Grader of Death strikes again...

qmayer · January 21, 2003 8:17AM

Looks like someone went to the office in a very bad mood... wasn't expecting high grades on the star cards, but the commons were comparable to the other 8s I had submitted. Invoice #8025215

Fire sale! Fire sale! I think I'm going to go put my head under a pillow and start crying...

*sigh*

Interesting notes: the 2 1983 Fleer Gwynns were previously returned to me with minimum size requirement. Now they are an 8 and 9. Surprised the ARod RCs got 8s... had small chips on the back and a large white corner on 1.

Justin

*edited to add link

zardoz51 · January 21, 2003 8:27AM

EEEK!!

RobBobGolf · January 21, 2003 8:36AM

No Fair, my submission arrived 4 days earlier and no grades posted yet

RobBob

KING KELLOGG · January 21, 2003 8:42AM

qmayer....

Ouch....That's gonna leave a mark....

I feel for 'ya...

Larry

Kurt · January 21, 2003 8:58AM

My condolences on that submission. Better luck next time.

GATOR5 · January 21, 2003 9:00AM

Mayer,

Yes sir that leaves a few lumps my last 81 submission I felt I went a few rounds
with the reaper...Lots of 8's then a 10 8'sss 10 never seen a sub like it..

Glad to see they lightened up on the macs gee thanks...

Matt

Nuyauwka · January 21, 2003 9:03AM

That smarts!!! I just received a order back yesterday and my grades were noticably worse then previous orders and I thought the crds were comparable. I screeened through many 72 and 74 Topps looking for 9's , I think Ireceived 4 out of about 70 , the rest being mostly PSA 8's. I have another order that should be done anyday now, don't know if I can handle another dissappoint.

dalew · January 21, 2003 9:05AM

May I suggest an optometrist in your area?

bleacherbum · January 21, 2003 9:20AM

Yikes! Speaking from personal experience, it seems they're awfully tough on mini's. I've bought some unopened packs recently and submitted the best of the lot and received 3 9's, 23 8's, 13 7's and a 5 (eek). I'm getting glasses this week. Hopefully that will help!

Steve

Tipem · January 21, 2003 9:26AM

Justin,

Sorry about that

I feel for you.With a submission like that,it makes me think that I will wait a while to submit any cards. I am left to wonder if the latest incident has made PSA tighten up on their grading standards.Gosh,I sure hope not!! Have you received the cards and can you determine what the reasons were for the lower grades? Does it appear that there was something consistent with the 75's that you missed? I hope that your next submission makes up for this one.

Vic

spacktrack · January 21, 2003 9:47AM

Justin:

Interested in details about this fire sale of yours if it happens.

Thanks,

spacktrack

Virtualizard · January 21, 2003 9:56AM

Justin,

Sorry about those. I think I'll wait a little while to submit. I've got hundreds of 68-75 Topps begging me for a new, comfortable plastic home. With results like that, I just can't do that to these guys right now - they deserve better.

Just curious about the '87 McGwires. 4 - PSA 9s and a PSA 5? Did you miss something major on the 5, or did you just throw in a dog to make the other 4 look better? Does this work?

JEB.

boggs301012 · January 21, 2003 10:44AM

Just curious about the '87 McGwires. 4 - PSA 9s and a PSA 5? Did you miss something major on the 5, or did you just throw in a dog to make the other 4 look better? Does this work?

I dont think it will work you can try it sure dosent hurt. I have an order in for grading. I hope my card dont meet the masked grader. I just want one who grades by the standards at PSA straight up no games.

James

braves72078 · January 21, 2003 11:14AM

I know what you mean!!!!!! My latest 1975 submission (8026599) wasn't up to my standards either, they may have tightened up???????????

Billy

ejguru · January 21, 2003 11:32AM

Time to sit still--a USELESS SPECIAL and Grader of Death back from X-Mas vacation = no grading for a while for me

mikeschmidt · January 21, 2003 11:58AM

<<Just curious about the '87 McGwires. 4 - PSA 9s and a PSA 5? Did you miss something major on the 5, or did you just throw in a dog to make the other 4 look better? Does this work?>>

Boggs -- for what it is worth, the vast majority of PSA 5's that I've ever gotten graded have barely detectable surface wrinkles -- often minute, often on the card reverse, and often only seen at an angle under a powerful light. In fact, I still own a few Schmidt cards with PSA 5s that I still have not been able to find the crease/wrinkle. I'm sure that they are there -- but I would bet my bottom dollar that the card has an eye-appeal of a PSA 9.

qmayer · January 21, 2003 12:35PM

Dalew-

Thanks, but I had my eyes checked right before I left for school last semester

I bought 2 almost-complete sets and cherry picked the best ones. I was real excited when I pulled 100+ from the sets with razor corners, great centering, no stains, and very small (if any) print marks. I purchased a PSA 8 mini on ebay and when I received it, it had the biggest print dot on the front I've ever seen... I wouldn't even have submitted it.

Tipem-

I haven't received the cards yet, I just got the email today. There must have been something on every card that I couldn't see with my eyes (which I have to say are very good, 20/20). I picked out about 30 cards at the National and submitted them, got 1 9, 25 8s, and 4 7s (or some distribution like that). I figured I could use the same standards as I used for the National cards, but I guess I was wrong and paid for it.

For that McGwire PSA 5 - I have no idea what I missed. It was a blazer. I even looked at it with my loupe to make sure it would be close to a 10. There must be an extremely small wrinkle on the back or a stain that I missed. I thought all those McGwires were 10s... didn't see anything wrong with them through the loupe.

I had the cards sent home and I'm at school. It will be a while before I see them or get to sell them. Baseball is up and running which limits my free time to go home. I'll probably just end up selling all the dupes I submitted and take the hit on my set rating.

They looked nice out of the holder!

downgoesfrazier · January 21, 2003 2:13PM

Doesn't it bother any of you that there seems to be a particular grader who is shifting grading standards on what appears to be a whim (I haven't SEEN these cards in question, mind you). Clearly, many of us have at least sparred with this recently. JUST PICK A SET OF GUIDLINES AND TRAIN EVERYBODY TO ADHERE TO IT! I don't want to play roulette, just grade my cards consistently. Someone said "Better luck next time"...that's a fine sentiment, but LUCK should have nothing to do with it. If two invoices of 25 like cards from the same vending box can yield such wildly differing results there is a serious problem. Far more disturbing to me than some isolated holder tampering, yet no one says anything but "gee-wiz, aw shucks, golly-gee, get 'em next time, tiger!" How about addressing what seems to be a real issue. We've got a small thread here, but already a handful of our guys putting the freeze on submitting. Again, I haven't seen these particular cards, but this theme has been recurring of late with some fairly accomplished set-builders who KNOW their product. I don't need perfect but it should be better. It's been quite erratic for some time now.

murcerfan · January 21, 2003 2:19PM

"Caramels" is big into this set and you should get in touch wih him.

Basilone · January 21, 2003 3:11PM

WWDSLG

What Would DSL Get?

John

Caramels · January 21, 2003 3:42PM

<< "Caramels" is big into this set and you should get in touch wih him. >>

which set? "75-Good Times" ?

qmayer · January 22, 2003 12:05AM

Caramels-

Are you collecting 1975 Minis too?

Justin

Aaronman · January 22, 2003 3:57AM

I feel your pain. I just got hammered on a bunch of 72's. I haven't received the cards back so I can't lauch a full tirade yet. I'm guessing though that the grades were entered into the database upside down. When I get the cards back I will be relieved that all my 8's are 8's and all my 6's are now 9's. I'll bet the same thing happened to you.

Doug

Caramels · January 22, 2003 11:06AM

<< Caramels-

Are you collecting 1975 Minis too?

Justin >>

JUSTIN, YOU JUST STOPPED AN AUCTION TO SELL ONE TO ME...ARE WE ON YET???

"IF Murcer wants it,I will buy it!" This is my new motto!!!! raw Wilson's on the barbi! later, I will submit them for grading!!!!

downgoesfrazier · January 22, 2003 12:03PM

Hey Caramels,
My son likes to sit on my lap (27 mos.) while I browse the forums and he flipped at your screen icon. "beya-bloo-has...beya-bloo-has!!!" He won't let me log off

Great stuff!
dgf

Caramels · January 22, 2003 12:51PM

<< Hey Caramels,

Hey, Down Goes!!!! Jack Clark Rookie comin right up!

e-mail me for a scan!!!

cardknowledge@earthlink.net

my web-site:

Zombo.com

BugOnTheRug · January 22, 2003 1:03PM

dgf.

Nice post. I definitely agree. Just as I get ready to submit some cards, someone starts this type of post and then I start to have second thoughts. Call me chicken but I'd much rather pay to have consistently graded cards than taking the crap shoot and finding that maybe a 7 will be an 8 or and 8 a 9 (or 10) or visa-versa (which seems to happen most often) and then saying oh well gee maybe next time. I do think PSA is pretty savvy in finding the fakes and altereds and I'm pleased about that.......but to echo dgf, consistency should be the standard.

And speaking of this, I am curious about the following: How would the seasoned folks on this board compare? Do you think that an assembly of seasoned, well thought of members of this board would grade XXX amount of cards in various grades consistently? (Meaning consistantly across many members; not guessing what a grader would give).

Has this ever been done before in the form of a test? Brucemo are you out there?

BOTR

Caramels · January 22, 2003 1:46PM

<< dgf.

Nice post. I definitely agree. Just as I get ready to submit some cards, someone starts this type of post and then I start to have second thoughts. Call me chicken but I'd much rather pay to have consistently graded cards than taking the crap shoot and finding that maybe a 7 will be an 8 or and 8 a 9 (or 10) or visa-versa (which seems to happen most often) and then saying oh well gee maybe next time. I do think PSA is pretty savvy in finding the fakes and altereds and I'm pleased about that.......but to echo dgf, consistency should be the standard.

And speaking of this, I am curious about the following: How would the seasoned folks on this board compare? Do you think that an assembly of seasoned, well thought of members of this board would grade XXX amount of cards in various grades consistently? (Meaning consistantly across many members; not guessing what a grader would give).

YOU TOO SHOULD E-MAIL ME! I HAVE PILES OF MINT D-84'S I'LL OFF TO YOU BECAUSE ALL I WANTED WAS THE CHICKEN CARDS!!!!

downgoesfrazier · January 22, 2003 10:20PM

Caramels,
My Clark RC may be the strongest of my Clarks... 79-83 are my current wants. Thanks for noticing my new signature

BOTR, A few sharp guys here and myself have discussed privately the possibility of grading cards. Our idea was to have "The Guru's" from specific years grade cards from those years. Obviously, the goal would be to service primarily set builders and not to compete for market share. Find a small window of stuff (70's cards--for example) and do it better than anyone else. The motivation was strictly to have the cards graded correctly. There is no greater disappointment in graded card collecting than paying 200-300 bucks for a PSA 10 and get it in the mail and realize it needs an immediate upgrade... there would, of course, be a lot more variables/obstacles to consider in such an undertaking. There's much more to it than giving your opinion on a chunk of cardboard, but for now... "Guru Grading"....
Dream, dream, dream...

Nuyauwka · January 23, 2003 12:01AM

I had grades posted on an order on Monday and was on board with this "grader of death" theory. It was a order of about 130 cards, I received about 24 7's, and maybe 7- 9's the rest 8's. I haven't received the order in the mail yet so I haven't had the oppurtunity to look at the cards, but when I went over the invoice I probably had submitted only 40 cards I thought had PSA 9 possibilities, most of the PSA 7's were cards that were low-pops I was hoping had 8 possibilities. Alot of the cards were second timed cull through so I don't know if I could really blame a grader, in retrospect, I probably did not get burned to bad, I felt confident on 5-10 cards that missed 9's but overall the order probably was fairly graded. I received more grades posted yesterday, small order of 35 cards(4032161) and received 1/2 PSA 9's, there were only 2 cards that without looking at them in front of me were misgraded. One I thought was a 9 I received a 7, and I sent in a 78 Murray which was a screamer and received a PSA 9PD, which I am a little confused on , I'll wait to see the card to see if I missed a mark on the card, but it was a beauty. So I not sure if I buy into the "grader of Death " or not. I am more confused that these 2 orders I received this week were graded in 6 days and I have a order from 1/3 that is still there.

BobS · January 23, 2003 12:46AM

No grader of death for me. Grades posted yesterday:

43 cards:
10-8's
20-9's
1-9OC and
12-10's

I can't show the invoice because I have used the cards to register my first complete set, and will be holding a contest for everybody as soon as the set is listed.

boggs301012 · January 29, 2003 6:40AM

I wouldnt say grader of death. But I will review them and decide. I think a few should have been a grade higher. Invoice 4004883

james

RobBobGolf · January 29, 2003 9:11AM

I , on the other hand, was very happy with my latest invoice. PSA is the greatest !!!(flagrant buttkiss)

Order # 8025418

RobBob

Wabittwax · January 29, 2003 12:09PM

I have learned to "deversify" my cards in many invoices. I used to send cards in 100+ lots (mostly 70's stuff) but there is definately a grader of death because about 1 in 4 invoices comes back absolutely horrible. I now only send about 35-50 cards per invoice so as not to get 1 big really bad invoice. I usually crack vending cases so the cards should be pretty much consistent. I spoke to Ivan at PSA regarding this and he said there isn't much I can do about it. He let me resubmit about 10 cards for free and most of them came back higher grades but that didn't compensate the 100+ that I got screwed on. I am really into resubmitting the star cards, that usually really pays off if you know what your looking at. I've turned 8's into 10's before. PSA should investigate their graders and eliminate the unfair grader. They should grade cards consistently and let the market dictate itself instead of purposely giving bad grades to save the market for the 9's and 10's.

Scoop · January 29, 2003 11:49PM

I was told by a PSA rep at the last show I attended that each card is looked at separately and individually by a staff of at least 10 or so graders. If you have a 100-card submission, do all 100 cards go through same grader's hands?

theBobs · January 30, 2003 12:00AM

<< I've turned 8's into 10's before. >>

Do you have scans to back this up?

downgoesfrazier · January 30, 2003 12:22AM

Bobs,
Not sure if that was directed at my post, but if it was I personally have turned that trick twice. Both fairly recently. No scans, but cert #'s/labels. I never thought to scan an 8 for any reason other than to let it die in my set. I actually resubmitted my Darrell Thomas because it was such a strong 9 in an 8 holder. I was real confident for 5 bucks I'd get a 9. I was shocked at the 10. It was purchased from BBCEx six months ago in a bulk deal. When I flipped through the 8's (from racks) there were seven obvious 9's. Since then five have been regraded. 3 9's 1 10 and one graded 8 again. While this is not the rule it is disturbing nonetheless. For what it's worth the card is probably more 10 worthy than 8 worthy so the grade is a correction of sorts. The next time I crack a real nice "8" I'll scan it up and post the results. This will no doubt thrill the masses.
Chow!

Wabittwax · February 4, 2003 4:07AM

The 8's that I've turned into 10's has only been on new stuff. Most stuff before 1993 usually can't some back a 10 if there is a flaw big enough to make it an 8. There are newer cards that get an 8 for no reason at all, just someone's opinion. If I still can't find a flaw with the card in the 8 holder, I crack it and usually at least get a 9. Sometimes I waste my money and get another 8 but overall it pays off.

gemint · February 4, 2003 6:06AM

<< I was told by a PSA rep at the last show I attended that each card is looked at separately and individually by a staff of at least 10 or so graders. If you have a 100-card submission, do all 100 cards go through same grader's hands? >>

That's nonsense. At most, three graders would look at a given card. I would guess the modern stuff (post 1971) is reviewed by only one grader, especially during the specials. I see wider variations in grades on the 70s stuff but myself, Bob Cacamese and others have also seen consistency problems with the 1969s. There have been several threads in the past on this subject.

This problem (consistancy) should be easy for PSA to track and resolve. The serial numbers of the cards should be able to be tracked back to the grader(s). If a particular grader is seeing too many buybacks (overgrades) or upgrades after complaints (undergrades), that should highlight where the problems are. Now that customer service issues have long since been resolved, improving the grading consistancy will go a long way to keep other grading companies from stealing PSAs market share.

Scoop · February 4, 2003 6:35AM

Gemmint, you are correct. Re-reading my post I can see where I confused you and others. I didn't mean that all 10 graders would view your card, just that your card could be submitted 10 times and possibly hit a different graders desk each time. That is why sometimes it is prudent to re-submit borderline cards, or at least have them reviewed.

I would hope that if particular graders had too many under- or over-graded cards that action would be taken.

Galveston · February 4, 2003 7:22AM

I recently had a re-grade experience that I think indicates PSA does show some consistentcy.

Out of 100 or so 8's that I owned, I pulled 13 that I felt should have been 9's. The results? Nine of them returned with the same grade (8), three of them were increased to a 9. One of them came back a five. This is not an exact science. Like I said, I expected all of them to be 9's. The fact that they graded nine of the 13 with exactly the same grade gives me more faith in their system.

I do think there's a general, fairly subtle, trend to grade a little more harshly on vintage cards. You would like to think a card graded in 1999 would get the same grade in 2003 but I'm not so sure. None the less, I'm satisfied with their system and results.

I'm sure if we were willing to pay $100 per card, the science of grading cards would even more exact, but considering what the market will bear, I think they serve the hobby well.

qualitycards · February 4, 2003 7:47AM

I'm sure if we were willing to pay $100 per card, the science of grading cards would even more exact
GALVESTON - That is an excellent point. If PSA could study each card for 15 minutes, many of the inconsistent
grades may vanish, but with that said a 100 card submission lot may take days for a grader to grade, especially w/ thousands more ready to take the place of that 100 lot. PSA would need hundreds of graders to handle the new standards, the cost of submiting cards would skyrocket and the downtime would be immense...jay

crazysc · February 4, 2003 9:31AM

For $100/card, PSA would be able to have 2-3 graders spend 10-15 minutes on each card analyzing it, measuring the centering exactly T/B, L/R, front & back. A closeup blowup of each corner, maybe of the whole card sent along with a printout and complete writeup, analyzing every aspect of it.

I'm suprised no company hasn't tried to offer such a service. Of course, it would only be for the most expensive of cards, but if you had a truly exceptional 52 Topps Mantle or 33 Goudey Ruth, wouldn't you spend $100 for a fully detailed grading? I think it would be well worth it, from a sales perspective as well. If I'm spending $5000+ on a card, would I spend an extra $100 to have a detailed analysis from PSA/other grading co., instead of reading the seller's hype.

They do it in autos - I can get a large batch of stuff cert'd for a few dollars a piece, or pay $50+ for individual LOAs with a digital picture.

acowa · February 4, 2003 9:55AM

Sol,

You are on to something...this would cater nicely to the ultra high end vintage superstar cards. Call it PSA Plus...maybe store a scan that can be viewed anytime to ensure the card hasn't been switched...might just work!

Regards,

Alan

gemint · February 4, 2003 11:24AM

Interesting. They could have a panel of renowned experts from PSA, SGC, BGS (for the newer stuff) and other hobby experts review the card. I can see a NASA like environment where they have the card up on a giant screen with the experts combing over every micron of the card. But then I could see major arguments erupt when they disagree. They would have to issue a grade report for the card that anonymously shows each grader's opinion like they were judging an Olympic event.

70sjunkie · February 4, 2003 12:07PM

Well guys, I have never responded to a post but I have been reading these for several weeks. I have several sets of each year from the 70s that I've been upgrading for the past few years and was going to send them in to be graded. Have been eying the set registery. Too be honest I've been too scared to pull the trigger. Thats a lot of money for commons. After reading your posts you guys convinced my to give it a try so I sent in a few cards. But after reading this I think I'll just stick to my raw gems for awhile.
At least this way I can sleep at night by decieving myself into thinking I have some sharp cards. Thanks for the info. Ted

downgoesfrazier · February 4, 2003 12:43PM

Wabbittwax,
The two cards that bumped were both 77's...not 93 and later. Neither had any "significant" flaw that should have landed them in the 8 holder to begin with--hence resubmission. They were positively mysterious grades...I still have a few registered in 8 holders that are nice 9's...I may very well crack them when the set is done and take a shot at upgrades. By the way, no grader of death for me this month #764184 and #764185 went real well...and all but one of the 8's deserved their fate.
Sleep easy gang--out.

Grader of Death strikes again...

Comments