Return of the grader of Death!

HECK55

I have read several posts on this guy and the sucker nailed me this time. Sent a few cards in not really expecting any high grades but cards were not junk. One was a 1948 Bowman #26 Bob Waterfield RC - I felt it should grade a 7 and might not of complained about a 6. It came back a 3! I have never had any of the old black and white cards or small size cards graded before but this is not even close. 1954 Bowman #1 Phil Rizzuto - expected a 6 - came back a 4. 1954 #10 Jackie Robinson - expected a 5 - came back a 4. 1959 #50 Willie Mays - expected a 7 - came back 4! I have had this card for 12 years and was always kind of proud of it! 1959 #478 Clemente - expected an 8 - came back a 5! NO WAY! 1969 Reggie Jackson #260 - hoping for an 8 - came back a 7. 1970 #712 Nolan Ryan - felt pretty sure it would go an 8 - came back a 7. I have sent in a ton of 53 Topps and usually hit close on most everything I send - I miss on some by more than one grade but never had any garbage grades like some of these! I think I will go to the eye dr. tomorrow. Invoice # is 425742 if you want to look. Taking up collections for hiring a "hit man". Rick

braves72078

Rick,

I feel your pain, but I have been there also. Time to bust em out and resubmit.

Bill

PlayBall

Like Bill, I feel your pain, but by the way your submission looks, if you had submitted 7 more cards, the last two would have been PSA 11's!

ejguru

I too have been there. I've always sensed G.O.D. does vintage cards (pre '73) primarily. Makes me nervous because I have 2 invoices (small) there now in the grading room. YIKES!

E

gcalex

The problem is, in my opinion, there are one or more graders who see 95 percent of the new shiny perfect stuff and they are told they can't give that all 10s or even 9s so when they see a vintage card they just beat the heck out of it. This problem was avoided in the past because three graders, as I understand it, all had to agree on the grade of a card. Now I think one alone has the power to render a final grade.

Wabittwax

I've had the grader of death hit me on as early as 1983 and several times on 1980's so I don't think he's just limited to vintage. As for those cards you just got back, definately resubmit them. Those are bitg enough cards to spend the extra cash on. Just consider your first submission as a gambling loss, kinda like getting your butt kicked at the blackjack table. Hopefully you don't catch him again though.

rw2win

How did the Grader of Death miss the OC on this 1972 Rose PSA 8??? Multiple graders did not see it???

downgoesfrazier

R2,
Apparently the high bidder didn't either. Gotta love cert#/holder buyers.

Mefer

This has all perked my curiosity. My understanding has always been that at least three graders review each card. Has PSA changed this to just one grader? I could not find PSA's word on this.

mikeschmidt

Mefer:

According to PSA -- there is still verification in the process, as follows:

"
5. Final Verification

As a final quality control check, all PSA-graded cards go back to the grading room for review by a "verifying" grader. The verifier carefully examines every card through its holder to ensure the integrity of the sealed capsule, and to check the accuracy of all certification information before the card is allowed to leave PSA.
"

However -- I think it is incorrect to say that three graders always look at a card. I think the true answer is "minimally two -- but more if the first two do not agree".



Of course -- I am sitting on a submission from Jan. 17 -- so I am almost hoping for the grader of death -- some grades are better than none at all ;-) Actually -- I'll be patient and hope for some more 9s and 10s!

Aaronman

I missed the grader of death on my last invoice (#4029299). I think he did pop his head in to give me a 3 on one card though. Probably just to keep me honest.


Doug

ejguru

Guys--I agree the Rose card is not nicely centered, but I think that the L-R is 30/70. I think that is all it needs to make straight 8. Right?

Wabittwax

I think there is DEFINATELY not 3 graders looking at each card. If any of you have ever opened full vending cases, you will probably agree. My last 1980 case that I opened, I submitted on about 6 different invoices and all 6 batches were randonly made from the case. Some came back 80% 9's with a few 10's mixed in and some literally came back 20% 9's with no 10's. There is no way that a random assortment from the same vending case can vary that much if 3 people are looking at each card. Generally from a case, all of the same card will be pretty close in centering and condition so the % shouldn't vary that much from invoice to invoice. I called PSA about it as they misunderstood me saying that " I shouldn't expect 12,000 PSA 9's from a 12,000 card case". They missed my point.

HECK55

Wabbit - If I were to call in and get an answer like you got on your question I would be more than just a little PO'd. When they give you an answer like that it's one of two things: 1) They are in a roundabout way saying you don't have a clue about what you are doing - it's a smart aleck answer and when he hangs up the phone he tries to impress his buddy with something like "man what an idiot that guy was" or something similiar. or 2) It's just a brush off to get you off the phone. They gave you an answer - you are thinking "where did he come up with that from what I said?" He acts like he thinks he answered your question when in reality all he did was to get you off the phone and he didn't have to do any work, research, or even really think hard about a thing. Every one of us that submits cards to PSA deserves the same consideration no matter what year the cards you submit or the number of cards in your submission. "BUT" if I were you and submitted 12,000 cards I would expect to speak to someone with a little stroke and some professionalism (if there is such a word). I have only called 2 or 3 times in about 5+ years and usually felt like I was treated fairly. Anyway I don't think they missed your point - I think they blew you off! I think I will wait a while and try my cards again. I just got back 4 cards from Beckett (new cards so not a real comparison) but I got exactly the grades I expected on all 4 cards. Two were Tracy Mcgrady Topps Chrome RC's - one went a 9 and the other an 8.5 - one was a 96 Topps Chrome RC of Jermaine o'neal - it graded a 9. The last was a 93 SP Jeter RC - it graded a straight 8. I am not a Beckett fan and those were not vintage cards but they do seem more consistent. Not changing - just wondering? Like Joe Walsh - "I can't complain but sometimes I still do" - - - Rick

Wabittwax

I sent to Beckett 3 times and lost my pants all 3 times. I sent what looked like perfect mint cards (newer stuff). No scratches, sharp corners, perfect centering. I got tons of 8.5's. 8.5's are worthless for making money on. I did well on the 9's but those were few and far between. No 9.5's though. At least with PSA, I cen usually tell what will get a 9 and what has a shot at a 10. The only consistency Beckett has is consistently worthless. You have to take a loss on all your crap grades from them just to hit the gold mine on the 9.5. Not very fun or profitable.

shark1970

The last package we got back from PSA was the opposite, they killed us on the new stuff and the pre-1980 stuff was fine, even a few graded one higher than we thought, 8's, thought 7's.

Chris

shark1970

Wabittwax,

I agree with you 100% this is PSA's biggest problem, inconsistency. We have had 50-500 count lots on a few better modern cards worth grading over the last year. I'd say on 10 different cards we sent in about 50 of each, all 5 or 10 at a time on different invoices. We sent in buches with the idea of getting 20-30% 10's and the rest 9's (sent in 10 cards 2-3 looking like 10's and the rest 9's) Sometimes we got all 9's, no 10's. Sometimes 30% 10's the rest 9's, A FEW TIMES WE GOT ALL 10'S. There is no rhyme or reason to it.

Ahhh, the grading game, gotta love it!