Home PSA Set Registry Forum

Coin Submissions

I picked up some really nice 62/3 Shirriff coins. I know PSA grades these (though I have never seen one) because they are in the pop report. Do you send these in with a regular card submission or do they have to go on a seperate invoice...anyone have any insight.
If it's worth doing..It's worth overdoing!!

Comments

  • VirtualizardVirtualizard Posts: 1,936 ✭✭
    I have submitted them with other "regular" cards in the past (and they were graded), but the new rules state that you have to submit them on separate invoices. I don't know why and I wish that someone at PSA would explain this to me.

    JEB.
  • SDSportsFanSDSportsFan Posts: 5,136 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Isn't one of PSA's rules that you can only put like-holdered items on the same invoice?

    In other words, if you have two items, and they won't fit in the same size holders, then you have to submit on separate invoices?

    Basically, PSA has what, four different size holders?

    1. Normal size for the regular cards
    2. "Tall-boys" for 1965 Topps FB and hockey, '76 topps BkB, T201/T202 and the 1970's disks
    3. Large holders for T3's
    4. Coin holders

    I know that PSA holders the coins (Topps, Salada, P2, etc.) in PCGS coin holders.

    Steve
  • VirtualizardVirtualizard Posts: 1,936 ✭✭


    << <i>Isn't one of PSA's rules that you can only put like-holdered items on the same invoice?

    In other words, if you have two items, and they won't fit in the same size holders, then you have to submit on separate invoices?... >>




    Yes, but why? How can this be a burden to PSA? Why can't these be submitted together? I have asked similar questions over and over, and I've never received a response. I think PSA is doing itself a disservice by NOT allowing these to be submitted together. I just sent out a small 20 card submission today. I would have included more (coins, tallboys for example), but I don't know if I'll ever be able to pull together enough of these to submit. Maybe SGC or GAI will allow it? I'll have to check.

    JEB.
  • mudflap02mudflap02 Posts: 2,060 ✭✭
    Jeb-

    I agree with you - with the exception of the T3 holder, tall boys should be able to be included on a submission with normal cards. I realize the holders are a little bigger, and may each cost PSA an extra few cents, but I think they should be able to make this concession for us. However, a misconception that I had was that tall boys had to be submitted in groups of 25 or more. This is not the case - you can submit an order as small as you would like, but it costs $10 per card. With a submission of 25 or more, the price drops to $8 apiece. I'd just like to be able to submit 4 or 5 discs with a bulk order. If I'm dropping over $600 on grading, I don't think that a few tall boys thrown in is too much to ask.
  • SDSportsFanSDSportsFan Posts: 5,136 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I agree with you to a large extent also JEB. I don't know the rationale myself, but consider this:

    I submitted several cards around Christmas of last year, including a few T206s, a T202 Moriarty/Cobb and a T3 Cobb. I was told, because I called PSA several times when the T3 was late being graded and returned, that the T3's were not slabbed on site. PSA had to send them to another location for slabbing. They were waiting for a few other T3s to be ready for slabbing, so that their costs would be lowered. If I remember correctly, PSA was being charged $100 per lot, regardless of the number of T3's being slabbed...so basically the minimum # of T3s they would send in one batch was three. I don't know if this is still the case or not.

    I don't know about the "tall boys" or the coins, but might PSA have to send the coins across to PCGS for slabbing? I would imagine that PSA slabs the "tall boys" on-site, considering the numbers they must receive for grading/incapsulation.

    But anyway, if they have to send cards to different locations depending on what size holder they require, then that could easily explain the requirement for separate invoices. They simply don't want to have separate sizes combined on the same invoice, thereby delaying the process and adding to the tracking involved, and possibly adding too many chances for mistakes and/or loss of OUR collectibles.

    Just my theoryimage


    Steve
  • Not to be a cynic, but I think they make you submit on a different invoice so they can hose you for shipping.

    Recently I gathered up everything I was going to get graded. Between tickets, tall boys, vintage and others, I had well over $120.00 just in return shipping. Obviously, not everything's getting graded.
  • VirtualizardVirtualizard Posts: 1,936 ✭✭


    << <i>Not to be a cynic, but I think they make you submit on a different invoice so they can hose you for shipping... >>




    I always thought the shipping rates were high, but yesterday I sent the smallest submission I've ever sent (other than the annual 6 cards) - 20 cards. I shipped them USPS Registered insured for the amount that I declared, and the shipping cost was within a few cents of what PSA charges for return shipping, so they're not making any money on it. Maybe 20 cards at $500 insured is the break even point, as it seems that I've always paid less to ship to PSA than I have been charged for return shipping on larger submissions. Any other thoughts or experiences?


    Steve,

    Maybe you're correct about coins, T3s, etc. going offsite for encapsulation (actually, I've heard the same about the T3s), but I feel that it creates a negative image of PSA for not allowing different issues to be combined on one submission form, especially when they are so vague about what can and cannot be graded or shipped together on the same submission. IMO, PSA should allow any and all cards to be submitted together under a certain service level. If it costs them more for some cards, hide the costs somewhere like raising s&h charges. Oh yeah, they already did that this year - even though postal rates did not increase! image

    Somehow, they need to create better PR for their faithful clients or they are going to start losing some. It's ashame that the best thing going seems to be doing nothing to remain "the best thing going". image

    Just my opinion.

    JEB.
Sign In or Register to comment.