Options
No New Flip Needed for the .5 reviews PROBLEM SOLVED
bigredone
Posts: 93
PSA could simply make a population type report and log the Bar Code number of cards that were submitted for review, but did not recieve th half point bump. Collectors could simply check the report to see a card has been resubmitted. End of problem.
Since this is not in the best interest for PSA, Who has now sold out their Integrity, Moral values and Loyal collectors for the following new set of values.
Intentional Inaccuracies to ensure collectors are Swindled not only once or twice, But as may times as possible on the same card.
PSA Professionall Scam Artist
Since this is not in the best interest for PSA, Who has now sold out their Integrity, Moral values and Loyal collectors for the following new set of values.
Intentional Inaccuracies to ensure collectors are Swindled not only once or twice, But as may times as possible on the same card.
PSA Professionall Scam Artist
0
Comments
<< <i>PSA could simply make a population type report and log the Bar Code number of cards that were submitted for review, but did not recieve th half point bump. Collectors could simply check the report to see a card has been resubmitted. End of problem.
Since this is not in the best interest for PSA, Who has now sold out their Integrity, Moral values and Loyal collectors for the following new set of values.
Intentional Inaccuracies to ensure collectors are Swindled not only once or twice, But as may times as possible on the same card.
PSA Professionall Scam Artist >>
Your repetitive attacks on PSA has convinced me.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
What about the bar code ideal?
You don't like PSA cards, don't buy them. I have no problem with them and will continue to buy them.
There is a small restaurant down the road I do not like. Everything they sell taste like it came out of dinner kit box. My brother does like the restaurant so I go there every now and then. If I went tomorrow and someone asked what I thought of the food, I would likely be honest and tell them. However, if I continued to tell them what I thought about their business was wrong, came back the next day and told them again, open more dialog to tell them they are wrong and noted I have the answers, I would be acting like a dick and the owner would likely just kick me out. And he would not change the menu.
The .5 is a done thing...I don't think they are going to change the menu.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
If you think insulting a company will get the President and board to change their mind about something just implemented, then you should continue your verbal crusade. But I would suggest toning it down a little or you might get booted out of the "restaurant."
On the subject on whether to send a card in....the owner needs to use their eyes, understand the value of the card, the possible value of the card if upgraded, factor in their collecting desires and the cost of review. Yes, it is algebra but if you collect a set, it should not be that hard.
This is the grading game. It is not a new game, the 0.5 doesn't change much, and I don't think it matter which company you are referring to. I can't tell right now if any of my 8's were submitted a dozen times, nor do I really care. (Granted I have little pre-1980 and therefore little under a 9) but when buying cards I am considering three things, what is the price, what does it look like & how bad do I want it. That is the formula I use, you should have your own.
Does that mean I agree 100% with all of PSAs grading? Of course it does not.
Here is a good example.....my Christian Okoye RC.
This card does meet PSA standards centering wise for a 10. It does not meet mine however. But when I bought it PSA 10's where going for around $30...and I paid $9 for this one. So I bought it at PSA 9 price, therefore I am happy with the card for what it is and the price I paid. It is a low end 10 that went for low end price...a great example of the market deciding the price....rather then PSA.
As long as grading is done by humans, rather then computers, it will be subjective. Even if it ever gets to the point computers do the grading, you will likely see some lower grades of one card, look better then some higher grades of the same card. This is simply because if you put 10 of us in a room, we would not weigh all faults equal. My biggest concern is corners, yours might be centering.
So where does all of that leave us with the 0.5.
In my mind, a better place then before. The three big guys are now on the same scale. This fact should not be underrated. (With the exception of "Pristine" which is pretty much a made up mint...meaning if you can not tell the difference in a gem mint and a prestine.....then perhaps there isn't any....other then the price tag.)
Will there be 8.5s I disagree with....I am sure there will be. Will there be 7.5s I disagree with....I am sure there will be.
But I remember before grading, when buying "mint" cards from dealers meant you got NM cards, and buying NM meant you got EX cards. So I am glad we have a PSA, and it is good they do not have a monopoly with BGS and SGC. I can buy cards from either of the three and be pretty sure of its condition, sight unseen. But if your a seller and you want me to spend the bigger dollars, it better be a PSA slab...otherwise I am figuring that into cost as well.
Clear Skies (and time for bed),
Mark
Edit to fix late night typing errors.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
The reason they aren't doing that is because NO ONE in the their right mind would agree to it. You'd be better off cracking and submitting raw than having a card reviewed and then red flagged in any way. No one would use that service, that's just stupid to even consider.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Great Post.
Sometimes it is better to just listen here and not speak.
That was one of those times for me.
Steve
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Steve
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
I have no idea, I am only going by what Mark said. He stated it fell within the guidelines. I had no reason to take out a ruler.
The bottom line is the market spoke as to what it would sell for , on that day at least.
edited to add: It is not a card I would call gem mint 10. Then again people do not care what I say a card is, they pay the experts for that.
Steve