'60 and '71 submission

MAUIWAUI

Quick question for the pros, I've uncovered a few singles of 1960 baseball
in my collection along with an opened pack of 1971 baseball. No doubt that
these will grade high, 8's and won't be suprised at any 9's. But my problem
is with the new Special. I know that this has been discussed but I'm still
confused with what will pass as commons. Some have said to just submit.
Anyways, the only listed '60 card is Billy Martin and for '71 Jim Palmer (diamond)
and Joe Torre. The other cards are mostly $4 cards and straight commons. I
would love to send these in all at once. Thanks for reading and for any advice.
Bill

dude

Bill,

I just looked at the Special. You will have to look at the SMR. If the Martin, Palmer or Torre are listed in the SMR, then they do not qualify for the $7 Special.

Pre-72 Special

Here's exactly what it says:

Are you collecting pre-1972 cards and need some commons graded? If so, submit your pre-1972 commons* for just $7 a card. This special price is usually only given when you submit 100 cards or more, but for a limited time only, there is NO MINIMUM required. Submit 1 or 1,000 cards!

*Commons are cards that are not individually priced in the Sports Market Report.

Good luck!

dalew

I was going to grade some 61 Topps Baseball under this, but even the commons aren't common. This is an extension of an earlier post that I did.

I have a 61 Don Mossi. He's definitely a common player, but the SMR gives him a value of, I think $22.00 if given a PSA Grade of 6 or 7, don't remember.

If your going to run a special, then run it for all cards, not just commons.

Do they make more money if they are stars?

I don't understand.

acowa

Dale,

I think you're confusing the online SMR with the printed SMR. While Don Mossi is listed in the online SMR...he's obviously a common. He's not listed in the SMR publication (printed version).

My advice: Just use common sense in deciding which players are commons and which aren't. Think of it this way: If you would trade the ungraded card blindly even up for literally any other card in the same series, same condition (not knowing or caring which card you would receive in return)...there's a good chance that it's a common.


Regards,


Alan

dalew

Sorry, but its stupid.

It doesn't cost anymore to grade a common than a star card unless you utilize different standards.

And if that is the case, PSA only cares about star cards and not commons as it relates to trimming, doctoring, etc.

A card is a card and they should grade them as such at the same rate.

AlanAllen

Marketing 101: Price Differentiation. In this case, they believe most people will pay standard rates for stars, but will only get their commons graded at the lower price. Thus they get maximum profit from the few stars at a higher price and maximum volume for the commons at the lower price. It's the same reason Southern California residents get into Disneyland cheaper and seniors get a discount at the movies.

Joe

p.s. Did you know PSA's entire price structure used to be based on SMR value?

Virtualizard

Dale,

Good point. I thought about posting a reply similar to yours when the topic originally came up in another thread. What does it matter if the card is a 1960 Topps #41 Barry Latman (who was he?) or a 1969 Topps #250 Frank Robinson. They should both be graded with the same standards. From my previous submissions, I believe that PSA does use different standards for grading stars. I submitted about 50 cards back in August or September that included a couple of stars and the rest commons. I spent a lot of time going over every card looking at corners, centering, surface, etc., regardless of which card it was. When I received the cards, I was happy with the large % of straight 8's that I received, very happy about the 2 - 9's that I received, ok with the substantial number of 7's, content with the 1 that came back evidence of trimming (I missed that one - won't happen again), and horrified at the PSA 5 and 8OC that I received (both of these were stars - the only stars in my submission). I looked over the PSA 5 for a long time and still could not find what made it any different than the other 7's and 8's that I received. And the 8OC, more than a few of the straight PSA 8 commons in my submission had worse centering. I think they definitely grade on a different scale when it comes to stars.

Maybe PSA should hire and train graders who have no knowledge of the history of baseball, football, hockey, basketball, etc. and just teach them the standards for each grade. Maybe then it would be a little more fair.

Just my thoughts.

JEB.

acowa

I hope you guys that are arguing against the pricing model that PSA employs use the same logic when you sell your cards.

Let's see:

It's the same cardboard stock, ink cost, and processing cost so I should sell my Mantle for the same price as my Don Mossi. Furthermore, my Mantle came in the same pack as my Mossi so I paid the same for it as I did my Mantle.

Reality:

Dealers grade "high end" cards so that they will sell for a premium over what they would sell for raw PLUS they don't have the hassle of someone not agreeing with their grade.

Since the relative value (delta in what the dealer can expect raw versus graded) to the dealer is more on a superstar card...PSA can charge more and still keep the dealer profitable. With commons...the reative value is less. Ever wonder why the "grading specials" that PSA ran for 1972's and up only charged $5 for commons? or why they started at 1972 versus 1971? Many of the 1972's in PSA 8 were selling on EBAY for $6 or less...which makes it real difficult for the dealers to make any money unless they get all 9's. No money for the dealers...less money for PSA.

Regards,


Alan

Virtualizard

<< <i>... It's the same cardboard stock, ink cost, and processing cost so I should sell my Mantle for the same price as my Don Mossi. Furthermore, my Mantle came in the same pack as my Mossi so I paid the same for it as I did my Mantle. ...

Regards,


Alan >>



Alan,

I understand your point, but that is exactly why people get cards graded: to evaluate the condition of a card based on a definitive scale. I should be able to go through my collection of PSA graded cards and pull out any 10 random PSA 8 cards from any year, regardless of whether they are stars or commons, place them next to one another, and not be able to detect any noticeable difference in quality with regard to centering, corners, surface, print quality, focus, etc. I know that all of these cards originally came from literally worthless raw materials, but it is their physical condition that is in question here, not what materials they were produced from. Whether I pay $6 or $8 or $20 to get a card professionally graded, I'd like to know that the same standards apply to each card that I submit. It just seems counterproductive for a grading company to differentiate between certain cards within the same set when the same standards supposedly are applied to all cards.

JEB.

gemint

When in doubt, ask Charlie.