Will PSA commit to new flip and/or x.0 and x.5 grades?

tcbphd

Moving to 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9 would be fair. Can we get a commitment here from Joe before the avalanche begins? Can we keep bumping up this question until we get an answer?

Fuzz

I suspect that there will be a new flip for newly graded cards but the logistics to do this on reviews may be cumbersome.

mealeworm

I suspect that there will be a new flip for newly graded cards but the logistics to do this on reviews may be cumbersome.

I think the lack of new holders is the cause of most of the complaints.

gemint

It's something Joe has said he will take under advisement. I recommend people call him and request this. I feel that, since the 1/2 point system is a done deal, that getting the holder changed is a compromise PSA could make to honor their long time loyal customers.

However, if nobody calls him to request it, it likely won't happen. I don't think the messages on these forums are taken seriously. A phone call works better.

WinPitcher

Moving to 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9 would be fair. Can we get a commitment here from Joe before the avalanche begins? Can we keep bumping up this question until we get an answer?


No, no need to bump this or any other post that asks questions for Joe to answer. He has said to phone him with your questions. I suggest you do that.


Steve

dude

There is no need to add a x.0 to the "integer grades" (i.e. 6, 7, 8, etc.) only the x.5 to the half grades. The other grading companies don't add ".0" to the integer grades so why should PSA? Adding the x.0 would be devastating to existing PSA cards and I was initially under the impression this what PSA was planning to do, and that's why I was initially apoplectic but as of now, I am told, this isn't the case and never should be.

fandango

there is no way they can start grading whole grades with a .0

that would only do negative things such as these:

1. lower existing whole numbers because they would be perceived to be "not bump worthy"

2. lower new 8.0's because they would be perceived to be "a lower quality 8"

3. eliminate the perceived notion that a whole number "always has a chance to be bumped"

Perception is sometimes reality......

Wabittwax

<< <i>3. eliminate the perceived notion that a whole number "always has a chance to be bumped" >>



I think that is a good thing. I would definately want to know if a card has already been considered for an 8.5 before I buy it.

JasP24

<< <i>

<< <i>3. eliminate the perceived notion that a whole number "always has a chance to be bumped" >>



I think that is a good thing. I would definately want to know if a card has already been considered for an 8.5 before I buy it. >>



Good for the buyer, bad for the seller. If you knew that, you'd probably pay less for it correct? So why would any seller send their cards in under the new system with the chance of loosing money?

All in how you look at it, glass half full, glass half empty.

Jason

ssollars

<< <i>there is no way they can start grading whole grades with a .0

that would only do negative things such as these:

1. lower existing whole numbers because they would be perceived to be "not bump worthy"
I would think just the opposite would be true. An old 8 would mean it may still be "bump worthy" because it hasn't been reviewed yet. Which would make it higher in the eyes of the buyer (if judged to be worthy) than a new 8.

2. lower new 8.0's because they would be perceived to be "a lower quality 8"
A new 8 would be a "lower quality 8" when compared to an 8.5. When compared to an old 8, it would have to be judged just as it is today (See #1).

3. eliminate the perceived notion that a whole number "always has a chance to be bumped"
Exactly, and in my opinion this should be the main reason for making a change to the flips. A card should only be reviewed (for 0.5 bumpage) once after that it might as well be cracked out and resubmitted. Who knows it may be bumped 1 or even two grades!

Perception is sometimes reality...... >>



I don't really have any problems with the new grading system, but I agree that there should be a way to make a distinction between the two. They could make a flip change subtle enough that only those that care enough to know would even bother with it.

The bottom line is we all want accuracy (insert joke here) when it comes to our graded cards, and I for one think that without a change in the flip we lose some of that accuracy.

bigredone

PSA could and should simply use the bar code(cert#) of the cards sent for review that do not get bumped and log them into their own population type report. You could simply check the report to see if that card was sent for review. No new flip needed.

Of course at the expense of the collector and accuracy this is not in the best interest for PSA. Snice they want the cards to be resumbitted over and over.

WinPitcher

I think it is more the owner of the card wants to be able to resubmit the card over and over until it gets in the highest possible holder more then PSA wants to grade the same card over and over. Don't get me wrong I am not saying they dislike the idea of getting the same card sent in over and over. they are more or less leaving an avenue open for the owner that thinks his card is better then the grade. I think they (PSA) want more precise and consistent grading. At least I would think so.


Steve