<< <i>What I would like to know is if the graders have the pop report on their screen when they grade. It seems the higher pop cards get the 8s but the low pop cards which are as good or better get the 6s and 7s. Why does this happen? Or is it coincidence? >>
It would not be coincidence, ever. If something like this was, in fact, happening -- there is only one plausible explanation and it would be very unfortunate if its the case. That is -- PSA would clearly be proactively protecting the value of existing low pops by ensuring that no more (or at least very very few) get graded as 8's or better, even when they ARE 8's or better. I shudder to think of the consequences if this were ever found to be what's happening. Personally, I don't think it is. Rather, I believe that PSA's grading staff is suffering from: (1) inadequate training, (2) high turnover, (3) lack of experience, and (4) pressure to grade too many cards in too little time. But if high pops truly ARE getting their appropriate share of 8's or better while low pops aren't, whoa baby. I guess time will tell.
It's always a bummer to receive grades well below your expectations. However, I really don't believe there's any huge conspiracy on commons especially if they are post-1960. Although the cards might be important to you, they fall below the significance radar at PSA. There's definitely a pecking order when it comes to graders. The new guys are broken in on commons and specials. They are especially vigilant at the beginning because they don't want to make mistakes. They will always err on the side of conservatism. They don't feel comfortable giving out 9s and 10s. If you look long enough, you can always find something wrong with a card.
However, these cards are not high dollar. The expensive vintage stuff is handled by a different group of graders. They've been around and have a sense of what they've graded. Thus, relativity becomes a factor. Cards start to look like 4s, 5s and 6s without the loupe.
You can't make the grade a priority over the card. If you don't love the cards first and foremost, this isn't the hobby for you. There are inconsistencies. Usually a grade is within +/- 1 grade. Sometimes there are bigger errors. I've found PSA to be reasonable when their seems to be a major discrepancy. If you are patient and polite, you can get the card reviewed especially if you have other cards from the set that make a case. I don't think PSA wants to be bothered with new material. If the card is 500 dollars minimum with a grade or two equating to a few grand, they are usually receptive.
Worse comes to worse, you can break and resend. I've had cards come up to the grade I thought they deserved the second time around. I think the grading is actually more consistent now that Baker is gone. That is why you have to check the card and not the grade. I have old PSA 6 cards that don't touch recent PSA 5 cards. It's frustrating, but it's not the end of the world.
Somebody here has a saying, "If the grade don't fit, resubmit." With all the complaining from vet collectors lately, I wonder if PSA has a new business model... harsher grading in general results in two or more fees for the same card until the hobby gets in synch with their new standards.
As for inconsistency on the grading floor: 10 card crossover submission that my eyes and a loupe conclude should be successful. Lines 1-5 cross successfully to PSA 8 or 9, Lines 6-10 get the dreaded M/G. Think my submission was split in half between two graders wiith different standards or levels of expertise? I do.
<< <i>I really don't believe there's any huge conspiracy on commons ... However, these cards are not high dollar. >>
With all due respect, I'd have to disagree on your conclusion that commons cannot be "high dollar." Given the recent ample evidence of certain vintage PSA 8 and 9 commons getting hundreds or even thousands of dollars -- due to scarcity (i.e. low pop) -- I'd conclude that many of them outdistance star and superstar cards in the same set by quite a bit. And if rookie graders are getting them, that's possibly why they are being inconsistently graded and/or consistently undergraded.
Keep in mind that PSA charges $6.00 or so whether the card comes back a "3" and is worth little or comes back a higher grade and brings in hundreds or thousands. The submitter can lose a little or gain alot based on the grade, the grading company makes its 1 time fee regardless of the outcome. Granted exposure of the high $ result can be advantageous, but I hardly think a conspiracy is in place to control the market...jay
<< <i>but I hardly think a conspiracy is in place to control the market >>
Word has it that Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa have been seen entering and exiting a secret 'grading control' door in Newport Beach. On at least 3 occasions, they arrived there by plane from Area 51.
<< <i>Word has it that Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa have been seen entering and exiting a secret 'grading control' door in Newport Beach. On at least 3 occasions, they arrived there by plane from Area 51.
sorry to post in 2 threads but it is relavant to both as things are getting real negative around here again
ok ,I have listened to all the complaining recently and I am sure there is some basis . Here is my experience , I just got this invoice back 60's invoince and I would say everything was about what I expected. There weren't any cards in there that were going to be 9's and some of them could have gone 9 o/c instead of straight 7's . The 3 nitschki's all could have gone 9 o/c which is why I never submitted them before. I have now submitted between 300-400 of the 64 philly's from the same source over the last year and the grades have been consistant across the board. The cards are all pack fresh with centering as the only drawback on some which a few of the guys on this board can confirm.
In my case these cards have not been handled very much and all came from rack packs about 15 years ago so the cards are pretty much all the same and psa has come back with grades that were expected each time.
Comments
Same old story for as long as I've been reading these boards :
We want greater consistency.
We want lower grading fees.
Hmm ...
The delicate balance, between cost and accuracy,
will always exist in card grading, just as it does in every other business.
Best to just relax, realize this isn't rocket science, go with the flow, and enjoy the journey ...
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
<< <i>What I would like to know is if the graders have the pop report on their screen when they grade. It seems the higher pop cards get the 8s but the low pop cards which are as good or better get the 6s and 7s. Why does this happen? Or is it coincidence? >>
It would not be coincidence, ever. If something like this was, in fact, happening -- there is only one plausible explanation and it would be very unfortunate if its the case. That is -- PSA would clearly be proactively protecting the value of existing low pops by ensuring that no more (or at least very very few) get graded as 8's or better, even when they ARE 8's or better. I shudder to think of the consequences if this were ever found to be what's happening. Personally, I don't think it is. Rather, I believe that PSA's grading staff is suffering from: (1) inadequate training, (2) high turnover, (3) lack of experience, and (4) pressure to grade too many cards in too little time. But if high pops truly ARE getting their appropriate share of 8's or better while low pops aren't, whoa baby. I guess time will tell.
Scott
However, these cards are not high dollar. The expensive vintage stuff is handled by a different group of graders. They've been around and have a sense of what they've graded. Thus, relativity becomes a factor. Cards start to look like 4s, 5s and 6s without the loupe.
You can't make the grade a priority over the card. If you don't love the cards first and foremost, this isn't the hobby for you. There are inconsistencies. Usually a grade is within +/- 1 grade. Sometimes there are bigger errors. I've found PSA to be reasonable when their seems to be a major discrepancy. If you are patient and polite, you can get the card reviewed especially if you have other cards from the set that make a case. I don't think PSA wants to be bothered with new material. If the card is 500 dollars minimum with a grade or two equating to a few grand, they are usually receptive.
Worse comes to worse, you can break and resend. I've had cards come up to the grade I thought they deserved the second time around. I think the grading is actually more consistent now that Baker is gone. That is why you have to check the card and not the grade. I have old PSA 6 cards that don't touch recent PSA 5 cards. It's frustrating, but it's not the end of the world.
S.
As for inconsistency on the grading floor: 10 card crossover submission that my eyes and a loupe conclude should be successful. Lines 1-5 cross successfully to PSA 8 or 9, Lines 6-10 get the dreaded M/G. Think my submission was split in half between two graders wiith different standards or levels of expertise? I do.
<< <i>I really don't believe there's any huge conspiracy on commons ... However, these cards are not high dollar. >>
With all due respect, I'd have to disagree on your conclusion that commons cannot be "high dollar." Given the recent ample evidence of certain vintage PSA 8 and 9 commons getting hundreds or even thousands of dollars -- due to scarcity (i.e. low pop) -- I'd conclude that many of them outdistance star and superstar cards in the same set by quite a bit. And if rookie graders are getting them, that's possibly why they are being inconsistently graded and/or consistently undergraded.
Scott
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
<< <i>but I hardly think a conspiracy is in place to control the market >>
Word has it that Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa have been seen entering and exiting a secret 'grading control' door in Newport Beach. On at least 3 occasions, they arrived there by plane from Area 51.
Don't know what to make of it however.
BOTR
<< <i>Word has it that Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa have been seen entering and exiting a secret 'grading control' door in Newport Beach. On at least 3 occasions, they arrived there by plane from Area 51.
Don't know what to make of it however.
BOTR >>
Obviously they're applying for jobs as graders.
Scott
ok ,I have listened to all the complaining recently and I am sure there is some basis . Here is my experience , I just got this invoice back 60's invoince and I would say everything was about what I expected. There weren't any cards in there that were going to be 9's and some of them could have gone 9 o/c instead of straight 7's . The 3 nitschki's all could have gone 9 o/c which is why I never submitted them before. I have now submitted between 300-400 of the 64 philly's from the same source over the last year and the grades have been consistant across the board. The cards are all pack fresh with centering as the only drawback on some which a few of the guys on this board can confirm.
In my case these cards have not been handled very much and all came from rack packs about 15 years ago so the cards are pretty much all the same and psa has come back with grades that were expected each time.
<< <i>Obviously they're applying for jobs as graders >>
Maybe Hoffa, but certainly not Elvis because he's all shook up.
Wahoo Wahoo yeayea.
BOTR