Uh-oh, what do I do now???? Crack and resub??

BigRedMachine

I've been buying cards off of eBay the last few years of some of the key cards. I was recently looking at the following:
A 1969 PSA 7 Reggie Jackson
A 1968 PSA 7 Johnny Bench
A 1965 PSA 7 Steve Carlton
A 1960 PSA 7 Carl Yazstremski

I always wanted to take a chance at cracking and resubmitting, but was always afraid the grade would go down knowing my luck. When I held my four cards next to each other, it was obvious to me the Steve Carlton rookie was much sharper than my other three. I decided it had to be an eight, so I gave it a whirl. I was confident it wouldn't come back a PSA 6.

Just got an email saying my grades were done, and lo and behold, the Carlton came back as.........















Not holdered, evidence of trimming!!

Now what can I do?? Resend again?? Assume that it is trimmed and got by a grader a few years ago??
It never even crossed my mind in worrying about the card that it would be trimmed. Maybe all my PSA cards I've bought are trimmed?

thanks for any help or thoughts.

shawn

stown

If the grade doesn't fit, you must resubmit

lawnmowerman

Sorry about that Shawn. That's pretty bad. You possibly got a rookie grader this time around.

I personally would try again. If it comes back the same, I would send it to bvg, sell it and buy another psa version.

BigRedMachine

Here's what the card looked like two weeks ago.

What I don't understand is "evidence of trimming" If it has "evidence", it's going to have it next time. And it should've had it when the original owner sent it in. I mean, it's either trimmed or not, right?

Not only am I bummed because a $150 card I owned just became worthless, but it makes me wonder if some of the other PSA cards I've spent money on have "evidence of trimming".

It's not like I can call PSA and say, "Hey, I had a PSA 7 of yours and thought I could sneak an 8 by you." I just had a card I felt was undergraded in relationship to my other 1960's cards.

Yuk.

cravetopps

resubmit for sure.

lawnmowerman

Wow, not to have too much fun here but that Fritz guy had the caveman single eyebrow thing going on. That has to be the worst one Ive seen.

MuckyMutt

<< <i>

What I don't understand is "evidence of trimming" If it has "evidence", it's going to have it next time. And it should've had it when the original owner sent it in. I mean, it's either trimmed or not, right?

>>



Nah, that's just their way of getting you to resubmit so they get twice the fees. Really.

BigRedMachine

<< <i>

<< <i>

What I don't understand is "evidence of trimming" If it has "evidence", it's going to have it next time. And it should've had it when the original owner sent it in. I mean, it's either trimmed or not, right?

>>



Nah, that's just their way of getting you to resubmit so they get twice the fees. Really. >>



I hope you're right.
The alternative is either:
A) My card is not trimmed and a grader was being overly cautious, or;
My card is trimmed and it was in a PSA holder.

Option B isn't helping my trust in PSA.

PasadenaMudSlide

TextNah, that's just their way of getting you to resubmit so they get twice the fees. Really.

Sadly, there may be some truth to this statement.

cardbender

Sorry you didn't get an 8, but I'm also surprised you tried submitting this card when it has all those printing defects on the front. Maybe the corners are 8 quality but maybe it graded a 7 in the first place because of the print issues. Just a thought.

I would send it back in and try again. I hope you do better the next time.

BigRedMachine

<< <i>Sorry you didn't get an 8, but I'm also surprised you tried submitting this card when it has all those printing defects on the front. Maybe the corners are 8 quality but maybe it graded a 7 in the first place because of the print issues. Just a thought.

I would send it back in and try again. I hope you do better the next time. >>



Thanks cardbender. Perhaps you're right. At this point, I'd love to have my 7 back.

I thought because of the edges, corner, and centering it was worth a shot despite the print defects. I know PSA is lenient (sp?) on "fish eyes", I've seen some large ones on PSA 9 cards. Unfortunately, at this point it doesn't matter.

I'll resub soon like some of you suggested and give it one more try.

Still shaking my head knowing my card is either not trimmed and someone at PSA is gouging me for extra bucks, or my card is trimmed and PSA slabbed it.

It'll be hard for me to laugh at the "PSA grades handcut vs. sheetcut" debate when I know if they grade trimmed cards. I realize a mistake could have been made and mistakes happen, but my trust in this whole grading project just took a big backwards hit.

shawn

SoFLPhillyFan

Some good advice on checking for trimming on the Net54 board -

Trimmage

Check it out when the card comes back, then resubmit if it looks OK.

tombo

I agree with cardbender, I think the PSA 7 you had in the first place was probably what the card deserved. I have seen cards with less prints spots receive a pd qualifier. If you resubmit and it comes back as a 7, I would actually leave it.

BigRedMachine

<< <i>I agree with cardbender, I think the PSA 7 you had in the first place was probably what the card deserved. I have seen cards with less prints spots receive a pd qualifier. If you resubmit and it comes back as a 7, I would actually leave it. >>



I'd love to have the 7 now, that's obvious.

My opinion varied, I thought it was extremely sharp. For all I know, it's PSA 9 quality and the original submittor requested no qualifiers (for the PD) and it came a straight 7.

But that is not my point. I had a card (and have many more) secure in a PSA holder and confident it was legit, and not it's not (and I don't know if my others are either).

Anyone else not worried about spending 10X, 20X, 50X regular raw value for high graded stuff when the card in the holder may be trimmed? I'm surprised you wouldn't.

Thanks for the link SoPhillyfan, I'll try that when I get it back.

shawn

handyman

Check out the bottom corner and see if about 2-3 mm were shaved