are a disaster in terms of recouping costs.
<< <i>. I mostly get 8's and many of those have a hard time recouping the grading fee let alone the cost of the raw card >>
The reason is that you guys (not Gemmint personally) are flooding the market with graded commons and trying to make a living doing it. Nowadays, even collectors are submitting cards of years they do not even collect for the sole purpose of reselling on eBay.
As supply continues to outweigh demand (pricewise).....the number of submitters will decline and the market will correct itself.
Just my $0.02,
John
I will agree with you. BUT if you've been around long enough (Over 21/2years) I was submitting and selling graded commons long before it became fashionable. I'm not talking about selling 8's. If there are enough 9's, who wants the 8's. The problem is the 9's suck, but collectors are buying the holders, which I refuse to do. If I cant get 9's I wont submit which means I dont sell. Lots of people are buying poor 9's. NOT all but there's quite a bit of crud out there.
The reason people are buying the 9's is that we place our TRUST in the grading of PSA....heck thats the whole business model of the business...to have a 3rd party opinion. My feeling is that as long as the grading is done by humans and not via some sort of computer generated scanning process....this is the best option right now.
I would be interested if PSA ever contacts you regarding your frustrations. There is no doubt they do no want to lose you as a client.
John
bruce
Website: http://www.brucemo.com
Email: brucemo@seanet.com
There are a lot of folks on this board that preach the virtues of PSA's "superiority" in third party authentication. Many of these are well informed, well meaning collectors/dealers who work hard for thier grades and have decent eyes. Still others will snipe at you if you place even the residue of fault in PSA's application of thier own grading standard. They would like to merely protect the large investment that we all have in our graded card collections by saying PSA RULES so many times that they actually start believing it. The fact is, the product coming out of the grading room has been frieghteningly inconsistent for a while now. Your comment that you're not complaining about your grades, but the cards you purchase really hits home. PSA may still be the best option for having your cards graded, but there are other options. I am very slow to make a change because I believe in some of the people at PSA and I enjoy the liquidity of the product. I cannot say that I have faith in the folks grading the cards right now, however. It's actually scary. You can send in 25 flawless cards. I mean registered, glossy, razor-sharp, centered, focused cards with clean surfaces and get 20 8's back! Crack 'em out and land 16 9's on those SAME 20 cards and even land a 10 on what was previously an 8!!! Unheard of...well gang, it's true. It actually happened. An extreme case, sure, but a real case nonetheless.
I'm not sold on the fact that volume dealers get the grades. I do feel that they submit more so they will get more sliders by sheer volume of cards submitted, but they may get equally abused on other submissions by sheer volume. I just want an accurate, consistent standard applied to my cards. It's the only way we will KNOW what to submit.
No human will be perfect, but to purchase a PSA 10 and have it show a tilt, chipping and be out of register is unacceptable. Sharp 8's simply should never out-present a 10. When they start doing that the market gets out of whack and we all lose. That's what's starting to happen. The good news is typically that PSA will listen to it's collecting community. Even Joe makes himself accessible to the 10-card submitter. That is rare in today's business environment.
I agree with Gemints comments completely. Very constructive and insightful. I would just ask others to demand that PSA adheres to a consistent standard and call them on it when they don't. How else would a restaurant know that the soup is too salty. I'm saying the soup is WAY too salty...
You couldnt have said it any better. I did call them on it and they told me there all 9's. Now what do you do?
Top notch!!!!!!!!!!
Gemmint,
I find that true on the fact of the 10000 and the fact of the 1000
sliders hitting the market. But they do not send in submissions
in bulk they send them in usually on 100 card orders in a lot of
400-1000. This way psa can jet them back some cards to keep
them flowing therefore the same grader is not grading all 400-1000.
As for the 7's i'm sure your correct they get cracked out but I've
seen some of the submission orders and rarely a 7 lies within..
On another note have you ever tried throwing in consecutive
submissions trying to find the 1000 card sub they don't show
I've never seen one...Have you ever just found the date in and
date out with no grades. Why are those submissions not
public....dealers???
Just wondering, Matt
PS Feel free to email...
"Your comment that you're not complaining about your grades, but the cards you purchase really hits home."
I agree completely and the implications are bad for me and bad for PSA.
-- I would argue that liquidity is the most important reason people have made PSA the number one grading service [it's certainly not their holder]. Liquidity is directly tied to how confident people are in PSA-graded cards and how willing they are to buy cards on the secondary market based only on a scan - or ee-gads - only a written description. When people have to guess and wonder if a PSA-graded card really meets the specifications for the assigned grade, liquidity suffers dramatically.
-- I know people who are concerned enough about the current run of inconsistency to seriously consider other grading services, where they wouldn't ordinarily. Further, some of these same people would have moved on already if not for the liquidity of PSA-graded cards. However, as I mentioned above, if the inconsistency persists it will erode the very thing that is causing people to stay with PSA in leiu of other viable options whose only downside is less liquidity. The problem for PSA is that as consistency affects liquidity, people will leave. As people leave, it will decrease liquidity. PSA needs to nip this in the bud because once this snowball starts rolling, the slope becomes very steep and very slippery.
-- If I do not feel confident enough to purchase a PSA-graded card on the secondary market, then I'm forced to rely on my own submissions for my set. If I am forced to rely exclusively on my own cards for my graded set, then what value is PSA adding other than to validate my own opinion of my own cards? At that point, is this validation really worth the price of the grading fee? These questions answer themselves if the grading is consistent and the liquidity is there. Without it, I feel one has to question the whole idea of a graded set.
-- I think to a point, the Set Registry also comes into play. The Set Registry assumes that a card of a given grade is equal to another example of the card in the same grade - and below that of the higher grade. For as much as people say "buy the card and not the holder", the Set Registry does not reward that - nor can it. As a result, you get some people building their sets more with an eye toward the Registry than toward the cards they're buying - they start buying the holder. There's enough people who buy the holder for a dealer to justify sending in anything even close. Many dealers, particularly on eBay, have come to realize that their return on a card is based on the grade - not on the quality of the card. So it's not in their interest to weed out the marginal stuff. This makes it harder for those of us who collect the cards, not the holders. Consistency makes this problem go away to a large degree.
As many of you know, when I finish my 1975 set I plan to move on to 1979T. Right now, there's no guarantees that my 1979 set will be in PSA holders. I have taken this up with the appropriate people at PSA and I've been waiting about six weeks for an answer on how they plan to address this problem. Because I don't plan to submit anything myself for the 79 set until after the first of the year, I can afford to be patient. But their response to my inquiries will go a long way in determining how I choose to assemble my next set.
Mike
Very well said. The reliability and consistency of the grading is the cornerstone of keeping PSA on top. That being said, I still find that I have a lot more problem with cards graded by PSA a few years ago than now. Some of the older cards seem to be much more overgraded than the newer ones. And all of us are aware of the many complaints about how tough PSA has become. And I see a lot of large sellers selling a lot of PSA 7 60's cards on Ebay. You have to assume that they didn't send them in expecting 7's so they could lose money on them.
I think grading is like umpiring balls and strikes. There are criteria to follow, but sometimes different umpires have different strike zones, and sometimes they just plain miss the call. It is the job of PSA (and other grading companies, for that matter) to be as consistent as they can. When people like gaspipe and Mike and others with lots of experience are complaining, then it makes me worry. But as inexperienced as I am in comparison, I still feel more comfortable buying a newly graded card than one from several years ago.
Frazier -- Perhaps you should just collect cards graded by another grading company, then? I have had a PSA grader basically tell me that chipping is allowed on a PSA 10 if the corners, colors and centering is strong enough. I have seen this happen enough times with 1980 and 1981 PSA 10's, most notably. Every single PSA 10 I have handled from those years has chipping -- and so has every PSA 9 that I've seen that has been submitted by any small-time collectors, etc. The cutting process used a very dull blade those years -- and if you break out your 10x loupe, it is obvious that it is a common, but often miniscule problem with the issue.
Check out this link and look at my 1980 Topps #270 Mike Schmidt PSA 10 card. It is one of the prides of my collection. I have handled over 2,000 Mike Schmidt cards from 1980 -- many from factory-fresh vending, rack or wax cases. This card is as good as it gets -- and it DEFINITELY HAS MULTIPLE BORDER CHIPS. I've owned dozens of PSA 9's of this issue -- and I have or know where every #270 PSA 10 resides. This is as good as it gets -- and it is absolutely fully worth of its grades -- border chips and all.
MS
I'm fussy, but REAL consistent. I'd like the graders to be the same. Don't sell yourself, or your awesome Schmidt collection short...
Gaspipe,
Where do you go now? For me that's the 20,000 question...about what I have into PSA graded cards. For you that number is larger I'd imagine. It's clear that you love this stuff and since you have a legion of loyal buyers who recognize you know your stuff you could go raw, GAI, or SGC...or just have people start sending you cards and put them in your own slab. We could say things like..."Yeah, it's a PSA 8...now I'll see if it can make it with the 'pipe'...he's really discriminating"
I agree with you on two things both the 80's and 81's
are loaded with chipping but I can tell you this..Out of
120 psa 10's I own in the 81's. I can proudly say that
100 are yes chipless 10x and all...Now I can live with a
81 with a chip or two when the card has the rest of the
goods...But why would you put the card in a 10 holder
if it's lined with chipping on the bottom edge...
Just because blades were dull...Well I can say that's not
the case...They printed so many cards that the blades went
dull....So if you make the the 10 viable of chipping what
happens to the 2 that are straight razors....They get lost
in the shuffle as the pop gets blown up and it seem to
look like a easy issue...This is a extremely tuff issue to
find clean and chipless but they do exist and to have them
put in the same holder as one with chipping is just crazy!!!
If this is the case your going to have cards with pops of
50 tens when the true # is 1-5 if any.....
To make an issue easier for the fact of they printed umteen
zillion cards is nuts!!!! Bottom line is you need to find the
case runs with the sharp blades for the true 10's!!!!!!!!
"To much grey area, you have it our you don't bottomline."
They don't give 65 fb 9's for the fact it's hard to find a sharp
corner!!! No its a tuff issue...
My 2 cents, Matt
This is my opinion of a PSA 10. It better be absolutely perfect or its not a Gemmint 10. Obviously this is not PSA version of a 10. If anyone ever seen the PSA 10's that John Branca has in his 51 Bowman set you would think these cards are off center how can they be a 10. At the 2002 national when the first Wayne Gretzky PSA 10 1979-80 OPC Rookie was graded, Joe Orlando wrote an article on it that was posted on this website. The one thing that stuck out with me is he said "the card has the typical OPC rough cut border like it is suppose to have". Im sorry but i disagree with this totally if the card has a rough cut its not GEM MINT. Obviously PSA is using a different guideline that virtually perfect for a 10
Randy
I agree that the 10's are coming in a wave of mediocrity, but I am not familiar with the OPC hockey. I've heard that the rough cut is quite telling as to the cards authenticity..is this true?
My feelings exactly, now this is my problem grab the smr check out
the 63 unitas pictured in the back. Am I crazy or does this have
two corner touches if not one for sure...Thus the card is centered
perfect...But a touch is a touch. Mint 9 it reads now where did this
card come from...Please tell me...
Matt
Still, if you want a Gem Mint 10 from one of the other grading companies, better get it soon as I hear that the supply of uncut sheets is really drying up
PSA does not downgrade for rough cuts -- perhaps if it is so rough that there is fuzz all around the borders -- but rough cuts are normal. And they should be graded that way.
One point that is important to note is that NONE OF US should be judging cards from 10, 20, or 100 years ago with the standards of today . People think that a 1952 Topps PSA 10 GEM MINT card should have all of the same printing, corner and color characteristics of a 2002 Topps Refractor Autographed, Game-Used Dirt Swatch PSA 10. The bottom line is -- if the card is as perfect as it came for that year and issue -- then let it get the PSA 10 GEM MINT grade. PSA does not have a PRISTINE grade like SGC, and BGS, and frankly I am glad for it. If you want a PRISTINE card -- utilize the other services and only collect SGC 100s or BGS 10s. But you will quickly find out that there are hundreds, if not thousands of GEM MINT cards for every PRISTINE card.
O-Pee-Chee cards have always been known for having rough cuts. Why should you penalize a OPC card if it has a minor rough cut then? I much prefer my OPC PSA 9 cards to the "razor-sharp, cut from a sheet" BGS 9 and BVG 9.5 OPC cards that I have. The former is a premier example of what happened when the cards were issued. The latter example is something that was manufactured recently with modern cutting techniques. If they didn't use them back then, why would I want it now?
Randy -- I will fully admit that there are a few "David Hall" PSA 10's out there that I think got a favorable bump that they otherwise should not have. In fact, the vast majority of all 1948-1955 Bowman baseball cards that are PSA 10, are David Hall 10's. Nonetheless, I think that that is more of an exception rather than the rule. The cards were graded over 7 years ago -- and frankly, though the standards have officially stayed the same, PSA grades centering much tougher now than it did then, and collectors place a much larger importance on centering than they did then.
At the end of the day, buy the card and not the holder. Frankly, any of us who have Set Registry certificates en route realize that they are essentially worthless. I am proud of the sets that I have built -- and I try to maintain a strong standard with them. Though we often hear many questions about PSA's consistency, it seems clear to me that for the vast majority of post-war and pre-1982 sets, PSA realizes better prices than its competitors. As long as this continues, it can only speak of two things: A) People trust and buy into the PSA concept naively and without clear-mindedness or
I know too many people in this hobby to suggest that there are anything more than a few people out there who solely buy the grade...
MS
You are correct . All the BGS Gretzky's 9.5 are worthless to me because they are from uncut sheets. My point is there are nice Gretzky's that dont have a rough cut. I own a few Gretzky's that dont have rough cuts (corner wear yes but nice cuts).
The point i was trying to make is if you cant find one that is perfect and authentic(meaning not cut from a sheet) then it shouldnt be GEM MINT 10 its an 8 or 9.
As stated above i believe if you buy a PSA 10 there shouldnt be a flaw on it. if it has a flaw then its not gem mint.
Randy
As stated above i believe if you buy a PSA 10 there shouldnt be a flaw on it. if it has a flaw then its not gem mint.
Randy -- perhaps you have a different opinion of what a PSA 10 should be as opposed to PSA itself. PSA defines a PSA 10 GEM MINT card as "A PSA Gem Mint 10 card is a virtually perfect card. Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus, full original gloss. A PSA Gem Mint 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it does not impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse."
As a perfectionist collector myself, let me point out the following:
"Virtually perfect" = Not perfect
"allowance...for a slight printing imperfection"
"centered....60/40 percent on the front"
And PSA has verbally reiterated that rough cuts do not downgrade a card. So it seems to me not that you believe that PSA grades inconsistently, but rather you believe that PSA should have different standards for a PSA 10 GEM MINT than it has had in place for over a decade.
Marc
For my money - PSA is the most consistent grading company out there. I do see exceptions, but I used to be a supporter of Beckett, and after a few 100 submissions there, I found that the consistency wasn't there. Too many 9's coming back as 8's, too many 7.5s coming back as 9s.
I do support threads like this, to promote consistency.
I am sticking with PSA and want there always to be a consistent market.
I've ruled out Beckett as a major competitor, just check their pops. 9.5 GEMS popping up all over, in the end they will have a much higher MINT and GEM MINT population then PSA. Because of cut cards AND because of inconsistency.
SGC is the only other real competitor, they keep their noses clean for the most part. But if you've ever looked at a larger amount of SGC in one place or over time, you will also be able to point out inconsistencies.
I've determined that I buy the card and the holder, because I trust PSA to make more accurate grading decisions, over time, than anyone else.
PS: Thanks for posting the PSA 10 Standards Marc
That is exactly what im saying i do have a different opinion of a PSA 10 than PSA. I wrote as much in my first response. IMHO if a PSA 10 is not perfect then i just bought a holder and not a card and that goes against my general principles
Frazier ,
I own one of the PSA 10 1977 Topps that should not be in a 10 holder that you are talking about.
i really feel and i believe others do as well that the more PSA 10 cards out there that are not perfect that it lessens the quality and value of the PSA 10. If i see a PSA 10 up on ebay i should not have to email the seller and say can you look that card over , does it have corner wear or rough cut or whatever
Randy
Regarding GAI, on some threads I here they are consistent and they are on the right track (i do not own any, and can't make any judgement) - But the Rochhi/Baker alliance is the same duo that ran PSA in its infancy where you here all the horror stories of inconsistent grading and the good ole boy network. So to me this is inconsistent. Are they better with age? Or are there old ways due to come into play?...jay
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
Zardoz, I'm down to my last sheet of 77's...guess I'm done submitting to beckett
19c, Which one is it? I have seen all but 5. Basically, if you see a PSA 10 on eBay and I don't bid...it's a dog or I don't trust the seller. I've seen all but 5 of the 10's and have cataloged the certs and pros/cons. I'd appreciate your input on the card you're holding.
Sorry i missed this part when i responded last time you wrote
As a perfectionist collector myself, let me point out the following:
"Virtually perfect" = Not perfect
There are alot of virtually perfect PSA 8's out there just ask Matt on his 81's and Frazier on his 77's. Thats were the inconsistancy is . One virtually perfect card is an 8 the other virtually perfect card is a 10
Looks like the thread went full circle back to the inconsistancy
bob's 8's are amazing and maybe this does open the door for half grades. you all know what a high end 8 looks like. so why don't you guys want this grade? i am not asking for a 9.5 grade but an 8.5 would be welcomed by me.
charlie how many graders are employed at psa?and what Q's do you look for in a grader?
i think all these cards in questioned are an example of too much work and not enough employees.
my 2 cents
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
I was under the impression that PSA had fewer graders, which should translate to fewer opinions. Does anyone know how many graders they have at the present time?
On the other hand, if there are fewer graders, I have never been one that believed that "3" graders looked at each card. I am told that in one recent month PSA graded over 150K cards. That is a lot of cards. How much time can they spend on grading a card?
My only other concern regarding the inconsistency of the grade would involve management of that specific department or organization. What direction are they giving to the graders. I often seem to blame the graders for problems in the grades that I receive. In the real world, a change in management focus and direction often results in a change in the quality of the final product, for better or worse.
Being a betting man, I would guess that inconsistency of the final product at PSA is more a management/direction issue.
Good point, I tend to think this is part of the problem
as for one instance. PSA standards:
PSA 10=55/45 and not to exceed 60/40 now whats that,
the ability to say a card is ten worhy at 60/40 yet
sometimes doesn't get the grade...
PSA 9=60/40 to 65/35 same thing......
PSA 8=65/35 to 70/30 same deal.....
Now how am I suppose to know on which grader will
get my cards if he'll let the worse of the half slide. You
don't many times I send in razor cards and rarely do I
get the benifit...Yet you see it all the time with major
submitters....To much gray area...No ryme or reason
why they can't make it a bottom line deal...You tell me...
Or is this a issue deal...Quote mike schmidt a grader once to
told me that you can have a 10 with chipping in the
80-81's...Now how is the public supposed to know, you
don't...So you leave it in the hands of psa...With so many
graders grading different issues who can tell, do they
read a book before grading....Wouldn't we all like to
know the scoop before sending them in...It would be nice
before you load up a submission with all cards 65-35
only to get back 8's...
I myself am just to the point in sending cards 60-40 and
better...Now is that fair I'm not sure when I think of how
many raw 9's I could have sitting here yet you don't know
and I feel I'm breaking even either way..Sometime you
get them and most times you don't....
My 2 cents Matt
better...
As Gator states above - I have also only submitted recently cards that are 60/40. Borderline centering issues definitely tend to cloud the issue as to where a card should fall in the process... we have all seen our share of PSA 8's and 9's that appear to be either slightly or significantly worse than that but I for one will no longer take that chance when submitting.
We can only hope that these types of threads are as well read and reviewed by PSA as we think they are, and that internally they do as much as they can to train and retrain the grader "eye" for consistent standards.
RayB69Topps
It seems as if the major issue is the subtleties of distinction between PSA 8s, 9s and 10s.
There are not often that many complaints for PSA 7s and below.
This outcome is probably the least surprising -- since there the amount of difference betwee 8s, 9s and 10s can be very, very slight.
bruce
Website: http://www.brucemo.com
Email: brucemo@seanet.com
1) What is the total years of experience in the grading room?
2) Which cards (Years) get a second or third review?
3) How often are the graders tested or sent for retraining?
4) Do the graders get anonymous submissions from the head grader(s) to test that they are assigning the correct grades?
5) What quality control steps are in place to ensure proper labeling? I get alot of mechanicals. Some of these offgrades could actually be errors when the grade is entered into the system and the labels are printed.
6) Are the labels cross checked against the original grader's worksheet?
If we understand the grading process better, it might ease some of the concerns we have. I think we as customers have to accept the fact that $5 grading special cards will not be reviewed multiple times. We have to strike up a balance between the price we pay and how much PSA invests into the grading process. But we also need to be sure if cards are reviewed only once, that the grader will get it right 99%+ of the time.
First, Psa has to change the grades of 5 of 14 cards = 35% because they were not graded corrently
the first time. This is hard to accept. and it has been abused by many who crack out "lower"
end cards hoping and getting the bump up.
Second, in Bingo's example there are 6 cards that were graded 8. Maybe they should ge 8's and
I'm sure at first you had no problem with these cards until you got your own back. I've
bought eights that are not as nice as my sevens. Red man eights cost a fortune too. So now
I have an eight on the registry and a seven that I don't want to sell.
Most of you guys will probably ignore me because I also collect Sgc cards and I'm starting to
lean more their way. I still love most of my Psa graded cards. Overall I'm happy. But now I
request multiple scans for cards and sometimes a return option.
aconte
What is the turnover among PSA's group of graders? On average, how often do they need to replace a grader?
Mike
The bottom line - despite some of their inconsistencies, PSA is the best company around. The examples in this thread may be attributed to two different graders (maybe a newbee), but hopefully that is worked out over time.
On the standards issue, I believe PSA "updated" their standards recently for vintage material recognizing that way too many 8s and 9s were handed out back in the early days. Thus, I think a lot of the "inconsistencies" we are seeing/talking about cross over this "change in standards" threshold of say this past spring. As long as they don't go back and relax their standards again (i.e., remain consistent going forward) I think we are all the better for it.
Imagine if PSA kept the old standard for the recent 50s, 60s, and 70s specials - I know there would be a ton of 60s sets with much higher GPAs and not much room to grow. Now we can work on upgrading sets for years to come ....not much fun is everyone has GPAs of 8.75 - 9.25. Where do we go? PSA hit the mark by adding the Registry and at the same time "updating" their standards. They have increased demand (Registry) and regulated the supply (standards) thus in effect creating more competition for high grade sets (and more publicity) - leading to more business for PSA and more fun for us. Had PSA changed their standards with no Registry, we would see a lot more people headed for SGC, BGS, and GAI (oops, I said I was not going to mention them).
I give a huge hats off to PSA for understanding market forces (supply/demand) because Beckett surely did not get it, and now they are paying for it.
Don
< . Now we can work on upgrading sets for years to come .... >
Boy, did you nail it with that statement!!
< PSA hit the mark by adding the Registry and at the same time "updating" their standards. They have increased demand (Registry) and regulated the supply (standards) thus in effect creating more competition for high grade sets (and more publicity) - leading to more business. >
I guess that's what happened, but I have a hard time believing they actually set out to accomplish this. Had such a discussion actually took place in the Strategic Planning Department of PSA
Rather than that explanation, I prefer to believe the "tightening of grading standards" was simply a reaction to Beckett coming on board with such utterly ridiculous standards, that PSA had to adjust. I believe that has changed now. My last few invoices to PSA were more reasonable in terms of grades. I occasionally submit an invoice to SGC. I just got one back that included several crackouts I thought they had misgraded. Every single one of my crackouts got bumped up, including a major Yankee star card that went from an SGC 84 to 88. Even SGC has loosened up a bit, now that Beckett has been exposed for the joke that they are.
At the moment, I'm fairly satisfied with the current grading going on (this past summer I was not). Consistency is great, but more important to me is accuracy. This is not brain surgery or rocket science. I think I know how to grade a card. I just get tired of cracking out mis-grades to prove my point. But until I do, I will. It's cheaper than starting my own grading company.
Actually they go hand in hand. Though you can have consistancy without accuracy, you cannot have accuracy without consistancy. This is what all grading companies need to strive for.
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey