Take a look at the PSA 10 I just bought....
CDsNuts
Posts: 10,092 ✭
Another 4SC gem:
As I told a board member, I could submit this card 5,000 times in my 100 card subs and not receive a 10. 55/45 TB- ok. 60/40 RL- ugh. Plus, there's a black dot in the middle bottom border that doesn't show well on the scan. To be honest, I didn't even look at the scan before bidding, so I really can't complain about the purchase.
At this point, no one can compellingly convince me that the bulk sub graders look at the cards for more than 5-10 seconds. Do I believe the bulk submitters get intentional preferential treatment when it comes to grades? No, not really. I think it's more a function of graders being human. Let's look at the situation rationally:
You're a grader that gets paid $12/hr. Not the greatest job, but not the worst. You enjoy cards but aren't an avid collector. Every day, you have to mow through 1000-10,000 card subs of mostly cards that are worth less than a quarter raw, so the work isn't that thrilling. You have to continue to focus on a goal with each sub, which logically would be to finish off that particular sub so you can say in your mind "Finally done with order 46876652". In order to reach that goal, you're going to have to mow through a seemingly endless amount of cards. Should your attention to detail be as accurate as the guy who grades 50 card subs? Of course. Will it realistically be? Probably not. So the minute details that distinguish between a card being a 9 or 10 (a slightly touched corner, a small print mark, slight off-centering, etc....) get lost. I believe this is why we see more less than perfect PSA 10s in the bulk submitter's ebay stores.
I know what you're thinking: "Regardless of how many cards get graded, each one should have to be held to the same standard." Very true, however you're looking at it through the eyes of a collector while the grader is looking at it as just another task to complete. Here's an analogy to get you out of the mindset of a card collector:
You own a restaurant and have 2 dishwashers. Both make the same amount of money and both have been trained properly. One guy works the busy dinner rush, while the other guy works the slow times. Naturally, it makes sense that the dishes washed by the dinner rush guy will not be as spotless because he has a much larger workload and just wants to finish the job, while the slow period guy can focus more on whether each dish is being cleaned properly because he has that luxury. Should the dishes be spotless regardless of who is washing them or when they are being washed? Of course. But are they?
Just some thoughts.
Lee
Edited off centering. 65/35 was too harsh. More like 60/40.
As I told a board member, I could submit this card 5,000 times in my 100 card subs and not receive a 10. 55/45 TB- ok. 60/40 RL- ugh. Plus, there's a black dot in the middle bottom border that doesn't show well on the scan. To be honest, I didn't even look at the scan before bidding, so I really can't complain about the purchase.
At this point, no one can compellingly convince me that the bulk sub graders look at the cards for more than 5-10 seconds. Do I believe the bulk submitters get intentional preferential treatment when it comes to grades? No, not really. I think it's more a function of graders being human. Let's look at the situation rationally:
You're a grader that gets paid $12/hr. Not the greatest job, but not the worst. You enjoy cards but aren't an avid collector. Every day, you have to mow through 1000-10,000 card subs of mostly cards that are worth less than a quarter raw, so the work isn't that thrilling. You have to continue to focus on a goal with each sub, which logically would be to finish off that particular sub so you can say in your mind "Finally done with order 46876652". In order to reach that goal, you're going to have to mow through a seemingly endless amount of cards. Should your attention to detail be as accurate as the guy who grades 50 card subs? Of course. Will it realistically be? Probably not. So the minute details that distinguish between a card being a 9 or 10 (a slightly touched corner, a small print mark, slight off-centering, etc....) get lost. I believe this is why we see more less than perfect PSA 10s in the bulk submitter's ebay stores.
I know what you're thinking: "Regardless of how many cards get graded, each one should have to be held to the same standard." Very true, however you're looking at it through the eyes of a collector while the grader is looking at it as just another task to complete. Here's an analogy to get you out of the mindset of a card collector:
You own a restaurant and have 2 dishwashers. Both make the same amount of money and both have been trained properly. One guy works the busy dinner rush, while the other guy works the slow times. Naturally, it makes sense that the dishes washed by the dinner rush guy will not be as spotless because he has a much larger workload and just wants to finish the job, while the slow period guy can focus more on whether each dish is being cleaned properly because he has that luxury. Should the dishes be spotless regardless of who is washing them or when they are being washed? Of course. But are they?
Just some thoughts.
Lee
Edited off centering. 65/35 was too harsh. More like 60/40.
0
Comments
Or, quite possibly I am blind.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
I did get some decent grades in my first 100 sub... six 10's (5 84 Donruss and 1 '87 T Rice) and a few 9's. Most of my 72's got 8's, which was ok. A lot of my older superstar and rookie cards got 1-2 grades lower than expected though. Anyway, I now have a loupe, bright light, and digital calipers, so I am hoping for better success this time around (fingers crossed).
All-time favorite athletes:
Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux.
"Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
<< <i>You're a grader that gets paid $12/hr. >>
Considering that decisions made by graders make a major impact on the value of cards, I certainly hope they are making more than $12 an hour. Fatoring in the tedious nature of their job, I would hope they are reeling in at least $20 per hour. At least.
Maybe it is 55/45 but it appears to be at least that OC both ways and a 10 on this card is way more generous than any "gift" 10 I've ever gotten considering the lack of eye appeal. Hell, it might even fall within their standards of a 10, but like I said, there's no way in a million years that I get a 10 on this card in one of my 100 card subs.
Lee
Tedious? Maybe. Depends on their career path. I'm sure there is a natural progression for graders. Hopefully they take their job seriously and my guess is most do. A critical job? Hardly. I can think of a lot of tedious jobs that are a lot more critical than grading baseball cards that are performed by people making the same (or considerably less) amount of money.
Raising their base pay may give them a bit more motivation but salary is not usually the most important factor in determining how well someone performs their job. If PSA does the important things right, like provide a great working environment, hire managers with great people skills and offer a decent career path, then the employees will be motivated. And, if they train their people properly and keep them motivated, we can expect more consistent results. They will always make mistakes but I have not been engaged in this hobby long enough to make a judgment about the overall state of this profession is but it seems like it is not all that bad.
I have the same challenge in the business I am in - video games. Testing games for bugs is a very tedious process and some testers have been doing it for literally years. If they miss critical bugs, it could delay getting a game approved by SONY, Nintendo or Microsoft for weeks. This could easily result in literally hudreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in lost revenue from missing TV ads, to major retailers cancelling orders. Bad news. Talk about an expensive mistake. They make $8 to $15 per hour. But, I have seen little correlation between skill, diligence and salary level. The guy I promoted to head QA and ultimately to head game production was a QA temp making less than any of the full time testers.
Raising grader's salaries won't make them better graders but it will surely make grading cards more expensive. I would rather have the occasional misgraded card than a $12 fee for grading a modern common.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
<< <i>Raising grader's salaries won't make them better graders but it will surely make grading cards more expensive. I would rather have the occasional misgraded card than a $12 fee for grading a modern common. >>
My point is that it takes a decent amount of expertise to discern altered from unaltered, mint from gem mint, spot a surface wrinkle, etc. These are decisions that can sway into the thousands in both directions over time. I'm not advocating a raise for PSA graders. I'm saying I sincerely hope they are already making more than $12 per hour. And I would also think "grader" is not the first rung in the ladder at PSA.
<< <i>Does anyone have any examples of bulk submission results (1000+ cards) from one of the regular bulk submitters? I'd be curious to see how their subs shake out compared to mine overall. >>
Do a cert check starting from this card and going up around 300 cards or so.
I was told that to get the job, it is a series of tests over a 6-12 month period. They call you in a random times and give you cards with or without flaws and you have to point out the flaws. The way he described the process, it sounded pretty intense, with trial grading of over 400-500 cards. Not only that but you have to have knowledge of different flaws consistent with certain brands/issues and know all the brands/issues also.
As far as pay, it is salary; although I do not know for sure, I am guessing you start at 30k or so. You start with modern cards and move up with expertise. That is why we mark the service on the box, to direct to which grader/s.
Bulk starts at 1000+, that is when you can start getting discounts. That is what I was told.
I'm also not sure if the dishwasher analogy is really relevant and acurrate in this case. Do some graders work OT to finish off the larger bulk subs? I'd think that if one guy is grading one 10,000 card sub, than another guy is grading one hundred 100-card subs. As the graders get paid by the hour, I'd think they'd all grade about the same number of cards in an 8-hour (or full-time shift).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There's no way. Based on what I know about human nature and running a business, I'd actually be willing to bet a lot of money on this.
I do think PSA graders do the best job they can and from what I have seem are accurate 95% of the time.
My biggest problem with PSA is that it takes so long to get registry sets up, or to add to sets. I think PSA is leaving a lot of money on the table here.
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
What makes you think that the smaller subs have significantly better cards? 4SC and DSL, and dealers like them certainly submit their share of low pop gem mint vintage and star cards, too. Just because a sub is smaller doesn't mean the cards are better.
Also, my original point was that all graders are probably grading the same number of cards during a regular shift. While it may be true that more graders are called into the room to offer opinions on a truly valuable card, I certainly don't think that 90% of the cards that come into PSA meet that criterion, or these expert graders would grade far fewer cards than anyone else, and that wouldn't make sense from a business standpoint.
It may seem like there are more "low-end" PSA 10s out there from the bulk submitters, but that's just natural because they submit so many more cards. Virtually all of the PSA 10s I've bought from DSL and/or 4SC were accurately graded. I think MeteoriteGuy is right on target.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
We little guys (well, not me because I submit a decent amount of junk) usually submit the absolute best of what we have or recently bought. Most of us aren't busting cases of 1982 Topps and submitting every card we think could be a 10. Poll these boards and see how many people on here have submitted a lot of commons from the 80s. I have no doubt that small subs have a higher concentration of valuable/interesting cards, at least if you go by the percentages.
My daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 2 (2003). My son was diagnosed with Type 1 when he was 17 on December 31, 2009. We were stunned that another child of ours had been diagnosed. Please, if you don't have a favorite charity, consider giving to the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
JDRF Donation
They also get paid per card from what i understood.
As for the card and it being a 10, hard to see the dot but if Lee says it's there then I can't see how the card graded out that way.
just my opinion even if it was not asked for.
Steve
Sincerely,
DBH
<< <i>Does anyone have any examples of bulk submission results (1000+ cards) from one of the regular bulk submitters? I'd be curious to see how their subs shake out compared to mine overall. >>
I've looked at more than 20,000 subs (don't ask me how, but I did) and looked at the # of cards in the subs that had a line # of 500 or greater. You know how many subs I found? About 30. Now, there were a tremendous number that had 500 cards, but were multiples. ie 100 92 UD Shaq RC's, paired with 100 Reggie Bush Score rc's, paired with 100 1987 Topps Barry Bonds...ends up being 3 lines essentially, so I don't catch all of those. It's also been noted that guys like DSL and 4SC are the only ones that get the 817/816 submission numbers. That seems to be true as I pulled those out as well. I did notice that a vast majority of the 817 subs I found though were PSA/DNA submissions. There were a TON of submissions that said nothing more than "Order was shipped..." those usually are reserved for reviews and mechanical error orders.
So, what does this tell you? Nothing really, other than my conclusion was that either I have no idea what sub #'s 4SC is using (I've browsed every sub from #1 to 616999) and a ton more in the "paper" range with numbers 4585000 etc, and I came up, for the most part, empty handed.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
In all likelihood, the card was centered 50-50 all the way around prior to slabbing and the image is just distorted.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
It's a dirty smudge on my computer screen.
You should sleep much better tonight.
PSA 10 all around.
Nice acquisition.
I know you're an OPC guy and know these issues well. I would tend to agree with you on the cards assessment. Probably a 9. Centering looks to be 45/55. It's close.
I can tell you I've received better grades a few times when I've sent in larger subs (like 500+ cards). Now that could be by chance, or it could be because the cards in these subs were just slightly sharper than some of my smaller subs. I'm not quite sure. I tend to think PSA gets it right 95% of the time whether it's a small sub or a large one. That's just my opinion. I've been sending in cards to them for over 10 years now. I don't submit a lot of 1980's or newer cards either. I mostly submit pre 1978 stuff. I'm usually satisfied with the results overall.
But I get your point of the discussion. You have some legit points in your analogy too. Since grading is all subjective and two different graders cannot always agree on a card's grade at various times I try not to let these issues bother me. It can drive you insane or nuts. No pun intended.
Regards,
Rich
It's photoshopped
GEM-MT 10: Gem Mint.
A PSA Gem Mint 10 card is a virtually perfect card. Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus and full original gloss. A PSA Gem Mint 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse.
Wish this was followed a bit more closely.
95% accuracy is fairly solid, though.
<< <i>PSA Card Grading Standards
GEM-MT 10: Gem Mint.
A PSA Gem Mint 10 card is a virtually perfect card. Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus and full original gloss. A PSA Gem Mint 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse. >>
You've got that memorized?
Based solely on centering, what would this Ozzie grade?
79 OPC Ozzie-
<< <i>Based solely on centering, what would this Ozzie grade? >>
Ozzie's working a little tilt there, and at it's worst point, it's just a bit worse than 35/65. I'd say PSA 8 at best, if nothing else is wrong.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>A PSA Gem Mint 10 card is a virtually perfect card. Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus and full original gloss. A PSA Gem Mint 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse.
Wish this was followed a bit more closely.
95% accuracy is fairly solid, though. >>
But the grading standards do fit the card in question. Perhaps a "low end" 10, but a 10 nevertheless.
If you want to be an absolute stickler for the grading standards (which PSA is often not), I counted the pixels and the card is 53.75/56.25 left to right.
I'm just saying, if you ordered a PSA 10 1974 Pete Rose sight unseen and this is how your card looked, you'd be pissed right? Not that I'm upset about the purchase, because I'm not. I just think this card has no business in a 10 slab.
Lee
That's where the whole subjective "eye appeal" thing comes in.
This Clemens is 36/64 l/r and 34/66 t/b. Well within the centering standards for an 8 (of which 30/70 is the low end), however I'm suspecting that eye-appeal knocked the grade down. Corners, surface, etc are all fine on this card.
If I cracked and resubmitted this card, maybe it'll come back a PSA 9 oc, or a straight PSA 8. ???
I must admit though, I've been disapointed by my share of PSA 10s as well, especially when I see that they missed a major problem.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>Based solely on centering, what would this Ozzie grade? >>
Ozzie's working a little tilt there, and at it's worst point, it's just a bit worse than 35/65. I'd say PSA 8 at best, if nothing else is wrong. >>
They gave it a 9 OC...
<< <i>OK, so it has 2 or 3 of the "allowable" flaws (black dot, 55/45 both ways) depending on how literally you take it. If you don't think these flaws impair the overall appeal of the card, well I don't know what to tell you.
If you want to be an absolute stickler for the grading standards (which PSA is often not), I counted the pixels and the card is 53.75/56.25 left to right.
I'm just saying, if you ordered a PSA 10 1974 Pete Rose sight unseen and this is how your card looked, you'd be pissed right? Not that I'm upset about the purchase, because I'm not. I just think this card has no business in a 10 slab.
Lee >>
I don't necessarily disagree. Not usually much difference between a "high end" lower grade # and a "low end" higher grade # of almost any slabbed card. In a grading system on say a 0 - 100 scale with 90 - 100 being a current 10, your card would probably be in the 88 to 91 range or thereabouts. But since PSA ain't gonna change and it's 1 thru 10, then things such as this are going to occur, and that's that.
I guess at this point we're not even really debating everything as we agree that this card is not so perfect. Most would call it a solid 9 if they saw it raw without any indication of what slab it was in. In fact, I probably wouldn't have submitted it at all if I pulled it. I'm tempted to run a $6,000 experiment and submit it 100 more times to see if it ever gets into a 10 holder. Anybody want to fund this scientific study?
<< <i><< Based solely on centering, what would this Ozzie grade? >>
Ozzie's working a little tilt there, and at it's worst point, it's just a bit worse than 35/65. I'd say PSA 8 at best, if nothing else is wrong. >>
They gave it a 9 OC... >>
That's why it's worth it to write "NO QUALIFIERS" on your submission form.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>I agree about the 88-91 estimate for this card, but wouldn't a 10 be closer to a 95-100 or even 98-100 range?
I guess at this point we're not even really debating everything as we agree that this card is not so perfect. Most would call it a solid 9 if they saw it raw without any indication of what slab it was in. In fact, I probably wouldn't have submitted it at all if I pulled it. I'm tempted to run a $6,000 experiment and submit it 100 more times to see if it ever gets into a 10 holder. Anybody want to fund this scientific study? >>
Believe it or not I think it would get into a 10 holder the majority of the time, perhaps probably not everytime.
and that Clemens Card is a tragedy.
<< <i>I agree about the 88-91 estimate for this card, but wouldn't a 10 be closer to a 95-100 or even 98-100 range?
I guess at this point we're not even really debating everything as we agree that this card is not so perfect. Most would call it a solid 9 if they saw it raw without any indication of what slab it was in. In fact, I probably wouldn't have submitted it at all if I pulled it. I'm tempted to run a $6,000 experiment and submit it 100 more times to see if it ever gets into a 10 holder. Anybody want to fund this scientific study? >>
I'd be interested to see how many more times it would get into a 10 holder if 4SC submitted it 100 times...
The published guidelines for centering on PSa 8's is a grading loophole.
I've submitted 100's of cards that fell within the published grading guidelines for 8's, with sharp corners from vending, only for them to come back in PSA 7 holders. I learned a lot from this misconception on borderline centering issues.
Think 65/35 or better for 8's and you'll save yourself a ton of grading fee's.
Happy grading!
Rich
Grades? The Munson got a 7 the Rose an 8.
Id scan them but my scanner is down. Tomorrow Ill see if I can get it running or use the camera.
Steve
<< <i>I agree about the 88-91 estimate for this card, but wouldn't a 10 be closer to a 95-100 or even 98-100 range?
I guess at this point we're not even really debating everything as we agree that this card is not so perfect. Most would call it a solid 9 if they saw it raw without any indication of what slab it was in. In fact, I probably wouldn't have submitted it at all if I pulled it. I'm tempted to run a $6,000 experiment and submit it 100 more times to see if it ever gets into a 10 holder. Anybody want to fund this scientific study? >>
Will you be paying for the $60 grading service? If so, COUNT ME IN!! I will definitely kick out $60, just to say I paid that kind of money to get a 1990's OPC card graded; and one that isn't even mine, no less!
I have no doubt that bulk submitters get better grades, but I'm very doubtful that it's the result of a silent mandate from the powers that be. Consider: Most graders may not be completely in tune with the current market for various graded cards, but they probably know enough to realize that nobody's making money on PSA 9's from 1975 to present. Now, if I'm a grader and I have a 1000 sub in front of me, do you think I'm going to want to stick a majority of those in a PSA 9 holder? So goes business, so goes my job. The last thing I want to do is tick off a major customer, especially if all that's at stake is the proper grading of a bunch of $.05 cards. If I put those in PSA 10 holders three things happen:
1) I"m happy, since business will keep rolling in
2) The submitters happy, because he got what he wanted
3) The guys who collect flips are happy, since there are now more PSA 10 flips out there for them to purchase.
Who loses? Nobody. So why agonize over it? Just give 'em all 10's, slide out of the office at 4 pm and get an early jump on Happy Hour.
<< <i>I do think PSA graders do the best job they can and from what I have seem are accurate 95% of the time. >>
I have had the same card come back with 3 different grades. That is, albeit a small sample, far less than 95% accuracy.
My Auctions
And we would not have all the added on value that we see in certain cards either.
All in all, I'm for grading of cards. Especially stars that can fetch big dollars.
I did though, sell off my 65 set, not cuz of the grades but cuz it was just to big of a chore to store.
Steve
<< <i>and that Clemens Card is a tragedy. >>
The real tragedy was that it was the only Clemens in a pair of boxes I picked up from BBCE for $110 each a few years back. The single Pucket I pulled was far worse.
Oh well. My business still goes to BBCE, like a junkie looking for his fix.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25