Is PSA becoming Gem Elite

f2tornado

No they are not but you gotta wonder how a card with this piss poor centering found a home in a 10 slab.

Not My Action

cravetopps

hard to measure exactly but it appears to have just made the 60-40 (T/B) cut.....barely. So, it meets the centering spec.

psafan

Its centered slightly better than the 1966 Killebrew. Maybe the standards have gone down just a bit?

Ichiro51fan

yeah, I wish PSA would use that centering guideline on some of my subs. I can't tell you how many cards I've had come back as 9's with the only flaw being centering that was just barely worse than 55/45.

mtcards

I really think centering for 10's need to be tightened up to 55/45 at worst, maybe even a little more.

ArnyVee

Truthfully....in order to get a GEM MINT rating, there has to be 50/50 centering, IMO.

If not, then it's a 9. Maybe create a 9.5 rating (NG-EM - Near Gem or MT-GEM - Mint to Gem) or something.

But, there shouldn't be any leeway on a "perfect" GEM MINT card.

shagrotn77

I don't think that card meets the 60/40 criteria, and even if it does, eye appeal is supposed to factor into the grade.

Stingray

<< <i>Truthfully....in order to get a GEM MINT rating, there has to be 50/50 centering, IMO.

If not, then it's a 9. Maybe create a 9.5 rating (NG-EM - Near Gem or MT-GEM - Mint to Gem) or something.

But, there shouldn't be any leeway on a "perfect" GEM MINT card. >>





Gem Mint: 50/50 centering on front, no worse than 60/40 on back.

baseballfanatic

I was expecting to see it in a Shoeless Joe auction

bifff257

<< <i> Truthfully....in order to get a GEM MINT rating, there has to be 50/50 centering, IMO. >>







if it is a 10, it needs to be perfect....

1989FleerBillRipkencollector

<< <i>

<< <i> Truthfully....in order to get a GEM MINT rating, there has to be 50/50 centering, IMO. >>







if it is a 10, it needs to be perfect.... >>



I 4th that. I though GEM Mint was ......uh GEM MINT--- NO flaws. You cant be kinda gay or kinda a virgin. You ARE or your NOT. Your highest tier should be perfection. So a totally perfect card with not one flaw at all gets lumped together with a OC card. Man, whats the world coming to.

ebayaddict

<< <i>Truthfully....in order to get a GEM MINT rating, there has to be 50/50 centering, IMO.

If not, then it's a 9. Maybe create a 9.5 rating (NG-EM - Near Gem or MT-GEM - Mint to Gem) or something.

But, there shouldn't be any leeway on a "perfect" GEM MINT card. >>



Agree..........100%

DonnieD

This is as good of a place as any to ask this question and it is a genuine question as I haven't really been active in the hobby for a few years now. Why do most people consider PSA to be far and away the best grading company? The only time I submitted anything was in 2002 or possibly 2003 and I submitted in person to Beckett at a show in Chicago. I think the consensus then was that BGS was the best with PSA probably second, SCG & GAI behind them and everyone else pretty far below that. I submitted an Ichiro 2001 Sweet Spot and it came back BGS 9.5 and I ended up selling it for a pretty penny.

Has BGS fallen since then or is it just that this is a PSA board, so many here are partial? I have nothing against PSA personally although I do get a kick out of threads like this and the Killebrew thread showing that everyone is capable of mistakes. I always liked the the half-grades from BGS as well as the specifications showing you where the flaws were, as well as the possibility of getting back a "Pristine". That is honestly why I think I still may use BGS if I grade something. The slight possibility of getting a BGS Pristine 10 and having it be worth 50 times what a PSA 10 would be worth. What are your thoughts?

Stingray

I don't think that BGS was ever ahead of PSA. I believe the general concensus is that BGS is better for modern cards, at least they were at one time, but then 9.5s started poping up all over the plase. PSA is good for vintage and SGC is one of the best for prewar cards. A general summary.

thehallmark

I completely agree with everyone saying that the centering standards should be higher for "Gem Mint" PSA 10. I wish that would change.

And the other thing that should change along with that is that people should feel GOOD ABOUT HAVING A PSA 9!!! Many PSA 9s can and often do look freaking outstanding!!!

1989FleerBillRipkencollector

<< <i>This is as good of a place as any to ask this question and it is a genuine question as I haven't really been active in the hobby for a few years now. Why do most people consider PSA to be far and away the best grading company? The only time I submitted anything was in 2002 or possibly 2003 and I submitted in person to Beckett at a show in Chicago. I think the consensus then was that BGS was the best with PSA probably second, SCG & GAI behind them and everyone else pretty far below that. I submitted an Ichiro 2001 Sweet Spot and it came back BGS 9.5 and I ended up selling it for a pretty penny.

Has BGS fallen since then or is it just that this is a PSA board, so many here are partial? I have nothing against PSA personally although I do get a kick out of threads like this and the Killebrew thread showing that everyone is capable of mistakes. I always liked the the half-grades from BGS as well as the specifications showing you where the flaws were, as well as the possibility of getting back a "Pristine". That is honestly why I think I still may use BGS if I grade something. The slight possibility of getting a BGS Pristine 10 and having it be worth 50 times what a PSA 10 would be worth. What are your thoughts? >>



I submitted to BGS when they started. Really strict. Everytime. Then they sold ?? and moved the subgrades to the front of the flip and now they are much easier. So easy that I cracked out a BGS 9 and sent it to GAI as they would label what version it was and GAI gave it a 8.5

CDsNuts

The consensus is that over the last 5 years or so, BGS loosened their 9.5 standards a little and their 10 standards a lot. PSA has remained reltively consistent, but there are way to many questionable 10s surfacing as of late. My guess is that it's not an intentional thing, just that new graders are being more lenient (I got more than a few "gifts" on my last sub). Either way if it doesn't work itself out people will become tired of the inconsistency and PSA 10s will command less of a premium if they haven't already.

Lee

julen23

talk about anti-climactic....

i scrolled all the way down here & that's all lee had to say???

my friday is ruined.

j

vintagetoppsguy

<< <i><< Truthfully....in order to get a GEM MINT rating, there has to be 50/50 centering, IMO.

If not, then it's a 9. Maybe create a 9.5 rating (NG-EM - Near Gem or MT-GEM - Mint to Gem) or something.

But, there shouldn't be any leeway on a "perfect" GEM MINT card. >>



Agree..........100% >>





I disagree! Who is to say what "Gem Mint" really is? I started buying wax packs in the early '80s, but really didn't start collecting until 1986. I have been doing this for 21 consecutive years. Up until a few years ago, I had never heard of the term "Gem Mint." This is a term that PSA came up with. Years ago, the highest grade that a card could obtain was "Mint." This term evolved from coin collecting, referring to a coin that looked like it just left the MINT. Coins are produced at the U.S. MINT, not at a U.S. GEM MINT. A card is either "Mint" or it is not. If it's not "Mint," then it's either "Near Mint" or below. "Gem Mint" is just a term that they invented so that they could be very selective about the cards that they assign that grade to in order for us to submit more cards. It's a great strategy - it works! I am not faulting them for it, but they are the ones who wanted to come along and change the grading standard, we all said okay and now everyone is gripping about it. They invented the term "Gem Mint" and everybody bought into it and now people are telling them what a "Gem Mint' card should be? Forgive me, but I just find that absolutely funny!

So, if a "Gem Mint" card should have 50/50 centering as stated above, then what is the difference between a “Gem Mint” card and “Pristine” card? PSA was the first one to use "Gem Mint" and then Beckett came along and wanted to out do them by using the term "Pristine." These are just terms that the grading companies made up to get you to buy in to their service. If you don't believe that then go look at any price guide (monthly, annual, Beckett or whatever) that was published before any of the grading companies ever existed and you won't see terms like ExMt, Nm-Mt, Gem Mint, Pristine or whatever and you certainly won't find numerical grades. There were basically just about a half dozen different grades and this was the grading standard that we all used. There was ALREADY a grading standard in place before PSA, SGC, GAI BGS ever came along. If they want to re-invent the grading standard and have people buy into it, then quit complaining!

I guess that would be like me inventing a new language, getting all of the country to speak it and then people telling me that my pronunciation is wrong.

jrinck

I remember seeing the term "GEM MINT" used in the 80's. I viewed the term as no more than hype, though.

skilow

The only reason that I use BGS is that they do not charge me a yearly fee for the right to be able to submit cards. I wish I could use PSA, but I refuse to pay the racketeering fee that they want to charge per year.

I do not want:

On-line pop report
Calander
"Free" subs
Tote bag
"Free" book

JUST LET ME SUMBIT MY CARDS WITHOUT A YEARLY GOUGING FEE!!!

or since you still haven't changed your stance on the extrotion "fee", I guess PSA is just as happy to lose thousands of submissions from me to BGS.

I hope they really rethink their stance one of these days, as I ONLY buy/collect PSA graded cards (How ironic)

jimq112

<< <i>

I guess PSA is just as happy to lose thousands of submissions from me to BGS.

>>



I'm guessing but I believe if you were to email joe orlando and tell him you will submit "thousands" of cards to psa they would work out enough of a discount that you might save more than the annual $100 or so. $100 spread over 1000 submissions is $.10 each. But you only buy or collect psa cards?

geez

rexvos

skilow you do know that you get free submissions with that gouging fee don't you?

bifff257

<< <i> I guess PSA is just as happy to lose thousands of submissions from me to BGS. >>




Not sure what types of cards you are submitting, but if you are submitting vintage(pre-1980) for resale, you are leaving well over that $100 in sales on the table going with BGS.(in my opinion).

goose3

<< <i>The only reason that I use BGS is that they do not charge me a yearly fee for the right to be able to submit cards. I wish I could use PSA, but I refuse to pay the racketeering fee that they want to charge per year.

I do not want:

On-line pop report
Calander
"Free" subs
Tote bag
"Free" book

JUST LET ME SUMBIT MY CARDS WITHOUT A YEARLY GOUGING FEE!!!

or since you still haven't changed your stance on the extrotion "fee", I guess PSA is just as happy to lose thousands of submissions from me to BGS.

I hope they really rethink their stance one of these days, as I ONLY buy/collect PSA graded cards (How ironic) >>




this is some comical stuff. You blast them for their fee (which includes more than enough subs to cover the fee). You state you submit thousands of cards to BGS yet you collect only PSA cards.



I'm sure they're pretty upset by all of this.....

fandango

I see you posted this on the Beckett Boards...interesting...were you hoping to get more support there?

cravetopps

<<<The only reason that I use BGS is that they do not charge me a yearly fee for the right to be able to submit cards. I wish I could use PSA, but I refuse to pay the racketeering fee that they want to charge per year.>>>

I would hardly call $99 a racketeering fee. Are you one of those parasites who ask for pops/SMR pricing from board members? The SMR, online pop report, 6 free submissions - seems like a steal to me. Definitely not even remotely what I would call price "gouging". Just the privilege of getting my butt kicked by my esteemed board members every once in a while is worth $99.

I guess you never shopped at Costco.

f2tornado

<< <i>I see you posted this on the Beckett Boards...interesting...were you hoping to get more support there? >>



Only posted in the grading portion of the forum where few read. Perhaps the most glaring grading error I've seen from PSA or Beckett and thought it was worth sharing. Perhaps just an isolated incident, hopefully not a trend. Inconsistent grading, while inevitable to some extent, hurts the image of the grading industry and has the potential to diminish the value of the service and cards. I try not to bash either firm and also defend both where necessary. Note, I answered my sarcastic thread title question with the first word of the post: No. I don't play the grading favorite game in forums and don't understand why some folks always seem to have an ax to grind. I do primarily use BGS for subs since I primarily deal with modern chrome type stuff that has a tendency to get better hammer prices in BGS slabs (regardless if the grading is more accurate or not). For now I just buy PSA slabbed cards rather than submit. I would submit but like another poster noted, I don't feel like shelling out a $100 for my six "freebies", SMR, and Pop report. I just don't handle enough quantity of vintage material to make the fee worthwhile. A $100 may seem cheap for many of you but that gets me 16 additional slabs in a bulk sub with the competition. One of these days however, I'll have to bit the membership bullet as I slowly accumulate old raw stuff. Once I get enough material for a bulk sub then I cough up the $100 and post the sub results.

Buccaneer

50/50 centering only for a 10????? That's stupid. Almost no cards, except for post-1991 stuff, would ever be a 10. Also, they don't measure precisely and neither do you. You and PSA can't tell the difference between 50/50 and 52/48. Just look at all the people that cry and whine about centering of a particular card when, for the grade, it meets the standard. If they can't fathom how a card with 70/30-75/25 centering gets a 7, then how can they say what it should or shouldn't be?

I don't have any 10s nor do I ever want any, so it doesn't effect me.