How to Deal Correctly With the "Grader of Death"
scottsusor
Posts: 1,210
Since it appears that an awful lot of submissions (including mine) are having similar problems with undergrading of vintage (1950's and 1960's cards), I sent off an email to Joe Orlando yesterday, expressing my concern about what looks like either toughened standards or graders getting lazy. As he always does, Joe responded quickly and attentively. He restated what he said to me in Chicago -- that PSA has not consciously toughened any standards of grading in recent months. Unfortunately, that leaves open the other possibility -- that the graders are taking the easy (or speedy) way out by slapping a too-low grade on most cards then moving on to the next card. It may not be laziness -- it may be pressure to get through way too many cards in way too little time.
Anyway, Joe told me to send in some of the undergraded cards directly to him for review. I will be doing that shortly. I would advise anybody else that's getting hammered on grades to contact Joe and express your disappointment with what's been going on recently. The only way things like this will get worked out is for as many submitters as are affected to voice their perspective to Joe Orlando and then show him the evidence. He is very aware that undergrading hurts everybody -- PSA with reduced submissions, dealers who can't make a profit on their graded cards, and collectors looking to buy PSA cards that should be 8's and 9's. But just grousing about it here on the board does little good. You have to contact Joe and then show him the evidence.
Joe Orlando's email address is: JOrlando@collectors.com
Scott
Anyway, Joe told me to send in some of the undergraded cards directly to him for review. I will be doing that shortly. I would advise anybody else that's getting hammered on grades to contact Joe and express your disappointment with what's been going on recently. The only way things like this will get worked out is for as many submitters as are affected to voice their perspective to Joe Orlando and then show him the evidence. He is very aware that undergrading hurts everybody -- PSA with reduced submissions, dealers who can't make a profit on their graded cards, and collectors looking to buy PSA cards that should be 8's and 9's. But just grousing about it here on the board does little good. You have to contact Joe and then show him the evidence.
Joe Orlando's email address is: JOrlando@collectors.com
Scott
0
Comments
Scott
Edited to say: I actually haven't had this problem since then so they might have already gotten rid of this person. At least in my experience.
I had the same experience you did & did the same thing you did about a week ago. There's no question that the current grading of '60s (I can't speak much for 50's) is not consistent with what it was six months ago. EJ Guru and a few others have said the same thing. It's happening too often to people who have some knowledge and experience. My percentage of 9's went from 25% last August to .001% with my last submission. And here's something interesting...I crossed a number of very nice SCD 9's to PSA 9's (34 of 37) this winter. But as an experiment, I pulled about 12 others from that same group, cracked them and submitted as raw with that last submission. I got all 7's and 8's. Did those cards JUST HAPPEN to be lower grade? Come on. Two of the 3 9's I did get in a 270+ submission were '61 Topps football with sharp corners but a number of very obvious print spots. Was Ray Charles grading that day?
The mystery in all this is, of course, is why. I did as you did--and as Joe suggested ---& returned several to him for a 'courtesy review'. We'll see what happens. Before sending, I went through an entire grouping of about 75 of the '68 Topps I submitted-- and pulled about 25 of the best (I could have sent a few more but didn't want to take advantage). I did so only after looking at them under a very large, lighted magnifier to be sure I wasn't 'overly optimistic' originally. After examination, there's no doubt in my mind that at least several certainly deserved to have a better grade based on the standards we've come to expect. And if a card is borderline, you'd hope to catch at least one or two "benefits of the doubt" occasionally.
Something isn't right when those of us who are at least fairly experienced submitters can suddenly pull only two or three 9's--let alone a 10--out of a 200 or 300 card submission of vintage material. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at PSA to really know what the deal is. It's nice that they respond promptly to questions like this (I'm sure they get them a lot--some from people who don't have a clue), but it can't be that hard to be a little more consistent. It's frustrating, VERY expensive, and time consuming. I have to say that if this doesn't change, there's no point in continuing to send them cards. Hopefully they'll start to acknowledge we have a point. Yes, I know they're #1, yes I know the alternatives aren't perfect but I, too, would encourage anyone who has some solid evidence and the tools to made intelligent judgments to express concern. We ARE the paying customers.
Yes. In fact, I have two.
1) Crack and resubmit. If you're looking to make money in the graded card market (and by your previous posts I assume you are), it's important to realize that inconsistent grading helps-not hurts- you in the long run. The more undergraded cards that PSA slabs the better. By urging PSA to become more consistent with your submissions your also working to make them more consistent on ALL submissions; something you'd rather not have happen.
2) Don't send in low-value cards. Only you know what you're sending in, but if you're submitting vintage you can save yourself a lot of time and headaches by not submitting cards that will barely recoup the grading fees in '8' holders. Anyone who's submitting '68's or later commons is asking for trouble, in this market, unless the card is really clean under 10x magnification. I would think you'd be better off tracking the prices of star and semi star cards in PSA 8 from 1964 on, then bidding on these cards at 90% of the average closing price when they come up on ebay. When you get the card, look it over; if it's high end, crack it. If not, put it back on the 'bay and put it up with a starting price that will allow you to recoup your original purchase price plus your ebay fees.
For what it's worth, I think PSA's standards have toughened over the past year or so, and I would guess it's deliberate. With the prices of 8's falling through the floor, PSA can't afford to have the same thing happen to 9's. To counter this they toughen up, hoping they can stabilize the prices of the high end holders. They know that people will submit anyway, praying for 9's, so long as the 9 holders are commanding a fair premium. What they DON'T want are for the number of 9's to far outpace demand. Look at the prices for commons '76 and later; the 9's fetch six bucks. I would seriously doubt that any dealer is making large submissions of '76 and later material, for the simple reason that you can't hope to get enough 10's to offset the headaches that come with unloading the 9's. If this same thing happened with the earlier stuff, what would be left to submit?
Start your own company if you're that good! I'm serious!
I'm sure Scott will answer you, but your last paragraph is scary. Manipulating the market is NOT what PSA is supposed to be about. I would hope that's not true..but I can't argue with your logic. And here's a paragraph from PSA's own 'about us' page:
"be assured that the only interest they have in your cards is to make sure they’re properly graded and carefully preserved. PSA’s permanent grading standard is recognized industry-wide as the best possible form of consumer protection. So when you see a card for sale in a holder displaying the PSA logo, you’ll know you can buy with the confidence that the card has been properly and professionally graded."
330 cards - 1 PSA 9, 156 PSA 8's, 152 PSA 7's and the remainder lower. After 12,000+ submissions and averaging 85% 8's & 9's plus having an eye exam recently confirming the 20/20 status - you 'd think that I'd be able to do better.
Still sick about this one...
Sets - 1970, 1971 and 1972
Always looking for 1972 O-PEE-CHEE Baseball in PSA 9 or 10!
lynnfrank@earthlink.net
outerbankyank on eBay!
looks like you and I have only one choice........
.......throw our careers and financial well-being down the drain and start our own grading company.
I will say that my recent SGC submissions have been much less frustrating.
I know it sounds like an elaborate explanation, but I really can't offer any other answers. The last vintage submission I made was about five months ago. They were nice cards, well centered and little to no wear, and I think I got whacked with about 30% 7's or lower. I'd received disappointing results in the past, but NOTHING like that, and after reviewing my cards and some of the newer slabbed stuff I saw for sale at auctions and shows I came the conclusion that PSA had tightened the noose. If I'm wrong, great-- I don't want to slander anybody, much less the owners of these boards. But after a while it's hard to dismiss it as an abberation.
1) Two-person control for grading. In other words, two graders look at the card before it is encapsulated.
2) If there are hard and easy graders at PSA...Then graders need to work together and come up with a common approach to grading...meetings, sharing ideas, thoughts, etc. It could be a training issue as well. Although all graders being "on the same page at the same time" is not always possible, the senior grader should develop a strong, uniform approach to grading.
3) It's unfair to expect PSA (or any other grading company) to be perfect all the time, but different graders with different standards would not be acceptable to me and it's not fair to the customer IMO.
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
i have a 150 card submission of 71 topps bb on deck that i am going to hold off on, if things continue like this i may consider knocking it down to 100 or even waiting for a special and send 50 of them in. i am hoping to get at least half 8's and the other half 7's (i'm doing the set in 7 & 8). to lay out 900 bucks and for all 7's makes no sense or even worse, for 7's and a bunch of 6's is lunacy.
however, if submissions go down and then grades go up that is something i don't want to even think about.
there are some good theories in this thread in regards to why this is happening but i have to DISAGREE with SCOTTUSOR on one of them. IMO grader laziness would probably result in higher grades it takes more time and effort to find a reason to lower a grade, let's be honest has any ever got a card back and found themselves scratching there head and wondering: "what was the grader thinking when he gave this card a nine?" especially after you louped it and had it pegged for an 8. to me that seems like grader laziness because had he (the grader) louped the card; the fraying on two corners would have been VERY visible.
just my 2 cents.....my heart goes out to all the guys that took beatings this month .
in the meantime , we'll have to wait and see if the halcyon days of submissions loaded with 9's are behind us.
I think the higher grader took eye appeal into account and was more forgiving on centering. The other grader was strictly going by picking out blemishes and deducting according to his count.
It's frustrating, but I will do as the Susor says and send a few back with other cards as evidence. However, I will also have to break out a bunch and resubmit. I just hope I get the kinder grader.
My two cents,
Scumbi
here is one i think was overgraded.
After you submit enough invoices to PSA, you eventually get to eat some humble pie. Just crack out the best ones and send 'em back through. Then come back and tell us how you did. (As if we really care.)
<< <i>Then come back and tell us how you did. (As if we really care.) >>
I tried really hard to resist....
Its like dancing in the end zone if you didnt care you would not be posting. You must have not been here before.
<< <i>
<< <i>Then come back and tell us how you did. (As if we really care.) >>
I tried really hard to resist....
Its like dancing in the end zone if you didnt care you would not be posting. You must have not been here before.
Hear! Hear! Clap-clap-clap-clap-clap ... Standing ovation !!!
Some people need to get a NEW hobby.
Scott
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
<< <i>By urging PSA to become more consistent with your submissions your also working to make them more consistent on ALL submissions; something you'd rather not have happen. >>
... And am I the only one without a clue what this statement is supposed to mean?
Scott
That's disturbing. Opinions on card issues and trends are fine, but racism doesn't belong here.
Congratulations. You took a non sequiter and played the race card with it (to incite?)
Aknot,
I've been here before. And in response to the title thread, I crack[ed] out the best ones and send 'em back through.
Scottsusor,
[Some people need to get a NEW hobby.] I did and you're it (tongue firmly planted in cheek). Times change, bub. Since you've "been around" since 1969, you might want to as well. This is not your father's baseball card hobby anymore. But the education is priceless, n'est pas?
<< <i>... Some people need to get a NEW hobby... I did ... >>
I'm not sure that embarrassing oneself publicly qualifies as a hobby, but at least you've mastered it.
This is what I really love about anonymous posters, and why at least one more should be banned from this board.
Scott
if new submitters or inexperienced submitters were getting clobbered on their submissions , it could be chalked up to mistakes or guys looking at there cards with the proverbial "rose colored glasses". this is NOT the case advanced collectors, experts in particular issues, and dealers who submit heavily are getting hammered.
As for banishment, I seriously doubt it. I may walk a fine line sometimes, but I do play by the rules.
Carry on, soldier.
Whether that is or isn't true, my suggestion still applies, "pick out the best, crack and resubmit."
in regards to the earlier stuff , fifties and sixties i'm certain the supply of those cards in high grade is decreasing but has it manifested so suddenly and dramatically? i just find that hard to believe.
i agree with the practice of cracking A card or TWO and sending it back if i feel that strongly and i'm sure we've all done this and will continue to do it, but to send back 25-30 cards from one submission?
it just seems like something is amiss.
it just seems like something is amiss."
I can certainly appreciate your point, but I've done exactly that. Twice.
In the summer of '01, I picked up some sweet '65s and '63s at the National. The 63's were graded fairly, but the '65s got hammered by (who we now know as) the grader of death. I called to complain as was told to send the best 10 back in. Well, the heck with that. I hand carried 50 on my next trip to CA. Met with a couple of PSA employees. Two cards got bump ups, the rest, go fish.
In the winter of '03, I submitted a huge invoice of 1961's. Again I felt I got slighted. I boxed up 50 and sent them back by mail, with a note, "take another look please." This time five got bumped up.
I've since interspersed a few here and there on random invoices and done quite well. But it is a slow process that benefits from my trained eye as much as randomly avoiding the Grader of Death.
I can't explain it, but I consistently get fair, if not favorable grades on most of my '63s, nearly all of my '67s, but rarely any of my '61s and 65s. Sort of like the bumper sticker I picked up at Rockfish the other day, "Fish happens."
... And am I the only one without a clue what this statement is supposed to mean?
I don't know. What I was getting at is that you'd rather not have PSA grade others' submissions consistently, since this gives you more opportunities to buy already slabbed cards and crack and resubmit them with the hope of getting a bump up.
You might want to ask Bill Goodwin or Mike Wentz about that one.
Ooops. Wrong thread.
I know the average quality of PSA 8s I've purchased on eBay with recently issued serial numbers is higher than it has ever been. I will be taking a few of them in to the Hollywood Park show to have them looked at again, because I see no flaws (and I'm a fairly harsh grader).
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
UNBELIEVABLE! Is that a true story- You turned about 33 PSA 7s from one submission, cracked them out, and virtually all came back as PSA 8's on the next submission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did I hear your story correctly!
If this is true then PSA has a major problem on its hands. I would expect a few 7's to upgrade to an 8, and maybe a few to even come back as a 6. But such a discrepency is not random nor can it be attributed to human error based on the eyes ("humans aren't perfect theory")
1. everybody makes mistakes
2. grading is subjective
edited to add:
3. I own a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale, contact me at lame excuses@collectors.com
<< <i>I took the 33 PSA 7's and a few 8's broke them out and re-submitted them at the $6 fee with other cards to make it 100 card submission.Of the 42 cards I cracked open for resubmission I got 3 9's 36 8's and 3 7's >>
I first read this, and didn't really think much of it. But, now that you mention it again...this is quite an upgrade. Even if it was 3 of the 9 8's going to 9, and 30 of the 7's going to 8 (follow that one!)...I almost don't believe it.
CardKrazy... please post the invoice #s!
what problem........
1. everybody makes mistakes
2. grading is subjective
1. everybody makes mistakes
2. grading is subjective
I'm sort of surprised that there are that many. Ive had a few change grade when Ive done it but 90%.