Results from Submission
mikeschmidt
Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭
I finally received my submission back from PSA today - and thought I would post the following update and my thoughts on the submission.
For recollection - I made a post asking "Will I be Happy?" here, referring to the following invoice: this one.
All in all - I was mildly satisfied - but largely disappointed.
As for the O-P-C Stickers and regular-issue O-Pee-Chee cards, I would NEVER have submitted them unless I thought 9 was a large possibility. To get 7s and 8s on the regular issue cards is absurd to me - I've compared these formerly raw examples to what I already have in PSA 8 and PSA 9 holders - and these were largely comparable if not better. It is a waste of my time and money to be submitting stuff that gets 7s and 8s if I already own examples - so I clearly disagree with PSA on these.
The 1986 Leaf and 1986 Topps Mike Schmidt cards - for the life of me, I have no clue why these are PSA 8s. I have a couple PSA 9s of 1986 Leaf - and they all look very much the same to me. As for the 1986 Topps - that is just a living crock of $hit in my mind. You may recall that I made a post a month or two ago here. In that submission - I had five 1986 Topps Mike Schmidt cards - and one came back PSA 8, three came back PSA 9 and one came back PSA 10 GEM MINT. These three are from the exact same lot - and I reviewed them at the same time with the same criteria. That these are all mysteriously PSA 8 stupifies me.
There were a few oddball Schmidt cards submitted that I am not altogether displeased with: 1983 Fleer Stamp, 1987 Stuart, 1987 Burger King, 1988 Panini, 1985 Slurpee, 1986 Sportflic Promo and 1986 Fleer Mini were all about what I expected. Although I may disagree with a grade or two - I submitted these merely to have a graded example - and perhaps hope to upgrade one day. A lot of these are tough to find at all - not to mention in top raw grade for submission purposes.
Finally - as for the 1980 Topps cards - I am most pleased with these, as it relates to consistency. There were 28 submissions - with four PSA 8s, one PSA 10, and 23 PSA 9 MINT cards.
As it turns out - all twenty-eight of those cards were formerly in SGC holders. In fact, there were thirteen SGC 96 MINT cards and fifteen SGC 92 NM/MT+ cards. The PSA 10 was formerly a SGC 96 MINT card, and two of the PSA 8s were formerly SGC 96 MINT. The other two PSA 8s were both SGC 92 NM/MT+. Before any of you jump to conclusions - I want to say the following: I had a small horde of 1980 Topps graded SGC cards - and I was very, very selective about which ones I decided to crack and break. I thought all the ones I cracked out were 9-worthy. I even solicited the painstaking efforts of our own 1980 Topps guru, RobE, in evaluating which cards I should leave as is, which I should crack and submit and which I should consider for crossover service. FWIW - any card that I already had in PSA 10 automatically went to me "sale" pile - as I did not want to waste more fees. So - with all that careful analysis, 13 of the 15 SGC 92 cards became PSA 9s, which I think is pretty astounding success.
So - I am overall somewhat happy. At least a dozen or so wasted submissions and grades - many times on cards that I frankly just do not agree with. As for the rest - I am happy with where I ended up, and am glad to have some new Schmidt cards for my Master Registry set (although the kind folks have been sitting up my update to the Registry for nearly two months....) - but I think the Schmidt submissions were, overall, inconsistent.
Thanks all for your advice and counsel.
MS
For recollection - I made a post asking "Will I be Happy?" here, referring to the following invoice: this one.
All in all - I was mildly satisfied - but largely disappointed.
As for the O-P-C Stickers and regular-issue O-Pee-Chee cards, I would NEVER have submitted them unless I thought 9 was a large possibility. To get 7s and 8s on the regular issue cards is absurd to me - I've compared these formerly raw examples to what I already have in PSA 8 and PSA 9 holders - and these were largely comparable if not better. It is a waste of my time and money to be submitting stuff that gets 7s and 8s if I already own examples - so I clearly disagree with PSA on these.
The 1986 Leaf and 1986 Topps Mike Schmidt cards - for the life of me, I have no clue why these are PSA 8s. I have a couple PSA 9s of 1986 Leaf - and they all look very much the same to me. As for the 1986 Topps - that is just a living crock of $hit in my mind. You may recall that I made a post a month or two ago here. In that submission - I had five 1986 Topps Mike Schmidt cards - and one came back PSA 8, three came back PSA 9 and one came back PSA 10 GEM MINT. These three are from the exact same lot - and I reviewed them at the same time with the same criteria. That these are all mysteriously PSA 8 stupifies me.
There were a few oddball Schmidt cards submitted that I am not altogether displeased with: 1983 Fleer Stamp, 1987 Stuart, 1987 Burger King, 1988 Panini, 1985 Slurpee, 1986 Sportflic Promo and 1986 Fleer Mini were all about what I expected. Although I may disagree with a grade or two - I submitted these merely to have a graded example - and perhaps hope to upgrade one day. A lot of these are tough to find at all - not to mention in top raw grade for submission purposes.
Finally - as for the 1980 Topps cards - I am most pleased with these, as it relates to consistency. There were 28 submissions - with four PSA 8s, one PSA 10, and 23 PSA 9 MINT cards.
As it turns out - all twenty-eight of those cards were formerly in SGC holders. In fact, there were thirteen SGC 96 MINT cards and fifteen SGC 92 NM/MT+ cards. The PSA 10 was formerly a SGC 96 MINT card, and two of the PSA 8s were formerly SGC 96 MINT. The other two PSA 8s were both SGC 92 NM/MT+. Before any of you jump to conclusions - I want to say the following: I had a small horde of 1980 Topps graded SGC cards - and I was very, very selective about which ones I decided to crack and break. I thought all the ones I cracked out were 9-worthy. I even solicited the painstaking efforts of our own 1980 Topps guru, RobE, in evaluating which cards I should leave as is, which I should crack and submit and which I should consider for crossover service. FWIW - any card that I already had in PSA 10 automatically went to me "sale" pile - as I did not want to waste more fees. So - with all that careful analysis, 13 of the 15 SGC 92 cards became PSA 9s, which I think is pretty astounding success.
So - I am overall somewhat happy. At least a dozen or so wasted submissions and grades - many times on cards that I frankly just do not agree with. As for the rest - I am happy with where I ended up, and am glad to have some new Schmidt cards for my Master Registry set (although the kind folks have been sitting up my update to the Registry for nearly two months....) - but I think the Schmidt submissions were, overall, inconsistent.
Thanks all for your advice and counsel.
MS
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
0
Comments
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
<< <i>As for the O-P-C Stickers and regular-issue O-Pee-Chee cards, I would NEVER have submitted them unless I thought 9 was a large possibility. To get 7s and 8s on the regular issue cards is absurd to me - I've compared these formerly raw examples to what I already have in PSA 8 and PSA 9 holders - and these were largely comparable if not better. It is a waste of my time and money to be submitting stuff that gets 7s and 8s if I already own examples - so I clearly disagree with PSA on these. >>
MS,
Thanks for sharing the particulars and the results. As for the above quote, this is EXACTLY what I have run into concerning 84 Donruss. I too have compared my subs to very recent 9's from larger submitters and found this to be entirely true. It makes no sense and leaves me with, well, a guessing game, to which it shouldn't be.
<< <i>but I think the Schmidt submissions were, overall, inconsistent. >>
Yep. I think what is sad is that this inconsistency at times seems so unbelievably obvious.
So MS, what will you do differently on the next submission to improve your chances? I'm curious to know.
Thanks, Bill
ps) I voted 'no' in the poll. Felt that for your experience in the hobby, the grades would have been better.