More crackout/resubmit results - 1961 Baseball
toppsgun
Posts: 787 ✭
After painstakingly picking out 90 cards (gems I tell you, gems) at the Houston Tri-Star show and adding 10 more by cracking out previous mis-grades, the GRADER OF DEATH has descended upon my household.
First, the crackouts (9 out of 10 bumped up, which should be the case since they were eyeballed closely):
25-Reds Artillery was 6, now 7
96-O'Dell was 6, now 7
128-Repulski was 6, now 7
438-Flood was 7, now 8
492-Fairly was 6, now 7
523-Gibbon was 6, now 7
528-Ramos was 5, now 6
538-Hiller was 7, now 8
540-Jensen was 6, now 5 (only one to go backward)
567-Murtaugh was 7, now 8
The rest of the invoice went like this:
28 PSA 8's
52 PSA 7's (some absolutely gorgeous cards, in the 99th percentile of PSA 7's, IMHO)
9 PSA 6's
I may play the crackout game with some of the 7's later this year (hopefully when the Grader of Death goes on vacation), or I may just list them on ebay. Several are low pop ones in 8 and may be worth another look (Meyer, Repulski, McLish, Friend, Owens, Cunningham x 2)
Edited to add:
No miscuts, trimmed, altered or rejects (I told you I was good at this), but there was one PSA 1 that I threw in to lead the dogs off the scent. If anyone is interested in the details, PM me and I'll give you the invoice and zip code.
First, the crackouts (9 out of 10 bumped up, which should be the case since they were eyeballed closely):
25-Reds Artillery was 6, now 7
96-O'Dell was 6, now 7
128-Repulski was 6, now 7
438-Flood was 7, now 8
492-Fairly was 6, now 7
523-Gibbon was 6, now 7
528-Ramos was 5, now 6
538-Hiller was 7, now 8
540-Jensen was 6, now 5 (only one to go backward)
567-Murtaugh was 7, now 8
The rest of the invoice went like this:
28 PSA 8's
52 PSA 7's (some absolutely gorgeous cards, in the 99th percentile of PSA 7's, IMHO)
9 PSA 6's
I may play the crackout game with some of the 7's later this year (hopefully when the Grader of Death goes on vacation), or I may just list them on ebay. Several are low pop ones in 8 and may be worth another look (Meyer, Repulski, McLish, Friend, Owens, Cunningham x 2)
Edited to add:
No miscuts, trimmed, altered or rejects (I told you I was good at this), but there was one PSA 1 that I threw in to lead the dogs off the scent. If anyone is interested in the details, PM me and I'll give you the invoice and zip code.
0
Comments
What I mean is that if you submit 90 cards, all from 1961 Topps, do you think that one grader looks at your entire submission? Probably. So, wouldn't it be potentially harder for him to be forgiving on some of the smaller details typical with your cards from that set?
We all want computer type results, but I would wager $20 that you looked at your 90 cards and scrutinized them much harder and for much longer than the grader at PSA.
I have a hunch that you might have gotten better grades if you had submitted various cards (ie different years / sets) on your invoice (or just made a smaller invoice size), therefore forcing the grader to re-sharpen his eye (and maybe forgive tiny tiny things) on each card from each set.
Does that make sense? Do people feel that the grades they get on single set larger submissions are worse than smaller multi-set submissions?
Anyway, I'm no expert-- Sorry you aren't happy with your results.
I typically have better results on 100-card submissions than both 25-50 cards and the 250+ ones I've turned in. 100 cards seemed to be the best for me, this one notwithstanding. So there may be no ryhme or reason to submission size.
It's not so much that I'm unhappy....stunned was my first reaction when the grades posted. I was predicting 2% 9's, 60-80% 8's and the rest 7's. Since many have already gone into my set on the registry and I collect cards, not slabs, I'm satisfied for now.
I do have a couple extra 8's, a couple dozen extra 7's and a whole slew of 6's from a submission long, long ago that is chalked up to experience. Though the 6's are consistently "near mint raw" as we all knew them prior to the overly critical grading explosion.
Thanks
STeve