New PSA Pricing. Close but no cigar?

Remobolan

First off I love PSA, I have many sets in the set registry and intend to continue to collect, purchase and submit psa cards, however, I think they still missed the target with their new pricing for us the individual vintage set registry collectors. Here's why I think that. I collect 1962, 1969 and 1971 Football. For me to pay $15 to take a chance of a common card making the grade that I collect in my set is crazy. I always wait for the "specials" to send in my commons and low priced stars. I would think that since the Set Registry is such a huge part of PSA's appeal to the average collector that they could come up with a catagory to help people participate in their programs. I know that the $15 service level has a 10 day turn time but speed is not important to most of us price is, I don't know about you but the cost of the hobby is killing me.

Maybe a catagory like: Set Registry Rate; Any card valued at less than $20 could be graded for $6 with a 45 day turn around time. To get this rate you would need to submit with the order the name of the set this card would be considered for. That would keep big dealers from using this program and give us a break.

I am happy with the no stars catagory being removed but it does not make me want to submit more cards at those rates.

I think this would also have an effect of PSA's turn time. Instead of getting slammed when they run specials maybe the submission rate would level out.

I also have one more thing to bring up that really smokes me. When a dealer buys a set registry set and enters it in the set registry again just to get their name in the registry and then turns around and sells it, I think that sucks!! I think sets should have to be listed for at least 2 or 3 months before they could be included in the all time best sets. Anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone agrees with me.

qualitycards

<< <i>Maybe a catagory like: Set Registry Rate; Any card valued at less than $20 could be graded for $6 with a 45 day turn around time >>


REM - Most of the higher priced categories took the biggest increase like the Premium service at $150 for cards valued over $10,000.
The rates you propose can be done if you just wait and get a little bit of quantity. Its $6 per card for the vintage bulk (1960-1971) w/ a minimum of 50 cards, for cards valued at $75 or less (stars included).
In case you don't have 50 to submit, I'm sure another collector or 2 can add cards to your submission to get to that level. You'll each save $9. per card from the $15 fee, so its something to consider...jay

HECK55

<< <i>Most of the higher priced categories took the biggest increase like the Premium service at $150 for cards valued over $10,000.The rates you propose can be done if you just wait and get a little bit of quantity. Its $6 per card for the vintage bulk (1960-1971) w/ a minimum of 50 cards, for cards valued at $75 or less (stars included). >>



This works OK for people working on 60 - 71 sets. But this did nothing for those of us working with 1953 and earlier in a lot of the sets. If you look at the 53 Topps and 53 Bowman Color and 52 Topps (baseball) you will see that all cards in PSA 8 are over the "new" $75.00 or less declared value stipulation.
(removal of the commons versus stars issue on trading card submissions)
As long as your star cards are dogs you might be OK I guess - if they grade less than PSA 6 potential maybe.

The old 53 and earlier bulk is $8 a card (no star players) 25 card min.
The new is $10 a card bulk for the same service type - any card with a declared value of $75 or less.

100 cards before = $800 while now it is $1000 to do the same 100 cards in bulk. I sure don't want to do the regular $15 a card sevice. I too am not that interested super fast turnaround!

If you take the low side on Beckett for 53 Topps - #54 Bob Feller it is the lowest listed value card at $90. In the SMR it is $510 in PSA 8. It is $70 in PSA 5. So unless you want to undervalue your star and common cards or send in beat up dogs to be graded we are still limited the same as before.
Maybe I have this all wrong but that is how it looks to me. Rick

qualitycards

HECK - I was addressing REM's situation since he's collecting a '62, '69 & '71 set.
Your scenerio is indeed a different story, and thus more costly...jay

fur72

What I am excited about is there will be no more Stars vs. Commons debate. Its all estimated value now. I think that alone will help 1960's collectors in the long haul.

qualitycards

<< <i>Its all estimated value now >>


FUR - That should make it more easier.
Then again the submitters perception of value will come into play.
You can submit mid grade Mantle's and they can be under $75, but if the
grades are higher and you graded them conservatively, their values
will exceed the $75. It will be interesting to see how this plays out...jay

HECK55

I am thinking maybe PSA could find some other ways to increase revenue other than jacking us up on prices.

1) Maybe PSA could consider the coupon thing? Wife clips some coupons and goes to the local grocery store with them. The coupons are for the store down the street. But the local store will accept them in their store to keep her from going down the street and spending her money there.

You and I buy a subscription to "Beckett" baseball price guide and get a coupon for two free card gradings - or maybe some of use baseball, football and basketball Becketts and get two free grading coupons for each guide.

How about PSA lets us use these "Beckett" coupons at PSA? Maybe even make it where you have to send in a card to have graded along with each free one so for say six Beckett coupons you are getting twelve cards graded but using coupons for six and paying for six?
PSA keeps the competition from getting to grade six cards plus they get six more that they might not have gotten to grade in the first place.
I don't mind using my coupons at Beckett - I would just rather do buisness at PSA.

2) Crossover service. I have never done this but the pricing appears to be you pay the same for a crossover as you would a raw card (that tier or service level prices).
Maybe just make it a straight $5 a card for crossovers - maybe make it a 5 or 10 card minimum to make it worth thier while. Again - they keep the PSA name out there and at the same time delete one of the competition's holders from the market.

3) A little far fetched maybe here - but how about putting a "Bounty" on competitor's card grading holders. Turn in an empty Beckett, GAI or SGC holder for each card submitted and get a buck or two off for each card graded at PSA.

On the "New Pricing" on the 1953 and earlier cards: I see the monthly set special as probably being $8 a card instead of $10 which just puts it back to where we already are before the new prices. But then they came around rarely for this service so maybe they will offer them more often now. I guess if guys doing 60's sets benefit at least it will be good for some people.

Rick

JusttheFacts

I like the move as there is now a closer tie between the grading fee and the actual value of the cards. As a collector of football and hockey, it didn't make sense to submit many "stars" (if translated to mean HOF) at the higher grading level because many "stars" were not valued at much more than a common. In contrast, there were many baseball sets in which the commons had a higher value than "stars" of the same year in football and hockey. I agree it stinks if you are collecting 53 and earlier but those cards have more value (in general) than the later cards.

Although the new pricing eliminates the "stars" vs commons guessing game, I'm not sure that using declared value is the solution. Since the submitter can list any value as the declared value, someone might just list a declared value of $75 or less even though the card is likely to have a higher value. I think the best solution would have been to use the PSA 8 SMR value (at least for post-WWII) regardless of the actual condition of the card. That eliminates questions and guesswork (and manipulation). Also, I would have used $100 or less as the cutoff.

Overall, I like the move even though I think it could be improved.

John

Fletch1750

The price structure for PSA is still much lower than that of PSA / DNA where anything decent will cost you a Benny Franklin.

mcastaldi

I agree that the new pricing is a step in the right direction. The new pricing is definitely more reflective of the value of the cards being graded. However, as it's been mentioned, I think the Vintage Bulk pricing is a bit too restrictive. I'd change it as follows -

1953 & Earlier (min order @ 25 cards - declared value of $150 or less) -- $10
1954 - 1959 (min order 50 cards - declared value of $100 or less) -- $7
1960 - 1971 (min order 50 cards - declared value of $75 or less) -- $6

I understand that no pricing structure is going to make EVERYONE happy, I think it wouldn't take much to make a lot more vintage (esp. pre-1953) collectors happy.

Mike