New Pricing as of Jan just posted!
packCollector
Posts: 2,786 ✭✭✭
psa new pricing
they eliminated the economy service so the cheapest non common , non modern service is now $15. I think it is going to be a lot tougher to justify submitting any mid grade vintage cards at that price.
they eliminated the economy service so the cheapest non common , non modern service is now $15. I think it is going to be a lot tougher to justify submitting any mid grade vintage cards at that price.
0
Comments
Now I have a real reason for them not to get my business. Say NO to plastic premiums for vintage commons and stick with raw.
They still have the bulk common discount for all years.
PSA , you did a good thing with the extended Nov. CC special, you screwed up big time here.
Now collecting:
Topps Heritage
1957 Topps BB Ex+-NM
All Yaz Items 7+
Various Red Sox
Did I leave anything out?
Look for "Frazier Graded" commons from the 70's & 80's coming soon to the graded cards category on eBay. You'll be really happy with the condition and the cards will be consistent. If you like what you buy, buy more.
Do you realize that a 400 card set would cost better than 5 grand just to GRADE it???...$15 bones per card--absolutely ridiculous.
dgf
Now collecting:
Topps Heritage
1957 Topps BB Ex+-NM
All Yaz Items 7+
Various Red Sox
Did I leave anything out?
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
ECONOMY
$10 per card
Cards with a declared value of under $500. Excludes autographed cards. 30 BUSINESS DAYS Guaranteed*
is this, what is being eliminated?
They must think that it will drive up the price of a vintage common, creating more demand, and we will send more in anyways. Even if average priced realized it a bit higher, people will continue to gamble and send their cards in. Collectors universe, more like collector inferno.....
www.somnifacient.us
Owner of a small, but growing (slowly), 1977 Topps Baseball PSA 8+ Set (currently for sale on eBay, username somnifac)
How does this negatively affect vintage commons?
<< <i>I guess I must be reading something wrong.
How does this negatively affect vintage commons? >>
I believe it is in this way. You can buy NM vintage 1960s commons from Mickey for $2-3 or you can buy NM vintage 1960s commons for $10-12 that are in plastic slabs. Now I would suspect the latter price range will be $14-16. I think this will cause the supply of slabbed graded commons to go down and therefore the demand from those brave enough to want to play the Registry game will go up. I think the sentiment is that paying a 2-10x premium for a NM slab will now become a 3-15x premium.
The bulk rates are identical and the $10/card rate still applies to commons? At least the way I read it.
the 6.00 45 day service remains the same. that is the service i would think is most beneficial for the masses.
edited to add:
ahh...but I see it is by appointment only
Im not sure I would want my name on a slab even if I had a card worthy of it. I would think it would be more difficult to sell.
Watch out, all you xmas card senders. I hear the postoffice is charging 42 cents to mail a red or green envelope with black lettering vs. 37 cents for a white envelope with black lettering....
And I talked to the guy at the valet the other day. He says he charges $5 for yellow cars and only $2 for silver cars. Appearantly, yellow cars are much harder to park than silver ones.
Oh, and did I tell you about the ......
-- You mean the maddeningly inconsistent grading wasn't enough to bring you to this point on its own??
Magellan> "Maybe it's time to rethink the entire graded vs. raw issue. At the cost of slabbing lower priced stars now, it's not economically feasible to expect anywhere near break even if you wish to sell unless your grade is at least a 9.
-- Some of us have already been rethinking graded vs. raw, my friend. To address your second point. . .if the only way grading is going to make sense for you is to achieve a very inconsistently awared 9 or 10, why play the game? When your minimum acceptable standard is the same as the best case scenario, why bother?
Mike
<< <i>I still don't understand why it costs more to grade a "star" vs. a common? A card is a card, regardless of the picture of the player. It shouldn't take any additional time nor involve additional cost for slabbing.
Watch out, all you xmas card senders. I hear the postoffice is charging 42 cents to mail a red or green envelope with black lettering vs. 37 cents for a white envelope with black lettering....
And I talked to the guy at the valet the other day. He says he charges $5 for yellow cars and only $2 for silver cars. Appearantly, yellow cars are much harder to park than silver ones.
Oh, and did I tell you about the ...... >>
I think this is a great question. Has PSA ever given a reasoning behind it? I feel also that you grade a card the same, whether it has Mickey Mantle on it or John Smith. Do they spend extra time on a star card? If so, that will raise a lot of eyebrows...
Not sure I understand how this effects commons since the $6 bulk still applies to non-stars. The only price increase is for star cards, which will cost $15 minimum. I don't mind paying a little more for stars since there is greater likelyhood of doctoring, but $15 seems a little steep. And exactly how do you define 'star'? Is Hugh McElhenny a star? Better not be.
CJ
B. The actual grading process should be the same for a 53 Mantle as for a 56 Mossi.
However the potential liability in handling the Mantle is far greater than the common Mossi. Lost in the shipping room, damaged by an employee, more forms to fill for higher insurance, an improper grade ( it is possible ) resulting in greater refund value, and so forth. It is more costly to "make right" the star card rather than the common if some problem does arise. Thus a bit higher fee to accept the star for grading is somewhat reasonable.
If you're building a set on the registry and submitting literally dozens of these cards from a set , the cost has just gotten exponentially larger.
I'd like to finish my sets , I'm over 80% on my '69 set. Even buying off eBay and not submitting my own, I believe the grading fee increase is going to drive up prices on eBay too.
Mike probably has it right, I'm still contemplating what to do for my card fix.
Dave
Now collecting:
Topps Heritage
1957 Topps BB Ex+-NM
All Yaz Items 7+
Various Red Sox
Did I leave anything out?
<< <i>Buccaneer> "Now I have a real reason for them not to get my business. Say NO to plastic premiums for vintage commons and stick with raw."
-- You mean the maddeningly inconsistent grading wasn't enough to bring you to this point on its own??
Mike >>
Mike, I know but in trying to build 5 vintage sets at once, I am looking to paying money for cards, not plastic holders for the bulk of the sets. Anyone can be inconsistent on grading but it's the premium that gets me. For instance, I just bought over 100 raw stars and commons from Mick (mostly 63 and 65). Most of those were at or below Beckett Low. It just boggles my mind what I would had to pay if these $2-$4.50 commons (for example) were in plastic slabs instead of UltraPro sheets. Also, it's not very often that I would pick up raw star cards but how can one resist not paying $33.50 for a NM 1963 Buc Blasters or $29 for a NM 1963 B. Robinson? I have said this before but I trust Mick and Meg, as well as many here do. All of those $2+ commons I picked up are NM. Why would I pay PSA $8-15 each to have them tell me the same thing?
<< <i>A. Stars are defined as those players individually listed in the current SMR, and yes hustling Hugh Mac is a star, for the 57 set at least. >>
jaxxr: I'm not sure this is absolutely correct, at least under the current system. PSA will grade cards at the common level that are individually listed. The rule of thumb I have seen and used is that the SMR PSA 8 value of the card should not be more than double the common PSA 8 value. Using 1957 Topps Football as an example, common singles 1-88 in PSA 8 are listed at $25. Then you have a card such a Jack Butler listed at $35. Is Jack Butler a star? I hope not, at least for grading purposes. Even a HOF like MikeMcCormack lists at $35. If the $15 service must be used for such cards, it will not be cost effective to submit the vast majority of indivudally listed cards.
I wish PSA would simply state an objective rule as to what cards may be submitted as "commons" (such as the no more than twice the common price in PSA 8 rule). That would eliminate the confusion, and also seems to be an appropriate cutoff in terms of the market in terms of the cost effectiveness of grading.
John
<< <i>P.S.A. = Plastic Slab Aristocracy
Now I have a real reason for them not to get my business. Say NO to plastic premiums for vintage commons and stick with raw. >>
Everyone say bye to buccaneer as i feel with this comment he wont be with us on the forum much longer!
Revenue will go down some as a result, but not proportionately ... because some of it will be made up by the higher fee for the most common service. This would allow them to reduce staff (or overtime, as the case may be).
Just a theory, of course. Meanwhile, I guess we have until Jan. 1 to use the $5 modern and the $12 five-day specials. And then we see exactly how much submissions will drop off, and how PSA will respond. How much you wanna bet that GAI, SGC and Beckett come up with great specials to grab collectors after the New Year?
With regards to the actual topic. . .price increase on vintage stars. It doesn't affect the commons except to make people wonder why it costs more to grade stars vs. commons. In a way, I think PSA's move is pretty shrewd - not necessarily smart, but shrewd. Think about it for a second. What's been one best niches in the card market for the past year or so? It's been mid-grade stars from the 50s and before. The market for PSA5s and 6s from the 50s have generally been pretty good. PSA has seen a rise in demand for grading of these cards, so they're adjusting their pricing schedule to take advantage of that. I have to believe that on some level, PSA understands that such a move will affect volume as submitters become more selective about which cards now deserve to be submitted.
Mike
However, the costs for common grading, including bulk, has remained the same, with the exception of one huge improvement.
Now the guaranteed time for the $10 service has improved from 30 days to 10 days.
As most of my submissions are vintage commons, there is a little more incentive for me to pay the extra $2 if I get my cards (at a minimum) 35 days faster than the bulk submission time. Thats 7 working weeks. Before, there was only a 15 day difference.
This does not seem well thought out. Does anyone know if GAI or SGC offer the equivalent of Economy service for less than $15?
Setbuilders Sports Cards
Ebay: set-builders & set-builders2
star card
A card featuring a star player. In vintage material, a star card is usually a Hall of Fame member, while in modern material it is the players who dominate sports media and national advertising campaigns.
So does this mean that if it is not a HOF'er, it can be submitted as a common? Maybe they should give a concrete definition of "Star Player" so we know what will be excluded.
Scott
T-205 Gold PSA 4 & up
1967 Topps BB PSA 8 & up
1975 Topps BB PSA 9 & up
1959 Topps FB PSA 8 & up
1976 Topps FB PSA 9 & up
1981 Topps FB PSA 10
1976-77 Topps BK PSA 9 & up
1988-89 Fleer BK PSA 10
3,000 Hit Club RC PSA 5 & Up
My Sets
<< <i>
<< <i>P.S.A. = Plastic Slab Aristocracy
Now I have a real reason for them not to get my business. Say NO to plastic premiums for vintage commons and stick with raw. >>
Everyone say bye to buccaneer as i feel with this comment he wont be with us on the forum much longer! >>
I stay around because this particular forum has the best collection of baseball cards experts and fans. I enjoy that. What I have vocally rejected in my usual curmudgeonly way is the commoditization of baseball cards that graded slabs have made them (buying the holder, not the card). When one talks about a card or a set (like the wonderful 1955 set thread), it should be irrelevant whether they are in an expensive plastic slab or in an inexpensive sheet or One Touch. But because of the expensive competition that the Registry has engineered in set building, those with raw cards or sets need not belong in a card collecting forum. That is tragic.
But, I think the attempt to crack down on the commons by saying no star players is ridiculous and petty. I regularly insert marginal players in my common orders, and never have they said a word. Why should I have to pay $15 to have a 1967 card of Luis Aparicio (who would technically be classified as a star since he's in the HOF) graded (SMR $27 in 8), but if I wanted a 1967 Mickey Stanley graded(who is as common as common gets but has an SMR of $125 in 8), it would be $6 as long as I could find at least 49 other cards to submit with it.
And, another problem... what's a premium common and how will it be determined? If I have a 1969 Topps Mike Shannon (which is a very difficult card) and I think it's a candidate for a 8, which would easily make it worth somewhere in the vicinity of $100-200, is it a premium common, when if it grades a 7, it's worth $20-40? Or are Ken Boyer's mid & late 60's cards considered stars, since he is listed in SMR for his first couple years, and again in 1967 because he's a high number, or are they considered premium commons even though they're worth the same as any other standard population common from any particular year, or are they just commons?
Bottom line - this is way too much thought process for any customer to have to go through if they want to do business with a company. I'll admit, I still think $6-15 is pretty reasonable to have a valuable card expert authenticated and graded, considering how much authenticating and/or grading costs for other collectables, especially art. But, marginal cards will never find their way into PSA slabs in the future - that business will now go to GAI or SGC or even BVG.
I can see from reading their financials why they are making these changes. They already charge significantly more for coin service than for cards, yet they grade only 16% more units of coins than cards, but the coins represent nearly 70% of their revenue, while cards only represent 25%. Plus, they have seen more coin submissions lately because we have been in a recessionary economy over the past year and a half, during which period, people are more likely to purchase precious metals, which led to higher submissions to PCCG. That trend is likely to change as interest rates continue to increase in the near future. CU will have to rely more heavily on PSA in the future, which is why we will likely see even higher grading costs down the road, and the value of 6-7 graded cards of star players should increase slightly to separate them from the price of raw cards that would grade the same, but haven't been expert authenticated and graded.
What a pain in the butt the whole thing is.
However . . . .
>>> but if I wanted a 1967 Mickey Stanley graded(who is as common as common gets . . .
I resemble that remark. There's been a lot of common players wear the ol' English D (especially in the last 15 years), but Mickey Stanley was the man
<< <i>I still don't understand why it costs more to grade a "star" vs. a common? A card is a card, regardless of the picture of the player. It shouldn't take any additional time nor involve additional cost for slabbing >>
I think I know why PSA charges more to slab a star card than a common. PSA guarantees all of their grades and if a grade is incorrect they will buy the card back. They take a huge hit everytime they have to do that, especialy on bigger cards. Think of PSA's guarantee as an insurance policy. If they have to buy back a 1978 Topps PSA 9 because it has a crease in it, then no big deal, therefore their liability for that grade is minimal. If they have to buy back a Hank Aaron RC PSA 8 because it has rounded corners, then they lose their butt on it making their liability higher for those type of cards. It's the same sort of business model as an auto insurance policy.
Does that make sense?
Mike
<< <i> I wonder if this is a deliberate business decision to discourage grading of commons and minor stars. Perhaps PSA has decided its best move in the marketplace right now is to grade fewer inexpensive cards. >>
No way that could be the case. Grading inexpensive commons and minor stars is exactly why PSA runs (and recently upgraded) the Registry. It creates a whole new area of business, when it is realistic to expect that at some point, there simply won't be as many vintage star cards to grade anymore. Then what? I believe PSA should encourage the grading of lower value cards, as a form of continued revenue for them.
All these numbers are just guesses on my part but I'm just using them as examples.
Ctsoxfan has hit the nail on the head
A business can grow it's revenue in 2 ways, do more business or increase fees. PSA has opted to increase fees. This is a short term solution, but I feel Ctsoxfan has the better long term solution. The 2 main areas of future growth are modern cards (which PSA needs to challenge Beckett on) and coming up with a service level where collectors would want to grade their lower grade vintage.
When we talk of vintage drying up, I think collectors are referring to NM/MT and MT (8 and 9) graded cards. There is plenty of lower/collector grade (PSA 4-6) cards that can tapped for grading. I wouldn't mind paying $5-$8 to grade those type of cards, but it's just not viable at $15.
Hopefully PSA will see this and adjust their business model accordingly.