Big Submission is Back-Questions
Ripken
Posts: 559 ✭✭✭
Just received a breakdown of my latest submission...my biggest yet at over 430 cards & thought I'd share a few thoughts and ask some questions.
I'm kind of confused why PSA seems to treat some issues with a much stricter eye than others. I had about 100 '68s graded-- a little less than about 1/2 9's and the rest 8s. (I did place a MG of 8 on these and a few did come back as ungraded). In 1970, a year that to me seems easier to grade raw for flaws before sending, my results were much worse. Only 2 9's out of approximately 40 cards. I thought I had at least 1/2 9's, but they obviously disagreed. That's been my experience before. I purchased several '68 and '69 Topps from the same source who had taken them from vending and the '69s were treated much more harshly. 1980 Topps football is another issue that PSA seems brutal on. I sent dozens of cards direct from wax and rack packs about a year ago but they throw in a token 9 here and there to pacify while the rest are 8's. The pop report bears out that only a very small # ever reach 9 let alone 10. Anyone have a list of years they think seem to have an abnormal amout of trouble with?
Out of the 430 or so cards I submitted from the 50s to early 70s, about 65 came back as either "evidence of trimming", "minimum size not met" or "minimum grade". I placed a MG of 7 on anything prior to '65 and 8 on anything later. Was this a wise choice? I think it's easier to unload raw cards than a PSA 6 common from the '60s but when you're paying $8 per card, being picky is expensive since you're charged either way! Anyone agree or disagree with my choice? I had several cards come back ungraded for "evidence of trimming" that would make no sense for someone to trim. A '70 Topps football common? Not sure how they determine this with any certainty.
I saw a "grading kit" advertised in SCD last week. Supposedly it will help you avoid lesser grades before submitting. Has anyone tried it?
I'm kind of confused why PSA seems to treat some issues with a much stricter eye than others. I had about 100 '68s graded-- a little less than about 1/2 9's and the rest 8s. (I did place a MG of 8 on these and a few did come back as ungraded). In 1970, a year that to me seems easier to grade raw for flaws before sending, my results were much worse. Only 2 9's out of approximately 40 cards. I thought I had at least 1/2 9's, but they obviously disagreed. That's been my experience before. I purchased several '68 and '69 Topps from the same source who had taken them from vending and the '69s were treated much more harshly. 1980 Topps football is another issue that PSA seems brutal on. I sent dozens of cards direct from wax and rack packs about a year ago but they throw in a token 9 here and there to pacify while the rest are 8's. The pop report bears out that only a very small # ever reach 9 let alone 10. Anyone have a list of years they think seem to have an abnormal amout of trouble with?
Out of the 430 or so cards I submitted from the 50s to early 70s, about 65 came back as either "evidence of trimming", "minimum size not met" or "minimum grade". I placed a MG of 7 on anything prior to '65 and 8 on anything later. Was this a wise choice? I think it's easier to unload raw cards than a PSA 6 common from the '60s but when you're paying $8 per card, being picky is expensive since you're charged either way! Anyone agree or disagree with my choice? I had several cards come back ungraded for "evidence of trimming" that would make no sense for someone to trim. A '70 Topps football common? Not sure how they determine this with any certainty.
I saw a "grading kit" advertised in SCD last week. Supposedly it will help you avoid lesser grades before submitting. Has anyone tried it?
0
Comments
I sent in over 100 '69 Topps baseball a few weeks ago expecting ALL of them to be at least 8 and about 1/4 to be 9s. I got exactly 2 9s and 29 7s!!!. The rest were 8s (70 or so). Most of my 8s are going on ebay including alot of low pop cards.
PSA seemed alot more harsh on my 69s than my 72s I recently submitted. I dont know if its the issue or the particular grader.
ABBA
1974 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
Knowledge speaks, wisdom listens
If you have any PSA 8 + 1969 baseball you want to sell off auction, shoot me a note.
As for the grading results, for the '69s, check for black or white print snow which is a big nemisis on some of the cards from that set. You'll also want to look at the reverse to see if a noticeable amount of pink is missing from the borders or corners. That will knock a card down to an 8, even if the front looks mint. For 1970, look for print snow and any touches along the front grey borders and corners. The '68s typically have beautiful photo quality and the burlap borders help to mask light touches. It's one of the easier vintage sets to build in Mint condition as evidence from the population report.
The graders have consistently kicked my behind on 1965 Topps baseball. I have some gorgeous NM 7's that will remain in my set on the Registry they're so nice.
For what it's worth,
Doug