A solution no one would want ...

wolfbear

Admittedly the posts concerning cards that have been under-graded or over-graded by PSA provide provocative reading and interesting posts.

There is a solution to the perceived problem.
PSA simply needs to hire an army of graders, each a specialist in the cards of a specific set, of the multitude of different sets that PSA grades.
I'd say a minimum of three specialist graders per issue.

Each of these experts on the particular issue would scrutinize each card for a couple of minutes and then render their verdicts.
If there were any disagreement, a conference would ensue, and eventually, when all parties were satisfied, a final grade would be decreed.
A perfect world, except for one small detail ... the LOWEST fee for grading would now be 30 dollars per card.

Folks need to get over it, and quit being whining drama queens, every time PSA is found not to be perfect.
Does anyone know of a business that is ?
Surely ... keep up the pressure for improvement ... but also be content in the knowledge that you're dealing with, by far, the GIANT of the industry,
and know that there's no better grading company out there ... or I'd be using them.

toppsgun

Better yet, just crack-out & re-submit up to 3 times (4 fees total). More often than not, I get the right grade and I've spent less than the $30 you cite.

Two cards I've done that for, that I was most thrilled with were 1963 Berra (twice cracked out, 7-7-8) & 1963 Cepeda (twice cracked out, 7-7-8). Also turned the same trick on a '63 common (pop. 5, cracked out once, 7-8) that sold for well over $100. A couple years ago I had a '63 #571-Klippstein come back "evidence of trimming." It was from a presentation set & undersized, but I didn't think it was trimmed. On the resubmit, it got a 9. The three-figure sale easily covered the extra fee.

I've even had better results with 1967. Two commons went from PSA 6 to PSA 8 recently and several bumped 7 to 8.

The ultimate example was a 1965 high number, 559-Bailey I believe. It came back PSA 5 the first time, with some imagined surface wrinkle that must have been a shadow in the picture. The second go around it was a PSA 9!!! I had at least two other 1965 commons go from PSA 5 to PSA 8. Those had a crimped or crinkled edge that the grader didn't like the first time, but didn't seem to mind the second.

Most of us wouldn't risk the fee on a common. But when you know that you know that you know, well....

Vargha

It makes you wonder what the true POP. totals are.

Buckwheat

This is all a PSA plot to increase market size. There are a limited number of vintage cards to grade. If you grade them all twice, the market doubles!

I am glad to see they are doing something besides just a reverse stock split to improve the stock price.

fab4

i agree 100 per cent. it would not matter how many people grade them or what the cost is, it will never be good enough. it seems like half the auctions on ebay start by saying "this card is an 8 it should be a 9 or 10 " and all the talk and scans of the major submitters getting 10,s that should be 8's i have decided to keep my collection raw and i will still submit as always just in smaller quanity for re-sell. the value of graded cards has dropped as the population grows . just last night i bought a lot of 20 graded 1972 topps for $1.00 each. o.k. i do understand they were 6's and not psa but a filler or beater card is worth that. also 4 other lots that sold for the same .and by the way i have no use for them if anybody wants them for what i paid let me know.i did it to prove a point . how would you like to be the one to pay to have these graded.

................fab4...................




1972 topps $1.00 graded cards

PlayBall

A question for everyone......

Does anyone think that the MUCH improved turnaround times is related to this topic? Are the graders not able to spend as much time on each card, so we, the customers, are happy with how fast we've been getting our cards graded?



<< <i>all the talk and scans of the major submitters getting 10,s that should be 8's >>



A quick example. Shoeless Joe's (one of the major submitters) recently had about 25 1984 Donruss PSA 10's on E-Bay in groups of 4-8 cards at a time. Immediately you think "Geez, they get all the 10's". However, in the following weeks, they listed two separate auctions of 52 and 46 card lots of 1984 Donruss PSA 8's and 9's. So they're getting roughly about 20% PSA 10's (don't know if they have more cards to list in the future). This doesn't seem unreasonable for an experienced submitter with access to a great number of raw sets, boxes, etc... Maybe some of them are questionable, but let's face it, we've all gotten a few sliders.

Wolfbear,

I'm still aboard.

gemint

I speculate the problem is low dollar commons (even vintage) are no longer inspected twice. How else could one explain a PSA 5 bumping up to a 9 and the apparent deterioration in consistancy? The challenge for PSA is to offer low prices, fast turnaround time and accurate grading. Challenging? Yes. Necessary? Yes. Otherwise, competitors will eat into thier market share.

FB

gemint,

The PSA 5 jumping to a 9 is not as big a jump as you think. I'd suspect that instead of seeing a raggedy cornered card suddenly getting a "Mint" rating, that its probably a surface wrinkle on a mint condition card that was caught by the first grader and missed by the 2nd.