My Grades: A New Low
scottsusor
Posts: 1,210
Grades
Something is definitely wrong. No way any of these cards should have gotten below a 7, yet ten got a 6 and two got a 5. I expected about 70% 8's and 30% 7's. I use a 40x lighted scientific microscope. Take a look.
Scott
Something is definitely wrong. No way any of these cards should have gotten below a 7, yet ten got a 6 and two got a 5. I expected about 70% 8's and 30% 7's. I use a 40x lighted scientific microscope. Take a look.
Scott
0
Comments
You will do better as you start applying modern standards to grading rather than the old Mr. Mint say no to grading standards.
897734 and 897735 20879
..........but I remember it took me a few submissions to catch on to what things PSA looks for, that was a long time ago though. keep your chin up.....I'll bet you do better with some practice.
Your reply caught me offguard. I was expecting grading is subjective and mistakes happen.
aconte
I feel your pain. You read my thread. I just got my cards, the one's that started the Grader of Death Sucks thread, no way are those three cards 7's. I pulled out 15 8's from my 72 set and at least 10 of them are in worse or the same shape. It's begining to look like a c - o - n spiracy! I'm just disgusted.
1) You jumbled up the years. That's not a good idea. You should group the years together, with the better cards in each year toward the end of each group. A grader can't help but compare a card to the one just graded before it. If it's better, you'll more than likely get the higher grade on the later stuff.
2) You picked the tough, low pops on most all those years. Using your own logic from previous threads, those cards are low pop for a reason. Print specks, centering, color, focus are all imperfections that are tricky to the untrained eye. Don't get greedy and don't try to outsmart the professionals.
3) Quite frankly (and you ain't gonna like this), you're a little late to the graded game. All of us, and I mean everyone of us, thought our first batch or two of cards were better than they turn out to be. It's part of the learning process. I know that some of you "old hats" are going to jump all over this, but for you, see my next point. Scott just has to go down the learning curve a little bit more.
4) Grading is seasonal. PSA just came out of a huge special where they fell behind. I've been at this for four years. I can tell you for certain, that it's a bad time to submit right after a grading special is over. Grading gets tougher inside the walls at PSA when they've been swamped (specials, big shows). After a few weeks and submissions subside, the grading will ease up and you'll see posts about how happy people are with their grades.
5) The best time to submit cards are before the National (like May-June) and very late in the year (Nov-Dec-Jan).
Now, I'm through being nice. I'm going back to being hard on anything you write that is incindiary or self-grandizing or just plain stupid.
Are you entertaining offers for the PSA 7 and 8s from you 1969 submission?
Michael
However....
I've said in many times on this board and around the country.......
"The hardest thing about grading your own cards IS grading you own cards"
Although card grading is subjective (I think we can all agree on that..) there are certain mechanical aspects to the "wear and tear" of things made of paper.....
* A proper size of a card is not guessed at, it's measured with a tool. It's either the right size or it's not.
* Centering is not guess work...it's measured with a tool. 61/39 is just that. 10/90 is just that.
* Corner damage is just what it says it is. and so on.
It might enlighten a few board members by simply reading ALL of the grading standards written by grading companys. Read it...word for word.... Don't pull out a phrase in the middle of the text and dwell on that...Look at the big picture.
We all hire PSA to grade and authenticate pieces of paper for our collections. We should All read and understand the rules (and nuances.) concerning grading. The bottom line is, that for any reason, you should not trust the grading company to do a proper service for you........SIMPLY DO NOT USE THEIR SERVICE.
Constant belittleing of graders will not change your grades.
Learn how to grade yourself.......
Now.... Not everybody is unhappy with the grades they receive...... Me for example.
Just got an invoice posted by PSA. #4110181 zip 97232. I'm pretty happy with the results, BUT...I spent countless hours qualifing EVERY CARD.
Thanks for your time and good luck on your future ventures!!!
Larry
email....emards4457@msn.com
CHEERS!!
There is a difference between those who "whine" about a miss graded card or two and those who receive much lower than expected grades for practically their entire submission.
The former can be chalked up to an oversight on the submitter or reviewer. The latter casts doubt on the reviewer, especially when scores of previous submissions have generated similar results and a loupe was used.
Mistakes happen, big or small. However, I believe PSA should offer additional services as some have recommended. For example, paying a small fee for explanations. Or receiving free explanations when one card of a like group receives a very poor grade. A reduction in the fee for the review service, if not, most just crack and resubmit.
On average, I am very satisfied with all the grades given. But it makes me hesitant to send one bulk submission as one subjective grader can wipe you out.
I thought ToppsGun had some good advice. Getting graded cards back from companies is always an experience of dealing with "highs" and "lows". Sometimes I get great submission results and sometimes I get disappointed....but one thing for sure, the more you submit, the better guesser you become on deciding what cards to submit and therefore, your submission results will be a little more pleasing to you.
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
I don't know the other sets, but the 61's that you sent in are all very tough cards. The problem with the 119 A's Armour, 114 Landrith, and 126 Stuart is the print snow in the background. The card can have perfect corners and centering, but they grade the snow very harshly. The Dressen and Houk manager cards all seem to have problems with print bubbles, smudge in the solid colors, and frequently centering. All are exceedingly difficult to get in an 8. Why don't you post a few scans so that we can see some of your cards.
PSA guys read this board religiously to see how they are perceived. Since you are constantly bashing them, they might be singling out your order for low-ball grading. It's human nature. When your submission comes in, I'm sure they say "Hey, here's that basher guy. Let's give him something to really complain about." It's the same as bad mouthing your surgeon before frontal brain operations. The doctor gets mad and you come out with no feeling in your face and a lazy eyelid forever.
Haven't you ever heard "You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar?". If I were you, I'd get a bunch of Barnes and Noble gift certificates and pass them out in the PSA parking lot with a kind Hallmark card saying all is forgiven.
It might be too late already. You might have to use GAI where they've cut light bulbs from the budget. Those guys have all day to hang out with you and will give you a half-grade boost on all non-important cards. Their catchy motto - "If it's a high graded card in a dealer's hand, then it's inflated two grades and there was no grading fee." makes us all smile. The only downside is when you sell the GAI cards. Then, you get less money if that is important to you.
SGC has monkeys with a roulette ball if you're feeling lucky, too.
Hope this helps,
S.
That reminds me of the line, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
Scott,
I'd have to agree on there being a reason for the low pop commons. That's a tough area to succeed in. Grading standards do seem to be stiffer on vintage in the last several months but I'd suggest getting a few 9, 8 and 7 cards together and a BIG magnifier and really comparing them.
Anyway, to clarify a few things ... This is not my first submission. I started submitting back in January and this is about my 10th submission. Before I started submitting, I did my homework. I purchased about 100 PSA 8 graded commons off eBay during November and December 2003. I carefully studied these cards and compared what I saw to PSA's written grading standard for a PSA 8. Using the same 40x lighted microscope and PSA 8 written standards, I did my first 50-card submission in January 2004. 50% of the cards that I thought would be PSA 8's did come back as PSA 8's and the majority of others came back as PSA 7's (with a couple of 6's that I missed something on). OK, taking what I read on this board at the time, this was the start of my learning curve, I figured.
I became even more careful with my submissions in February 2004, but I started seeing my percentage of 8's dropping to 40%, then to 30%. It was getting worse, not better, with "experience." My own standards didn't change and the type of cards I was submitting (low pop vintage commons) was the same. On THIS submission, my percentage hit an all time low of 20% (10 PSA 8's out of 50 cards) and more 6's and 5's than ever before.
As an aside, I contacted Joe with this concern. he asked that I send some of these cards directly to him so that he could see for himself what I was talking about -- completely reasonable. At the time I contacted him, I had just sold off the last of my previous submissions, so I told him I'd have to wait until I got back my next submission to send cards to him. Well, this submission was checked in on March 16 and it just got grades posted. So now I'll have some to send.
I know this was long (sorry, toppsgun) but I thought I should take the time to explain my position as well as possible.
Scott
Edited to add ... I'll post a couple of pics shortly.
Scott
1962 Jim Gentile --- Snow around the hat, borderline L-R centering, slight touch to the bottom right corner.
1961 Ralph Houk --- 4 soft corners (especially the bottom left corner), borderline T-B centering.
1960 Johnny Kucks --- 3 soft corners (especially the top and bottom right corners - as pictured in scan), light toning, borderline centering in both directions.
Note: When I mention "borderline centering", I'm not necessarily saying that it's technically outside the PSA 8 guidelines. However, when taking the other flaws mentioned into account, "borderline centering" becomes an issue.
These are not 8's in 7 holders. The '62 Gentile is a strong 7 but it's not an 8. The other cards aren't even close to being 8's. The '62 Gentile is the only card pictured that has strong enough corners for the PSA 8 grade.
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
Edited to add: The surfaces are all 100% clean and glossy with no scratches -- tilted to a high intensity lamp to check.
Scott
<< <i>Reid...I am not going to dispute a grade via a scan, but I disagree with your assessments on the borderline centering...those cards are centered fine for psa standards for an 8. We can't see minor things like possible surface scratches, etc, from a scan, so I do not know what the grades should be, but again, centering is not an issue with these cards. >>
Grillo,
As I stated:
Note: When I mention "borderline centering", I'm not necessarily saying that it's technically outside the PSA 8 guidelines. However, when taking the other flaws mentioned into account, "borderline centering" becomes an issue.
In 3 of the 4 cards pictured, one does not even need to look beyond the corners to know that these are not PSA 8 quality cards. The '62 Gentile has corners that are strong enough for the PSA 8 grade. However, the print snow around the hat and the borderline centering will keep it out of the PSA 8 holder. With the '62 Gentile, borderline centering is an issue.
<< <i>Reid...I am not going to dispute a grade via a scan, but I disagree with your assessments on the borderline centering...those cards are centered fine for psa standards for an 8. We can't see minor things like possible surface scratches, etc, from a scan, so I do not know what the grades should be, but again, centering is not an issue with these cards. >>
I agree there is nothing wrong with the centering on these cards. Based on the cards I received back about a month ago your grades look very similar to mine. I submitted a 62 Mathews with centering as good as your Gentile and sharper corners it too came back a seven. If you tilt the card under bright light is has a few very light printing hickeys in the background I didn't notice before I submitted. Based upon the grades I received I now have new found respect for PSA 7's.
The Lynch has some annoying print dots in the pink nameplate area and there appears to be a rubber band notch on the right edge midway down. But I'd still send that one back for a second try before giving up. Put it in with some solid 7 material and you might "slide" an 8.
Gentile has too much noise on the surface and Kucks has too much tilt to deserve 8's.
So, I'd say all are solid 7's. A bit harsh maybe, but I don't think the grades are grossly out of line. I had a similar experience at the Anaheim National. I turned in an invoice of 100 '65's from my raw set and got hammered. I complained and got maybe two grades changed. Later that summer I cherry picked some raw cards at the San Francisco Labor Day show, being more careful. I did much, much better and my trust was restored. After about 2,000 to 3,000 cards, you'll get the hang of it and get used to some disappointments along the way.
I remember the '65 Charlie Smith you found at the Tri-Star show and posted here thinking is was an 8 or 9. When it came back 7 and you posted a pic, I was stunned at how far o/c it was. I would have been happy with a 7 on that one.
These are all nice cards. I think corners are high on the graders' priority list. Sometimes the cards came new from the pack with the corners you have. However, a soft corner automatically makes "8" the highest grade you can get. Then, the other areas are scrutinized. Any chip on a 1962 is punished.
Overall, I think the problem a lot of people are having now is PSA has actually become more skilled and consistent in terms of grades. In the Baker days when the company was trying to attract customers, there were a lot more sliders. We all have them in our collection. Immediately, the worst 8 or 7 or 6 becomes our standard for the grade. Thus, when you put new submissions up against the sliders, they seem to be sure to make the higher grade.
This presents some interesting decisions. The foremost being I'd rather buy cards that have been graded recently. The older slabs err on the side of leniency. I think card values might actually start to reflect serial numbers due to this. The other problem is moving up the set registry is going to be much more difficult. The first in have a huge advantage. You're not going to want to purchase sliders to raise your average. I know people that do, but we're all after the best card we can find.
The positive side of this is PSA 7 and even PSA 6 cards will start to get the respect they deserve. 50 year old pieces of cardboard are still amazing even if they have a tiny flaw. Who knew these cards would eventually be worth anything? Vintage stuff in PSA 7 is nothing to sneeze at. In fact, vintage material in PSA 5 and PSA 4 will most likely start appreciating. I collect 1933 Goudey cards. A PSA 5 card from this set is really dazzling in my opinion.
Scott, I don't know what it means to you, but I feel good about doing some writing since my current script is stalled out.
Best,
S.
Why don't you just crack some out and try again? If you feel good about the cards then do it. If not, then let me know when you're offering them on eBay, because I might just buy a few to give it a whirl just out of curiosity's sake. I have a submission that's just shy of 50 cards, and a few crackouts would put me over the top.
"A PSA NM-MT 8 is a super high-end card that appears Mint 9 at first glance, but upon closer inspection, the card can exhibit the following: a very slight wax stain on reverse, slightest fraying at one or two corners, a minor printing imperfection, and/or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse."
Note that the standard, as stated, says "... the card can exhibit the following ..." It does NOT say "... the card can exhibit ONE OF the following." Thus, even if we conclude that there is "slightest fraying" on two of four corners AND there is a "minor printing imperfection" (i.e. VERY light snow or a couple of "print dots"), how does that combination knock a well-centered card from an 8 to a 7 ???
I still maintain that if I compare these four cards (and others among the 35 non-8's from the 50-card submission) to the PSA 8's I bought in November and December 2003, I can see no appreciable difference. Soembody suggested an "increased consistency" at PSA since an old regime. I guess I'm not understanding the definition of "consistency" in that context. If what used to be an 8 is now a 7, how can that be defined as "consistency" ???
If, as many have said, these are 7's today -- Why were similar cards 8's six months ago?
Scott
<< <i>But Scott, that's the way I've found it to work. It says "wear on one or two corners", I believe. That's ambiguous, I think intentionally. I've found if there's two frayed corners, then the card needs to be strong elsewhere; if there's one, then you can have some other little flaws and still get it through. Maybe cards that you got 8s on before were leniently graded at that point in time, and now they're back to a more stringent grading philosophy. >>
That's all well and good, but I'm interested in SELLING the cards I search for, find, and submit for grading. The market is not going to pay a PSA 8 price for an 8 level card is a PSA 7 holder -- that's cold hard fact. Of course, perhaps the market will catch up with the "more stringent grading philosophy" in time, but how long would that take, if ever? I admit it openly -- Part of my business is done trying to "feed" the people collecting PSA graded sets. If the grading standards have ups and downs like you're suggesting, doesn't that hurt both dealers (who can't submit high grade cards for fear of getting 7's) and collectors (who can't buy what isn't there)?
Scott
* A proper size of a card is not guessed at, it's measured with a tool. It's either the right size or it's not."
Dead wrong in this one Larry as those of us who collect real Vintage cards( pre1940*),know that the alleged size for many issues have NO "correct" size as the quality control and methods of cutting the cards gives room for lots of tolerance to what might otherwise be standard for the issue. Many,many E-caramel cards have measurements "off"the standard for the set.
BD, I stand corrected.
Larry
email....emards4457@msn.com
CHEERS!!
I don't think complete uniformity can be attained. These are humans that are grading the cards. What I think is, most registry collectors know that there's some play between the grades, where sometimes there's overlap as to what card gets what grade, and they accept this. As far as the submitters' profit or loss goes, I think PSA doesn't care at all. Nor should they.
Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay UserId : sjeanblanc
----------------------------------------------
Collecting Nolan Ryan cards (68-94)
I think it is just a "vast right-wing" grading conspiracy against you.