One thing I'd like to point out that I believe was incorrectly stated by someone in this thread earlier is about cards submitted to PSA already graded possibly being bumped up and down. That is false. According to the press release of the new half-point grading process, cards will only GO UP or REMAIN THE SAME GRADE. Here's the quote from PSA:
"Last but not least, remember that cards submitted under this program will never be in jeopardy of going down in grade. So, the only risk in submitting cards under this new program would be the cost of the submission since there is no guarantee that the cards will reach the higher, half-point grade. In other words, cards submitted under this service will always be returned to the customer, at minimum, in the same grade they arrived in."
As far as what PSA could do to help alleviate the consistency issues would be to do the following:
1) Have firm centering guidelines within each grade with no room for error. PSA 8 centering has to be 35/65 or better, PSA 8.5 centering 40/60 or better, etc....
2) Eliminate all qualifiers from the grading process. If a card is o/c but still NM-MT as far as wear, include that centering with the condition into the overall grade. If is has a stain, same thing.
3) More clearly define paper wrinkles in their grading guidelines and state to what degree they can effect specific grades.
4) Institute reasonably priced review process. Afterall, the cards that some of you will be sending if for review/bumping are already slabbed and therefore have been scrutinized for card doctoring, size, authenticity, etc....already. The review process should take obvious less time and it should be much cheaper to perform that getting a raw card in to be graded. Monthly specials as Jason and Shouldabeen pointed out, could be done to help with the financial hit that many will experience in this regard.
5) Grade dating. Yes, I think PSA should slap a month and year on each card when they are graded, right on the holder. Possibly even the graders initials. That way cards that keep getting sent in for bumps (undergraded the first time), PSA would know who did the grading of those cards and maybe they might need a refresher course on the art of grading with that particular grader. The grading process would take on a personal responsibility for their actions scenario, with I truly feel would lead to more accurate and consistent grading in the end.
5b) I also wouldn't mind seeing the submitters last name put on the flip somewhere. See steps 8, 9, and 10 for the reasons.
6) Despite what the PSA grading video shows, actually have each slabbed card looked at by someone familiar with that issue before the cards get mailed back to customers. This would eliminate virtually all flip errors and help improve customer service emencely.
7) Half-point review process: have any and all cards being sent in for bumps subject to actually being either upgrading and or downgraded. So even though most of the reviews will end up being bumped up because submitters will have screened their cards thoroughly first and only be sending in the cards that warrant bump up consideration. There will be the slim chance that cards may or can be lowered in grade too. That's only fair. Why have only undergraded cards go up a grade or half-grade? Is PSA always grading cards on the conservative side and thus not giving out the 8's and 9's the first time around? It should be a two-way grading street. How many collectors will have the stones to send in cards for reviews if there's a chance their cards may be bumped down?
Many may not like this suggestion but I honestly think it would lead to more accurate grading the first time around. Also, submitters wouldn't be sending in sliders to have bumped either, wasting their money and PSA's time. I understand PSA is doing the half grades now to generate more grading income, but not every card is accurately graded or undergraded. Some are indeed over-graded too and floating around out there in the hobby. Leaving sliders in PSA holders is not a good thing for the long term health of the graded card market.
Any down graded card should be given a brief write up report with the returned invoice stating why it was downgraded like: lower left corner wear, surface problems, etc... not any long winded explanation but a general few words to help explain the reason for the down grade. This would help educate submitters on what PSA deems to be looking at in a negative fashion. This info would help with future submissions.
8) If a submission has a high percentage of doctored cards on it, reject the entire submission and ban that person from submitting in the future. This is a somewhat small hobby but it needs to clean up it's act. A good starting point would be to get rid of the crooks.
9) Finally hire an experienced card doctor and put them on PSA' s staff. Have them available to answer questions on card doctoring and be available to help review some cards that come in to PSA with questionable traits. Thereby helping to eliminate the many crooks out there that submit all the funny cards for grading.
Yes unfortunately, there are many slabbed cards that were doctored that are now residing in collections across the country. Recognize this fact and take steps to eliminate the criminal elements from the hobby in the future. To this point.....
10) I would like to see PSA disassociate itself from known ex-felons. These people sully PSA's reputation and integrity. There are enough honest vendors or auction houses out there to take their places.
Can anyone add to these steps? I would certainly hope so. Let's hear some helpful ways to get accurate grading back on track.
One thing I'd like to point out that I believe was incorrectly stated by someone in this thread earlier is about cards submitted to PSA already graded possibly being bumped up and down. That is false. According to the press release of the new half-point grading process, cards will only GO UP or REMAIN THE SAME GRADE. Here's the quote from PSA:
"Last but not least, remember that cards submitted under this program will never be in jeopardy of going down in grade. So, the only risk in submitting cards under this new program would be the cost of the submission since there is no guarantee that the cards will reach the higher, half-point grade. In other words, cards submitted under this service will always be returned to the customer, at minimum, in the same grade they arrived in." >>
Yep, that is the case if you send them in for review..If you pop and resubmit, anything goes...lol
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Rich, great post. This definitely needs to go straight to Joe Orlando and to the senior graders.
I have a few things to add...
1- They already do have firm centering guidelines. When they go outside of those is when they invoke the "Eye appeal" clause.
2- I agree, nix the qualifiers now that you a wider range of grades. I doubt it will happen though, because the argument FOR qualifiers is that is shows a more accurate grade. Which is what everyone wants, better accuracy.
3- I think they do not define the wrinkles on purpose. The levels of how bad a wrinkle affects the card is another one of those subjective things.
4-I believe grading specials WILL HAPPEN. They already had them before they made the change. We will see a review special this year.
5-I always liked the idea of "carbon dating". But now with the change to half grades, I wouldn't want it. There will be too much old graded vs. new graded cards going on. We were already seeing it before they started using the cert#s starting with 0 again recently. This change to half grades should be seemless. Also, PSA should already know who the grader is based on the cert#'s.
5b-Not sure why anyone would want to own cards with all different submitters names on them. I collect autographs also, and to me it would be like buying auto's that are personalized to someone else. Making that optional would be a nice touch for those who want their names on the flips, but do not do it across the board. I wouldn't want someone elses name on my collection.
6-The flip errors are ridiculous...Great, they fix them for free now, but the shipping isn't! Make it worth their while to get it right. 5 Free $35 level gradings to anyone who gets an incorrectly labeled card.
7-If they downgraded reviews, I would never send in another card via review process. It would be no different than cracking and submitting raw, and on many cards it wouldn't be worth the gamble. They already send the non-bumped reviews back with little white stickers pointing out why the card wasn't bump worthy. That's the full grade bump process anyway.
8-TOTALLY AGREE with this...More than 5-10%, reject the entire sub.
9-With the amount of cards PSA rejects on a daily basis, I would guess they already have a card doctoring expert on the staff.
10-Agreed. Money isn't everything, and it can't buy a reputation.
Now the first 3 points touch on ways to make grading more accurate, eliminating the "eye appeal" clause as discussed earlier in the thread would be step one. That would make the grading much more technical rather than subjective. Doing away with qualifiers would actually make it less accurate, and defining wrinkles would help us understand how a card that apperars to be PSA 8 or PSA 9 quality comes back a PSA 5.
This still, in my mind, doesn't correct the issue Drew had with a card jumping from 7 to 6 to 8 based on how a grader judges it's corners. Centering is still the only MEASURABLE aspect of the grading process. Everything else, even if all of these points were employed would still be based on levels of. Level of corner wear, level of gloss deterioration, level of fading or toning, level of edge wear, etc. Every card is different. One cards good or bad corners isn't going to be the exact same as another cards. Same with all of the above. So it's still going to be a subjective process in which we trust PSA's graders to give their HONEST OPINIONS on how good or bad those qualities are.
As long as I can get that, I am good with PSA. I don't want them to automatically grade a card higher or lower simply because they are having a bad day. To me, the best way to prevent this is to increase the number of graders who lay eyes on the cards. Instead of one or 2, make it 4 or 5. Have all of them give an opinion, and grade the card based on the consensus. The problem with that is, if they did this, our grading fees would double and price most collectors out of the grading market. Obviously that goes against PSA's corporate plan, and something that drastic, could actually put them out of business.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
"6-The flip errors are ridiculous...Great, they fix them for free now, but the shipping isn't! Make it worth their while to get it right. 5 Free $35 level gradings to anyone who gets an incorrectly labeled card. "
I agree with jason on this one. This would be a great solution as I average about 10% flip errors on my subs. They have serious issues with this. Even more so when you see a card listed on ebay as having a flip of a rarer parallel than it really is. Many times this results in bids well over (some times 10X) what the card is really worth. Well thats for those that dont know what they are bidding on. But the problem becomes is that now someone can enter that rare card in the registry, when it does fit the listing slot at all.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>increase the number of graders who lay eyes on the cards. .... Have all of them give an opinion, and grade the card based on the consensus. >>
Ding, ding, ding .... We have a winner!!!
I totally agree that this is the best way, and maybe the only way (outside of something as drastic as computer grading) that PSA could tighten up their consistancy in grading.
With just one grader looking at our cards, we get these uneven, inconsistant results. Honestly, I'd be happy with just two graders looking at our cards, and getting the consensus between them. But it would have to be blind looks ... not just the second grader agreeing or dissagreeing with the first graders findings. I think we'd see an immediate increase in consistancy by them going with something like that.
And while we're sending all of these ideas into Joe .... I also think they should turn the PSA grading room into a reality TV show. Have the graders do different grading challanges each week. Maybe even sing, dance, loose weight, go out on dates, etc.
All us PSA members could call into an 800 number every month and vote the worst graders off the PSA island. Joe could start speaking with a British accent and help judge all the individual graders performances.
<< <i>All us PSA members could call into an 800 number every month and vote the worst graders off the PSA island. Joe could start speaking with a British accent and help judge all the individual graders performances.
>>
I think what would happen, is everyone would vote off the strict "graders of death", and we would be left with, not necessarily the most accurate graders, but the ones who like to err on the side of the higher grade...
PSA would turn into BCCG where it would almost impossible to not get 50% or more 10's on every sub..lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>"6-The flip errors are ridiculous...Great, they fix them for free now, but the shipping isn't! Make it worth their while to get it right. 5 Free $35 level gradings to anyone who gets an incorrectly labeled card. "
I agree with jason on this one. This would be a great solution as I average about 10% flip errors on my subs. They have serious issues with this. Even more so when you see a card listed on ebay as having a flip of a rarer parallel than it really is. Many times this results in bids well over (some times 10X) what the card is really worth. Well thats for those that dont know what they are bidding on. But the problem becomes is that now someone can enter that rare card in the registry, when it does fit the listing slot at all. >>
They are really terrible with modern football for sure.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i> you have quite a limited view of the coin business if you think a simple yes or no question is a sufficient answer. For classic U.S. type coinage and all 19th and 18th century coinage, for a coin to go from AU58 to MS63 or from MS63 to MS65 or MS64 to MS66, all of which you have asked about, the answer is less than one in a 10,000, maybe even 20,000 shot, and those estimates are low if anything. >>
Drew do those numbers include coins that are doctored before being resubmitted? From what I read over on the coin forum, sounds like there are MAJOR doctoring issues in the coin side. I don't know ANYTHING about coins, but I feel PSA does a fairly descent job of catching card alterations. Cardboard has got to be easier to catch in most cases vs. metal coins.
Jason >>
I'm not sure that any, when doctored by someone with alot of experience is easy, obviously, but I would agree that cardboard is easier to detect than coins. I would expect a similar statement to be issued in the future if PSA realizes the amount of doctored work that is getting by them becomes the enormous buyback risks that have become the case in the coin market. The coin market has created such a escalation in price from one grade to the next that there are dozens(of those there are 4-5) that are highly skilled at coin doctoring that they can take a Morgan dollar worth $1200 in MS64 for example, and with some putty, properly applied toning, and dozens of other measures that takes that nice looking $1200 coin and gets it in a MS65 holder worth $3500. The thing that is scaring the coin grading companies is that while most of this doctoring work is easily detectable, those 4-5 experts can apply such alterations, be it the methods I said earlier, or with lasers(etching) or moving metal around on gold coins to fill in marks and smooth the surface, that are often not even detectable until the putty or chemicals have stabilized and become more apparent on the coin's surface, and that is after the fact and then the grading company is on the hook for a multiple-thousand dollar mistake.
Once the escalation between grades(and alot of cards are already there) reaches that point in card grading to where using new technology is worth someone's full dedication, which maybe it is already I honestly don't know that answer, then you will see these same releases in my opinion placing more of the fault on the actual submitters, right, wrong, or neither.
Grading cards is not rocket science guys. True EX/MNT cards can be Nmnt/Mnt cards on any given day. But first you have to understand what a true EX/MNT card is.
<< <i>Grading cards is not rocket science guys. True EX/MNT cards can be Nmnt/Mnt cards on any given day. But first you have to understand what a true EX/MNT card is.
Steve >>
I was just listening to sports talk radio here in Dallas and they were talking about the subjective nature of officiating in the NFL, and i thought their examples were good analogies for PSA.
Pass Interference, holding, spot of the ball, etc, etc. Is all subjective. Its all a judgement call based on what the official (PSA grader) sees. All have been trained, all know the standard, and usually get 99% of the calls dead on the money. But there are cases were a good official misses a call. Somtimes they THINK they see something that really isn't there (phantom call) and other times simply don't see it. Like PSA, the NFL has a review system. You can choose to throw the red flag on those occasions or you don't. That is the coaches (card owners) responsibility to recognize and identify those errors. The first official (or grader) saw what he saw, he formed an OPINION based on what he saw and where it falls within the rules. That's his job. It's not computerized, its opinions based on published standards vs. what the guy sees with his own eyes. And every guy can, at times, see things that someone else doesn't see.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I think I speak for myself and others when I wonder what level of internal quality control PSA has and what records are they keeping on each grader? Many companies have a quality dept that performs random audits on employee performance and has programs to either improve performance or provide "other opportunities" for the employees who do not meet standards.
Maybve they actually do have this function but just aren't performing enough audits to weed out the inconsistent graders. As Jason points out, grading is subjective but we've all seen examples that are just plain unacceptable - particularly the mechanical errors.
The mechanical/labelling errors are not on the graders..That is on the personnel at the encapulation and database step. Where they enter the card into the database, assign cert #s, print the flips and encapsulate the cards. They should verify and catch any errors made when the cards are logged in to the system. For anyone who has sent cards to PSA, you'll notice that you receive a database/spreadsheet looking form back with your cards in the box from PSA. It lists the cards and the cert #s assigned to each card. That is where the mechanical errors are being made and I would be in favor of firing, letting go, whatever you want to call it of anyone in that step making too many errors. Again, attach some type of monetary or free grading vouchers to that and have that reflect on that employees paycheck. I guarantee they would take a little more time ensuring the card is correctly researched and labelled before being encapsulated and shipped out.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>) Institute reasonably priced review process. Afterall, the cards that some of you will be sending if for review/bumping are already slabbed and therefore have been scrutinized for card doctoring, size, authenticity, etc....already. The review process should take obvious less time and it should be much cheaper to perform that getting a raw card in to be graded. Monthly specials as Jason and Shouldabeen pointed out, could be done to help with the financial hit that many will experience in this regard. >>
On 90% of the cards PSA grades, they spend <10 seconds on a card. How much less time could they possibly spend?
A review special would be great, I'm curious if anyone has heard about the special for February yet. I, like many others I'm sure, have a stack of things to send in already.
Also, according to PSA, all cards are reviewd by more than one grader. In fact, I'm pretty sure thats in the "Video tour of the grading process"
<< <i>The mechanical/labelling errors are not on the graders..That is on the personnel at the encapulation and database step. Where they enter the card into the database, assign cert #s, print the flips and encapsulate the cards. They should verify and catch any errors made when the cards are logged in to the system. For anyone who has sent cards to PSA, you'll notice that you receive a database/spreadsheet looking form back with your cards in the box from PSA. It lists the cards and the cert #s assigned to each card. That is where the mechanical errors are being made and I would be in favor of firing, letting go, whatever you want to call it of anyone in that step making too many errors. Again, attach some type of monetary or free grading vouchers to that and have that reflect on that employees paycheck. I guarantee they would take a little more time ensuring the card is correctly researched and labelled before being encapsulated and shipped out.
Jason >>
well also its on the spec people. they are the ones that are suppose to do the research on the card. the guys at the end of the label line just enter the info so yes a misspelling or wrong number could be on their part. Not listing the card as a mirror gold, refractor etc when its right on the card is on the spec people. That is where nearly all of my errors come from the spec people. Only one time was it probably entered wrong by the lable person. That would have been my Marino Inscriptions that came back as Elway. Someone just duplicated the entry. But again noone ever looked at the card before it left PSA to do a QC.
<< <i>The mechanical/labelling errors are not on the graders..That is on the personnel at the encapulation and database step. Where they enter the card into the database, assign cert #s, print the flips and encapsulate the cards. They should verify and catch any errors made when the cards are logged in to the system. For anyone who has sent cards to PSA, you'll notice that you receive a database/spreadsheet looking form back with your cards in the box from PSA. It lists the cards and the cert #s assigned to each card. That is where the mechanical errors are being made and I would be in favor of firing, letting go, whatever you want to call it of anyone in that step making too many errors. Again, attach some type of monetary or free grading vouchers to that and have that reflect on that employees paycheck. I guarantee they would take a little more time ensuring the card is correctly researched and labelled before being encapsulated and shipped out.
Jason >>
I believe this is partially true,but you may know more on this process. While the errors are started by the labeling, I'm pretty sure the graders re-examine the card after it is encapsulated. That is where your second grader comes in on non-consequential cards like modern bulk submissions. One bulk grader grades them, then they are sealed, then the second guy sees them in the holders, so technically, they should catch the label mistake and correct it at that point.
<< <i>The mechanical/labelling errors are not on the graders..That is on the personnel at the encapulation and database step. Where they enter the card into the database, assign cert #s, print the flips and encapsulate the cards. They should verify and catch any errors made when the cards are logged in to the system. For anyone who has sent cards to PSA, you'll notice that you receive a database/spreadsheet looking form back with your cards in the box from PSA. It lists the cards and the cert #s assigned to each card. That is where the mechanical errors are being made and I would be in favor of firing, letting go, whatever you want to call it of anyone in that step making too many errors. Again, attach some type of monetary or free grading vouchers to that and have that reflect on that employees paycheck. I guarantee they would take a little more time ensuring the card is correctly researched and labelled before being encapsulated and shipped out.
Jason >>
well also its on the spec people. they are the ones that are suppose to do the research on the card. the guys at the end of the label line just enter the info so yes a misspelling or wrong number could be on their part. Not listing the card as a mirror gold, refractor etc when its right on the card is on the spec people. That is where nearly all of my errors come from the spec people. Only one time was it probably entered wrong by the lable person. That would have been my Marino Inscriptions that came back as Elway. Someone just duplicated the entry. But again noone ever looked at the card before it left PSA to do a QC.
Agreed..Which is to say it's not on the graders. From what I know, the graders are only tasked with actually GRADING the card. All the other admin stuff is done be employees not trained on how to grade cards. Basically the minimum wage type people..lol..You know kinda like their customer service..lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
So I was reading up in the coin forum and I stumbled across this nugget:
AU58 coins often look BETTER than MS63 coins. I am fairly sure that PCGS noted some "rub" on the very highest points of the design. Look at the coin with a loupe (or magnifying glass), and you will notice breaks in the luster, or a slightly different color, on the high points of the design. This is "rub", or slight wear. I'm sure you are sincere in thinking the coin should have graded uncirculated, but if you check it closely, you will see what PCGS saw. Grading skills take years to develop. Having said that, I must add that, yes, both PCGS and NGC sometimes make mistakes, but overall, both services get it right most of the time. Good luck, welcome to the Forum, and I hope you continue collecting!
And then i saw the obligatory I agree with and what he said posts right after it.
My point is AU58 in the coin world is like a true EX/MNT card in the card world. Both are GEM examples with the slightest of faults and can be graded in either direction.
So we can in fact see swings of 2 grades in either direction, for those GEMS that have very minor faults.
Unless of course you feel the graders are supposed to be perfect everytime then this is just baloney.
<< <i>I think I speak for myself and others when I wonder what level of internal quality control PSA has and what records are they keeping on each grader? Many companies have a quality dept that performs random audits on employee performance and has programs to either improve performance or provide "other opportunities" for the employees who do not meet standards.
Maybve they actually do have this function but just aren't performing enough audits to weed out the inconsistent graders. As Jason points out, grading is subjective but we've all seen examples that are just plain unacceptable - particularly the mechanical errors. >>
This would be a good start. At my last company, they reviewed employees performance every month by crunching a lot of numbers. If any employee didn't make their numbers, they were given more training in their weak areas. (PSA could do this too and maybe they do now).
Then after more training, if they again missed their numbers, that employee was put on steps. If they didn't improve, they advanced to three step levels. They were given at least four full months and extra training to improve. If they didn't, they eventually were given the foot to the backside right out the door. This was a union represented office too, so the whole process was consistant and fair to all employees. If you didn't make your minimum numbers you were fired.
This job performance ratings scenario is unlike the usual real world we live in today, where slackers can get by forever by doing subpar work because of a variety of issues.
So I wonder if PSA has some internal review process in place now.
1- They already do have firm centering guidelines. When they go outside of those is when they invoke the "Eye appeal" clause.
5b-Not sure why anyone would want to own cards with all different submitters names on them. I collect autographs also, and to me it would be like buying auto's that are personalized to someone else. Making that optional would be a nice touch for those who want their names on the flips, but do not do it across the board. I wouldn't want someone elses name on my collection.
7-If they downgraded reviews, I would never send in another card via review process. It would be no different than cracking and submitting raw, and on many cards it wouldn't be worth the gamble. They already send the non-bumped reviews back with little white stickers pointing out why the card wasn't bump worthy. That's the full grade bump process anyway.
9) With the amount of cards PSA rejects on a daily basis, I would guess they already have a card doctoring expert on the staff.
Jason >>
All good points Jason. I'd like to comment on these points:
1) Actually PSA doesn't have firm centering guidelines, they have ranges of centering within many grades. PSA 8's can be 35/65 to 30/70, or so PSA says. That's not a firm number. Having a range gives PSA an out that leads to the old eye appeal theory.
A couple of years ago I sent in a 800 card order with values under $75. About 100 of them had very close centering to get straight 8's. But I measured them all and they all fell within this supposed range. Many were 32/68 exactly t-b. All of them were from vending with NM-MT+ corners and with no other issues. About half or 50 of them got 7's. When I asked Joe O. about this at a Chicago show, he said that the cards really should be centered 35/65 or better to get an 8 and that 'eye-appeal' played a part. So right there tells you the centering ranges published for 8's are a scam. PSA didn't even follow their own guidelines. They (PSA) should use ONE number for centering. Make it 35/65 or better and there wouldn't be these stupid subjective eye appeal issues.
5B) The reason for this to me personally is this, knowing who submitted any card would give me a reason to buy or not buy the card. There's many card doctors that still to this day get 'funny' cards by all grading companies and into slabs. I know who many of the card doctors are by just being around the hobby all these years and attending the major card shows. Having a submitter's name on the flip, I could then avoid buying a possibly altered card. I would simply stay clear of the known crooks cards.
I guess there's way's around this if it were ever implimented but since I know it won't be, it's a non-issue. Just more a personal opinion of my own that's I wouldn't mind seeing used in the future. More info to me is a good thing. PSA could put this info on the flip in place of the barcode.
Also PSA has that pedigre service already in place where collectors can have their names listed on the labels. Why not the submitters names?
7) I doubt many cards would be downgraded as most collectors would take the time to loupe their cards before sending them in for reviews. Especially in the light of the same fee structure being used for reviews and regular grading.
But I see no problem with downgrades as well as a bump up on reviews. Sort of an even playing field. If you trusted PSA's judgement and knowledge in grading your cards the first time, why not trust them to do the right job the second go around on a review too? There's plenty of low-end for the grade cards in holders too. Just about every week somebody here is posting a link to an ebay auction about how low end this certain card looks or off-center that card is for the grade. Reviews both up or down would get cards in their appropriate holders. In other words accurately graded.
As it is now, most weak for the grade cards get dumped on ebay to the next unsuspecting buyer.
Also, I've twice sent in a grouping of cards for reviews in holders and I've never had PSA indicate the reasons why some cards didn't make the bump up either on the card with a post-it or anywhere on the invoice. Maybe that's something new they started.
9) PSA sometimes rejects cards for trimming that are right out of packs. Do you really think they're that scientific about detecting this illegal activity? I doubt they employ a former card doctor now. These crooks don't reform, they're still out there in full force doing their card altering and making much more money at it then they would if they went 'straight' and worked for PSA. This isn't like the Las Vegas casino's where they employ former cheats.
The WIWAG scandal proved that getting caught at cheating was a mere slap on the wrist with a small fine and some restitution. There's no incentive or harsh enough punishment for these crooks to stop doing their craft.
But I'm certain some of the more veterans graders are pretty good at picking out the funny cards. Still, I see too many altered cards getting into holders to this day. It's like grading companies are always one step behind the criminals in this regard and that's a shame.
I see your point on the centering..Yes that does make more sense, to just have the ONE number 65/35 or better with no exceptions..Like you said, they use the "eye appeal" BS to judge the 65/35-70/30...
With the reviews, as I said, if they started DOWNGRADING those at all for any reason I would never submit another review. Might as well crack andresub if that's the case. You, me, anyone can review cards for an hour a piece, send them in thinking "higher grade" and end up with either a lower grade or altered/trimmed if they were ding that. It's happened to me on crack and resub quite a few times, and while I don't consdier myself an "expert", I've inspected my share of cards. That's really the only GOOD thing about reviews is that you can see if the card is better without risk of losing money like you do with crack outs.
The cards you sent in for review, were they under a $5 or bulk rate price? The only time I had reviews come back without the little stickys was on a $5 special review sub I sent in once before. I think they should do it for every single card going in for review. Show me why it's not that next grade higher, I want proof!!lol
I'm sure altered cards get into every grading companies holders. Some more than others. I think PSA almost always err's on the side of ALTERED/TRIMMED. If you browse through some random PSA submissions, it is RARE that you see a sub larger than 50 cards without at least one ALTERED/TRIMMED. I've done the same as you, sent cards in straight from factory sealed box that came back altered/trimmed. I've cracked cards from every grading companies cases which came back altered/trimmed. Well, I take that back, I don;t remember ever getting an SGC crackout back as doctored, but i'm sure some slip by them as well. I would suspect that at a minimum, a card doctor is employed by PSA to teach new graders what to look for during their initial training. Doesn't mean they will catch every one, but that's the eye of the beholder thing again.
All good points. Unfortunately, none of it solves the consistency problem..lol..But it was a good read.
Adding more opinions to the opinion giving process is really the only way it can get more accurate. Even then, every single card of the millions of PSA graded cards are not going to be perfectly graded.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Very interesting thread here. While everyone has valid opinions on the consitancy of psa grading. I tend to agree with Drew. If I am paying and entrusting my cards to be graded by a "Professional Grader" working for a company that prides itself as a "Leader in the Hobby" A two-three graded point swing is just not acceptable to me from someone who calls themselves a "Leader in the Hobby" and has a tagline of "Never get Cheated"
While I basically agree with Jason on the Points that it is not his job, nor should it be, to Lobby psa anymore than it is anybody else in the hobby. I do think that "WE" as collector's do need to stand together and hold third party grading accountable when we see potential problems that may need to be addressed.
Ive been in this hobby for over 30 years and I do agree with Jason that it is in a person's best interest to educate themselves about the grading scales of these third party grading companies. But the VERY exsistance of Third Party Graders is to HELP protect the collector's from being frauded and to offer an ACCURATE, Proffessional Service to ALL collectors, Even the uneducated collectors from being cheated. After all is that not Joe's tagline? "Never Get Cheated"
Yes the whole grading thing is subjective, but a 2-3 point swing on a 10-point scale is just plain unacceptable to me. I know others will disagree for reasons already posted in this thread. It's unacceptable to me personally though, for anyone calling themselve's "Leaders in the Hobby" which PSA is.
Here is a PERFECT example:
Here is a Card that I purchased on ebay. The auction showed a nice scan of the card front. A very nicely centered 71 Topps. It fit all the requirements that I would have to allow it in my set. I get the card and was very dissapointed. Look at that big nasty stain on the back. How does a so called Professional grader miss that? When simply turning the card over is all it would take to spot this, it is obvious that they did not even look at the back. A train monkey could have done better. This kind of lack of professionalism should NEVER happen, not ever, not once. If your to lazy to turn the card over a check the back you should be relieved of your duties as a "Professional grader" I know some of you are going to say I should have requested to see the back of the card, But Why? I was content with whatever the back centering might have been and TRUSTED PSA's Professional grading to, at the very least turn the card over and let me know if there was a big nasty wax stain on the back. Is that not what we entrusted them to do?
While I will always have PSA cards in my collection, as there's no doubt that many of the finest cards in the hobby are in PSA holders, Its obvious that their grading standards as of late needs to be tighted up, more consistant and better quality control.
<< <i>and as i have said how does going to a 0.5 scale help, if they can swing between 3 full grades. >>
Well, now a 3 grade swing will mean 7.5, 8, 8.5....They've got more to choose from...lol
My 61 cards went in for review today. Hoping for 20% half point bumpage or better, but will be ok with 10%+...I've got a bunch of others valued under $100 ready to go in whenever the next special rolls around.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
While I will always have PSA cards in my collection, as there's no doubt that many of the finest cards in the hobby are in PSA holders, Its obvious that their grading standards as of late needs to be tighted up, more consistant and better quality control. >>
No doubt...And that's not just as of late. Improvements are always needed in a system such as card grading and that goes for all the grading companies. PSA has been job hunting for card graders here on the message boards. I think it's safe to say they haven't had the same grading staff the last 10 years.
As long as we all realize that mistakes will be made along the way, and that we will always have disagreements not only among us, but with the PSA graders as well...When we are posting opinions, like card grading, there will be differences...
For every ugly misgraded card you see out there, I could post a thousand scans of cards that are accurately graded. Lets keep it in perspective...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Just got a email from Rich ( cardbender) seems he has been locked off the boards and can only guess that it had something to do with what he has said in this thread .
I don`t want to say anything else at this point as i am 100% sure it would not go over well with psa.
I do want to say something about Rich however .He is with out a doubt 1 of the best guys i have ever bought from ,sold to ,traded with just a class act all the way around.
Ironic this news comes the same day i get my notice to renew my psa membership , Man i am having a hard time not really saying whats on my mind
<< <i>Its obvious that their grading standards as of late needs to be tighted up, more consistant and better quality control. >>
Lucky for all of us PSA afficianados, Joe Orlando is on top of this. The .5 grading scale will solve all of our problems once and for all. I am sure that the graders would have given that card a 7.5 and then you would've passed on it.
<< <i>Just got a email from Rich ( cardbender) seems he has been locked off the boards and can only guess that it had something to do with what he has said in this thread .
I don`t want to say anything else at this point as i am 100% sure it would not go over well with psa. >>
Hmmm..I just re-read his posts here, I don't see anything that would deserve a lock out...
I agree Rich is a top notch guy. I would be shocked if something in this thread would have done that.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Reagrding that Csonka card, perhaps Ebay should make sellers of graded cards show both the front and back like they are now making the coin sellers do.
I too have been dissapointed paying top dollar for a Mint 9 card and it comes with a 90/10 back, or buying a 52 Bowman and getting a card with a stain reverse.
I guess you have to ask sellers questions b4 bidding lest you get one of these dogs.
<< <i>Reagrding that Csonka card, perhaps Ebay should make sellers of graded cards show both the front and back like they are now making the coin sellers do.
I too have been dissapointed paying top dollar for a Mint 9 card and it comes with a 90/10 back, or buying a 52 Bowman and getting a card with a stain reverse.
I guess you have to ask sellers questions b4 bidding lest you get one of these dogs.
Steve >>
Trouble is, a lot of seller's refuse to send scans of the backs. Some big-time sellers, too. I had one guy reply to my request for a scan by saying that in interest of time constraints they don't send scans of the back. Well, you might say, "Just don't buy from those dealers." And I would agree. But, if the card is a low pop, it's awfully hard to pass up. Better maybe to take your chances.
I didn't see anything inflammatory from cardbenders comments to warrent a booting. He was giving constructive criticisim and bringing up many points that have been brought up in the past (known card doctors like the one that rhymes with Bruiser and the WIWAG scandal) so I don't see the big deal, it's not like they aren't common knowledge by now.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
I agree, scan is a little rough..Doesn't look like a blazer 8, but definitely a 7-8 level card...I could probably find something to make it 6 worthy though with a closer inspection..Not hard to do on any of the Philadelphia cards..The rough cuts and blurry pictures that many of them have could easily be interpreted as a 6-7-8...Just depends on what level the flaw falls...
We discussed this at length, no need to revisit...The moral of the story is the grade is in the eye of the beholder..Anyone expecting 100% accuracy on a scale that is opinion based needs to find a new hobby...One man's 100% accuracy is the next guys 50% accuracy...Its all a matter of opinion.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Anyone expecting 100% accuracy on a scale that is opinion based needs to find a new hobby...One man's 100% accuracy is the next guys 50% accuracy...Its all a matter of opinion. >>
You are 100% right in that I agree 100% that you're 50% right, except when you're not. Then I agree 50% that you're 100% right. Er . . . um . . . You know what I mean.
Comments
One thing I'd like to point out that I believe was incorrectly
stated by someone in this thread earlier is about cards submitted to PSA already graded possibly being bumped up and down. That is false. According to the press release of the new half-point grading process, cards will only GO UP or REMAIN THE SAME GRADE. Here's the quote from PSA:
"Last but not least, remember that cards submitted under this program will never be in jeopardy of going down in grade. So, the only risk in submitting cards under this new program would be the cost of the submission since there is no guarantee that the cards will reach the higher, half-point grade. In other words, cards submitted under this service will always be returned to the customer, at minimum, in the same grade they arrived in."
1) Have firm centering guidelines within each grade with no room for error. PSA 8 centering has to be 35/65 or better, PSA 8.5 centering 40/60 or better, etc....
2) Eliminate all qualifiers from the grading process. If a card is o/c but still NM-MT as far as wear, include that centering with the condition into the overall grade. If is has a stain, same thing.
3) More clearly define paper wrinkles in their grading guidelines and state to what degree they can effect specific grades.
4) Institute reasonably priced review process. Afterall, the cards that some of you will be sending if for review/bumping are already slabbed and therefore have been scrutinized for card doctoring, size, authenticity, etc....already. The review process should take obvious less time and it should be much cheaper to perform that getting a raw card in to be graded. Monthly specials as Jason and Shouldabeen pointed out, could be done to help with the financial hit that many will experience in this regard.
5) Grade dating. Yes, I think PSA should slap a month and year on each card when they are graded, right on the holder. Possibly even the graders initials. That way cards that keep getting sent in for bumps (undergraded the first time), PSA would know who did the grading of those cards and maybe they might need a refresher course on the art of grading with that particular grader. The grading process would take on a personal responsibility for their actions scenario, with I truly feel would lead to more accurate and consistent grading in the end.
5b) I also wouldn't mind seeing the submitters last name put on the flip somewhere. See steps 8, 9, and 10 for the reasons.
6) Despite what the PSA grading video shows, actually have each slabbed card looked at by someone familiar with that issue before the cards get mailed back to customers. This would eliminate virtually all flip errors and help improve customer service emencely.
7) Half-point review process: have any and all cards being sent in for bumps subject to actually being either upgrading and or downgraded. So even though most of the reviews will end up being bumped up because submitters will have screened their cards thoroughly first and only be sending in the cards that warrant bump up consideration. There will be the slim chance that cards may or can be lowered in grade too. That's only fair. Why have only undergraded cards go up a grade or half-grade? Is PSA always grading cards on the conservative side and thus not giving out the 8's and 9's the first time around? It should be a two-way grading street. How many collectors will have the stones to send in cards for reviews if there's a chance their cards may be bumped down?
Many may not like this suggestion but I honestly think it would lead to more accurate grading the first time around. Also, submitters wouldn't be sending in sliders to have bumped either, wasting their money and PSA's time. I understand PSA is doing the half grades now to generate more grading income, but not every card is accurately graded or undergraded. Some are indeed over-graded too and floating around out there in the hobby. Leaving sliders in PSA holders is not a good thing for the long term health of the graded card market.
Any down graded card should be given a brief write up report with the returned invoice stating why it was downgraded like: lower left corner wear, surface problems, etc... not any long winded explanation but a general few words to help explain the reason for the down grade. This would help educate submitters on what PSA deems to be looking at in a negative fashion. This info would help with future submissions.
8) If a submission has a high percentage of doctored cards on it, reject the entire submission and ban that person from submitting in the future. This is a somewhat small hobby but it needs to clean up it's act. A good starting point would be to get rid of the crooks.
9) Finally hire an experienced card doctor and put them on PSA' s staff. Have them available to answer questions on card doctoring and be available to help review some cards that come in to PSA with questionable traits. Thereby helping to eliminate the many crooks out there that submit all the funny cards for grading.
Yes unfortunately, there are many slabbed cards that were doctored that are now residing in collections across the country. Recognize this fact and take steps to eliminate the criminal elements from the hobby in the future. To this point.....
10) I would like to see PSA disassociate itself from known ex-felons.
These people sully PSA's reputation and integrity. There are enough honest vendors or auction houses out there to take their places.
Can anyone add to these steps? I would certainly hope so.
Let's hear some helpful ways to get accurate grading back on track.
Regards,
Rich
PS- sorry for any spelling errors.
<< <i>Wow, what a thread.
One thing I'd like to point out that I believe was incorrectly
stated by someone in this thread earlier is about cards submitted to PSA already graded possibly being bumped up and down. That is false. According to the press release of the new half-point grading process, cards will only GO UP or REMAIN THE SAME GRADE. Here's the quote from PSA:
"Last but not least, remember that cards submitted under this program will never be in jeopardy of going down in grade. So, the only risk in submitting cards under this new program would be the cost of the submission since there is no guarantee that the cards will reach the higher, half-point grade. In other words, cards submitted under this service will always be returned to the customer, at minimum, in the same grade they arrived in." >>
Yep, that is the case if you send them in for review..If you pop and resubmit, anything goes...lol
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I have a few things to add...
1- They already do have firm centering guidelines. When they go outside of those is when they invoke the "Eye appeal" clause.
2- I agree, nix the qualifiers now that you a wider range of grades. I doubt it will happen though, because the argument FOR qualifiers is that is shows a more accurate grade. Which is what everyone wants, better accuracy.
3- I think they do not define the wrinkles on purpose. The levels of how bad a wrinkle affects the card is another one of those subjective things.
4-I believe grading specials WILL HAPPEN. They already had them before they made the change. We will see a review special this year.
5-I always liked the idea of "carbon dating". But now with the change to half grades, I wouldn't want it. There will be too much old graded vs. new graded cards going on. We were already seeing it before they started using the cert#s starting with 0 again recently. This change to half grades should be seemless. Also, PSA should already know who the grader is based on the cert#'s.
5b-Not sure why anyone would want to own cards with all different submitters names on them. I collect autographs also, and to me it would be like buying auto's that are personalized to someone else. Making that optional would be a nice touch for those who want their names on the flips, but do not do it across the board. I wouldn't want someone elses name on my collection.
6-The flip errors are ridiculous...Great, they fix them for free now, but the shipping isn't! Make it worth their while to get it right. 5 Free $35 level gradings to anyone who gets an incorrectly labeled card.
7-If they downgraded reviews, I would never send in another card via review process. It would be no different than cracking and submitting raw, and on many cards it wouldn't be worth the gamble. They already send the non-bumped reviews back with little white stickers pointing out why the card wasn't bump worthy. That's the full grade bump process anyway.
8-TOTALLY AGREE with this...More than 5-10%, reject the entire sub.
9-With the amount of cards PSA rejects on a daily basis, I would guess they already have a card doctoring expert on the staff.
10-Agreed. Money isn't everything, and it can't buy a reputation.
Now the first 3 points touch on ways to make grading more accurate, eliminating the "eye appeal" clause as discussed earlier in the thread would be step one. That would make the grading much more technical rather than subjective. Doing away with qualifiers would actually make it less accurate, and defining wrinkles would help us understand how a card that apperars to be PSA 8 or PSA 9 quality comes back a PSA 5.
This still, in my mind, doesn't correct the issue Drew had with a card jumping from 7 to 6 to 8 based on how a grader judges it's corners. Centering is still the only MEASURABLE aspect of the grading process. Everything else, even if all of these points were employed would still be based on levels of. Level of corner wear, level of gloss deterioration, level of fading or toning, level of edge wear, etc. Every card is different. One cards good or bad corners isn't going to be the exact same as another cards. Same with all of the above. So it's still going to be a subjective process in which we trust PSA's graders to give their HONEST OPINIONS on how good or bad those qualities are.
As long as I can get that, I am good with PSA. I don't want them to automatically grade a card higher or lower simply because they are having a bad day. To me, the best way to prevent this is to increase the number of graders who lay eyes on the cards. Instead of one or 2, make it 4 or 5. Have all of them give an opinion, and grade the card based on the consensus. The problem with that is, if they did this, our grading fees would double and price most collectors out of the grading market. Obviously that goes against PSA's corporate plan, and something that drastic, could actually put them out of business.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
"6-The flip errors are ridiculous...Great, they fix them for free now, but the shipping isn't! Make it worth their while to get it right. 5 Free $35 level gradings to anyone who gets an incorrectly labeled card. "
I agree with jason on this one. This would be a great solution as I average about 10% flip errors on my subs. They have serious issues with this. Even more so when you see a card listed on ebay as having a flip of a rarer parallel than it really is. Many times this results in bids well over (some times 10X) what the card is really worth. Well thats for those that dont know what they are bidding on. But the problem becomes is that now someone can enter that rare card in the registry, when it does fit the listing slot at all.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>increase the number of graders who lay eyes on the cards. .... Have all of them give an opinion, and grade the card based on the consensus. >>
Ding, ding, ding .... We have a winner!!!
I totally agree that this is the best way, and maybe the only way (outside of something as drastic as computer grading) that PSA could tighten up their consistancy in grading.
With just one grader looking at our cards, we get these uneven, inconsistant results. Honestly, I'd be happy with just two graders looking at our cards, and getting the consensus between them. But it would have to be blind looks ... not just the second grader agreeing or dissagreeing with the first graders findings. I think we'd see an immediate increase in consistancy by them going with something like that.
And while we're sending all of these ideas into Joe .... I also think they should turn the PSA grading room into a reality TV show. Have the graders do different grading challanges each week. Maybe even sing, dance, loose weight, go out on dates, etc.
All us PSA members could call into an 800 number every month and vote the worst graders off the PSA island. Joe could start speaking with a British accent and help judge all the individual graders performances.
<< <i>All us PSA members could call into an 800 number every month and vote the worst graders off the PSA island. Joe could start speaking with a British accent and help judge all the individual graders performances.
I think what would happen, is everyone would vote off the strict "graders of death", and we would be left with, not necessarily the most accurate graders, but the ones who like to err on the side of the higher grade...
PSA would turn into BCCG where it would almost impossible to not get 50% or more 10's on every sub..lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>"6-The flip errors are ridiculous...Great, they fix them for free now, but the shipping isn't! Make it worth their while to get it right. 5 Free $35 level gradings to anyone who gets an incorrectly labeled card. "
I agree with jason on this one. This would be a great solution as I average about 10% flip errors on my subs. They have serious issues with this. Even more so when you see a card listed on ebay as having a flip of a rarer parallel than it really is. Many times this results in bids well over (some times 10X) what the card is really worth. Well thats for those that dont know what they are bidding on. But the problem becomes is that now someone can enter that rare card in the registry, when it does fit the listing slot at all. >>
They are really terrible with modern football for sure.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
you have quite a limited view of the coin business if you think a simple yes or no question is a sufficient answer. For classic U.S. type coinage and all 19th and 18th century coinage, for a coin to go from AU58 to MS63 or from MS63 to MS65 or MS64 to MS66, all of which you have asked about, the answer is less than one in a 10,000, maybe even 20,000 shot, and those estimates are low if anything. >>
Drew do those numbers include coins that are doctored before being resubmitted? From what I read over on the coin forum, sounds like there are MAJOR doctoring issues in the coin side. I don't know ANYTHING about coins, but I feel PSA does a fairly descent job of catching card alterations. Cardboard has got to be easier to catch in most cases vs. metal coins.
Jason >>
I'm not sure that any, when doctored by someone with alot of experience is easy, obviously, but I would agree that cardboard is easier to detect than coins. I would expect a similar statement to be issued in the future if PSA realizes the amount of doctored work that is getting by them becomes the enormous buyback risks that have become the case in the coin market. The coin market has created such a escalation in price from one grade to the next that there are dozens(of those there are 4-5) that are highly skilled at coin doctoring that they can take a Morgan dollar worth $1200 in MS64 for example, and with some putty, properly applied toning, and dozens of other measures that takes that nice looking $1200 coin and gets it in a MS65 holder worth $3500. The thing that is scaring the coin grading companies is that while most of this doctoring work is easily detectable, those 4-5 experts can apply such alterations, be it the methods I said earlier, or with lasers(etching) or moving metal around on gold coins to fill in marks and smooth the surface, that are often not even detectable until the putty or chemicals have stabilized and become more apparent on the coin's surface, and that is after the fact and then the grading company is on the hook for a multiple-thousand dollar mistake.
Once the escalation between grades(and alot of cards are already there) reaches that point in card grading to where using new technology is worth someone's full dedication, which maybe it is already I honestly don't know that answer, then you will see these same releases in my opinion placing more of the fault on the actual submitters, right, wrong, or neither.
Steve
<< <i>Grading cards is not rocket science guys. True EX/MNT cards can be Nmnt/Mnt cards on any given day. But first you have to understand what a true EX/MNT card is.
Steve >>
I was just listening to sports talk radio here in Dallas and they were talking about the subjective nature of officiating in the NFL, and i thought their examples were good analogies for PSA.
Pass Interference, holding, spot of the ball, etc, etc. Is all subjective. Its all a judgement call based on what the official (PSA grader) sees. All have been trained, all know the standard, and usually get 99% of the calls dead on the money. But there are cases were a good official misses a call. Somtimes they THINK they see something that really isn't there (phantom call) and other times simply don't see it. Like PSA, the NFL has a review system. You can choose to throw the red flag on those occasions or you don't. That is the coaches (card owners) responsibility to recognize and identify those errors. The first official (or grader) saw what he saw, he formed an OPINION based on what he saw and where it falls within the rules. That's his job. It's not computerized, its opinions based on published standards vs. what the guy sees with his own eyes. And every guy can, at times, see things that someone else doesn't see.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Maybve they actually do have this function but just aren't performing enough audits to weed out the inconsistent graders. As Jason points out, grading is subjective but we've all seen examples that are just plain unacceptable - particularly the mechanical errors.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>) Institute reasonably priced review process. Afterall, the cards that some of you will be sending if for review/bumping are already slabbed and therefore have been scrutinized for card doctoring, size, authenticity, etc....already. The review process should take obvious less time and it should be much cheaper to perform that getting a raw card in to be graded. Monthly specials as Jason and Shouldabeen pointed out, could be done to help with the financial hit that many will experience in this regard. >>
On 90% of the cards PSA grades, they spend <10 seconds on a card. How much less time could they possibly spend?
A review special would be great, I'm curious if anyone has heard about the special for February yet. I, like many others I'm sure, have a stack of things to send in already.
Also, according to PSA, all cards are reviewd by more than one grader. In fact, I'm pretty sure thats in the "Video tour of the grading process"
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
<< <i>The mechanical/labelling errors are not on the graders..That is on the personnel at the encapulation and database step. Where they enter the card into the database, assign cert #s, print the flips and encapsulate the cards. They should verify and catch any errors made when the cards are logged in to the system. For anyone who has sent cards to PSA, you'll notice that you receive a database/spreadsheet looking form back with your cards in the box from PSA. It lists the cards and the cert #s assigned to each card. That is where the mechanical errors are being made and I would be in favor of firing, letting go, whatever you want to call it of anyone in that step making too many errors. Again, attach some type of monetary or free grading vouchers to that and have that reflect on that employees paycheck. I guarantee they would take a little more time ensuring the card is correctly researched and labelled before being encapsulated and shipped out.
Jason >>
well also its on the spec people. they are the ones that are suppose to do the research on the card. the guys at the end of the label line just enter the info so yes a misspelling or wrong number could be on their part. Not listing the card as a mirror gold, refractor etc when its right on the card is on the spec people. That is where nearly all of my errors come from the spec people. Only one time was it probably entered wrong by the lable person. That would have been my Marino Inscriptions that came back as Elway. Someone just duplicated the entry. But again noone ever looked at the card before it left PSA to do a QC.
Marino Error
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>The mechanical/labelling errors are not on the graders..That is on the personnel at the encapulation and database step. Where they enter the card into the database, assign cert #s, print the flips and encapsulate the cards. They should verify and catch any errors made when the cards are logged in to the system. For anyone who has sent cards to PSA, you'll notice that you receive a database/spreadsheet looking form back with your cards in the box from PSA. It lists the cards and the cert #s assigned to each card. That is where the mechanical errors are being made and I would be in favor of firing, letting go, whatever you want to call it of anyone in that step making too many errors. Again, attach some type of monetary or free grading vouchers to that and have that reflect on that employees paycheck. I guarantee they would take a little more time ensuring the card is correctly researched and labelled before being encapsulated and shipped out.
Jason >>
I believe this is partially true,but you may know more on this process. While the errors are started by the labeling, I'm pretty sure the graders re-examine the card after it is encapsulated. That is where your second grader comes in on non-consequential cards like modern bulk submissions. One bulk grader grades them, then they are sealed, then the second guy sees them in the holders, so technically, they should catch the label mistake and correct it at that point.
<< <i>
<< <i>The mechanical/labelling errors are not on the graders..That is on the personnel at the encapulation and database step. Where they enter the card into the database, assign cert #s, print the flips and encapsulate the cards. They should verify and catch any errors made when the cards are logged in to the system. For anyone who has sent cards to PSA, you'll notice that you receive a database/spreadsheet looking form back with your cards in the box from PSA. It lists the cards and the cert #s assigned to each card. That is where the mechanical errors are being made and I would be in favor of firing, letting go, whatever you want to call it of anyone in that step making too many errors. Again, attach some type of monetary or free grading vouchers to that and have that reflect on that employees paycheck. I guarantee they would take a little more time ensuring the card is correctly researched and labelled before being encapsulated and shipped out.
Jason >>
well also its on the spec people. they are the ones that are suppose to do the research on the card. the guys at the end of the label line just enter the info so yes a misspelling or wrong number could be on their part. Not listing the card as a mirror gold, refractor etc when its right on the card is on the spec people. That is where nearly all of my errors come from the spec people. Only one time was it probably entered wrong by the lable person. That would have been my Marino Inscriptions that came back as Elway. Someone just duplicated the entry. But again noone ever looked at the card before it left PSA to do a QC.
Marino Error >>
Agreed..Which is to say it's not on the graders. From what I know, the graders are only tasked with actually GRADING the card. All the other admin stuff is done be employees not trained on how to grade cards. Basically the minimum wage type people..lol..You know kinda like their customer service..lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Loves me some shiny!
AU58 coins often look BETTER than MS63 coins. I am fairly sure that PCGS noted some "rub" on the very highest points of the design. Look at the coin with a loupe (or magnifying glass), and you will notice breaks in the luster, or a slightly different color, on the high points of the design. This is "rub", or slight wear. I'm sure you are sincere in thinking the coin should have graded uncirculated, but if you check it closely, you will see what PCGS saw. Grading skills take years to develop. Having said that, I must add that, yes, both PCGS and NGC sometimes make mistakes, but overall, both services get it right most of the time. Good luck, welcome to the Forum, and I hope you continue collecting!
And then i saw the obligatory I agree with and what he said posts right after it.
My point is AU58 in the coin world is like a true EX/MNT card in the card world. Both are GEM examples with the slightest of faults and can be graded in either direction.
So we can in fact see swings of 2 grades in either direction, for those GEMS that have very minor faults.
Unless of course you feel the graders are supposed to be perfect everytime then this is just baloney.
Steve
<< <i>I think I speak for myself and others when I wonder what level of internal quality control PSA has and what records are they keeping on each grader? Many companies have a quality dept that performs random audits on employee performance and has programs to either improve performance or provide "other opportunities" for the employees who do not meet standards.
Maybve they actually do have this function but just aren't performing enough audits to weed out the inconsistent graders. As Jason points out, grading is subjective but we've all seen examples that are just plain unacceptable - particularly the mechanical errors. >>
This would be a good start. At my last company, they reviewed employees performance every month by crunching a lot of numbers. If any employee didn't make their numbers, they were given more training in their weak areas. (PSA could do this too and maybe they do now).
Then after more training, if they again missed their numbers, that employee was put on steps. If they didn't improve, they advanced to three step levels. They were given at least four full months and extra training to improve. If they didn't, they eventually were given the foot to the backside right out the door. This was a union represented office too, so the whole process was consistant and fair to all employees. If you didn't make your minimum numbers you were fired.
This job performance ratings scenario is unlike the usual real world we live in today, where slackers can get by forever by doing subpar work because of a variety of issues.
So I wonder if PSA has some internal review process in place now.
I guess we could ask Joe O.
<< <i>
1- They already do have firm centering guidelines. When they go outside of those is when they invoke the "Eye appeal" clause.
5b-Not sure why anyone would want to own cards with all different submitters names on them. I collect autographs also, and to me it would be like buying auto's that are personalized to someone else. Making that optional would be a nice touch for those who want their names on the flips, but do not do it across the board. I wouldn't want someone elses name on my collection.
7-If they downgraded reviews, I would never send in another card via review process. It would be no different than cracking and submitting raw, and on many cards it wouldn't be worth the gamble. They already send the non-bumped reviews back with little white stickers pointing out why the card wasn't bump worthy. That's the full grade bump process anyway.
9) With the amount of cards PSA rejects on a daily basis, I would guess they already have a card doctoring expert on the staff.
Jason >>
All good points Jason. I'd like to comment on these points:
1) Actually PSA doesn't have firm centering guidelines, they have ranges of centering within many grades. PSA 8's can be 35/65 to 30/70, or so PSA says. That's not a firm number. Having a range gives PSA an out that leads to the old eye appeal theory.
A couple of years ago I sent in a 800 card order with values under $75. About 100 of them had very close centering to get straight 8's. But I measured them all and they all fell within this supposed range. Many were 32/68 exactly t-b. All of them were from vending with NM-MT+ corners and with no other issues. About half or 50 of them got 7's. When I asked Joe O. about this at a Chicago show, he said that the cards really should be centered 35/65 or better to get an 8 and that 'eye-appeal' played a part. So right there tells you the centering ranges published for 8's are a scam. PSA didn't even follow their own guidelines. They (PSA) should use ONE number for centering. Make it 35/65 or better and there wouldn't be these stupid subjective eye appeal issues.
5B) The reason for this to me personally is this, knowing who submitted any card would give me a reason to buy or not buy the card. There's many card doctors that still to this day get 'funny' cards by all grading companies and into slabs. I know who many of the card doctors are by just being around the hobby all these years and attending the major card shows. Having a submitter's name on the flip, I could then avoid buying a possibly altered card. I would simply stay clear of the known crooks cards.
I guess there's way's around this if it were ever implimented but since I know it won't be, it's a non-issue. Just more a personal opinion of my own that's I wouldn't mind seeing used in the future. More info to me is a good thing. PSA could put this info on the flip in place of the barcode.
Also PSA has that pedigre service already in place where collectors can have their names listed on the labels. Why not the submitters names?
7) I doubt many cards would be downgraded as most collectors would take the time to loupe their cards before sending them in for reviews. Especially in the light of the same fee structure being used for reviews and regular grading.
But I see no problem with downgrades as well as a bump up on reviews. Sort of an even playing field. If you trusted PSA's judgement and knowledge in grading your cards the first time, why not trust them to do the right job the second go around on a review too? There's plenty of low-end for the grade cards in holders too. Just about every week somebody here is posting a link to an ebay auction about how low end this certain card looks or off-center that card is for the grade. Reviews both up or down would get cards in their appropriate holders. In other words accurately graded.
As it is now, most weak for the grade cards get dumped on ebay to the next unsuspecting buyer.
Also, I've twice sent in a grouping of cards for reviews in holders and I've never had PSA indicate the reasons why some cards didn't make the bump up either on the card with a post-it or anywhere on the invoice. Maybe that's something new they started.
9) PSA sometimes rejects cards for trimming that are right out of packs. Do you really think they're that scientific about detecting this illegal activity? I doubt they employ a former card doctor now. These crooks don't reform, they're still out there in full force doing their card altering and making much more money at it then they would if they went 'straight' and worked for PSA. This isn't like the Las Vegas casino's where they employ former cheats.
The WIWAG scandal proved that getting caught at cheating was a mere slap on the wrist with a small fine and some restitution. There's no incentive or harsh enough punishment for these crooks to stop doing their craft.
But I'm certain some of the more veterans graders are pretty good at picking out the funny cards. Still, I see too many altered cards getting into holders to this day. It's like grading companies are always one step behind the criminals in this regard and that's a shame.
------------------------------
Sorry about beating a dead horse..........
Rich
With the reviews, as I said, if they started DOWNGRADING those at all for any reason I would never submit another review. Might as well crack andresub if that's the case. You, me, anyone can review cards for an hour a piece, send them in thinking "higher grade" and end up with either a lower grade or altered/trimmed if they were ding that. It's happened to me on crack and resub quite a few times, and while I don't consdier myself an "expert", I've inspected my share of cards. That's really the only GOOD thing about reviews is that you can see if the card is better without risk of losing money like you do with crack outs.
The cards you sent in for review, were they under a $5 or bulk rate price? The only time I had reviews come back without the little stickys was on a $5 special review sub I sent in once before. I think they should do it for every single card going in for review. Show me why it's not that next grade higher, I want proof!!lol
I'm sure altered cards get into every grading companies holders. Some more than others. I think PSA almost always err's on the side of ALTERED/TRIMMED. If you browse through some random PSA submissions, it is RARE that you see a sub larger than 50 cards without at least one ALTERED/TRIMMED. I've done the same as you, sent cards in straight from factory sealed box that came back altered/trimmed. I've cracked cards from every grading companies cases which came back altered/trimmed. Well, I take that back, I don;t remember ever getting an SGC crackout back as doctored, but i'm sure some slip by them as well. I would suspect that at a minimum, a card doctor is employed by PSA to teach new graders what to look for during their initial training. Doesn't mean they will catch every one, but that's the eye of the beholder thing again.
All good points. Unfortunately, none of it solves the consistency problem..lol..But it was a good read.
Adding more opinions to the opinion giving process is really the only way it can get more accurate. Even then, every single card of the millions of PSA graded cards are not going to be perfectly graded.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I tend to agree with Drew. If I am paying and entrusting my cards to be graded by a "Professional Grader" working for a company that prides itself as a "Leader in the Hobby" A two-three graded point swing is just not acceptable to me from someone who calls themselves a "Leader in the Hobby" and has a tagline of "Never get Cheated"
While I basically agree with Jason on the Points that it is not his job, nor should it be, to Lobby psa anymore than it is anybody else in the hobby. I do think that "WE" as collector's do need to stand together and hold third party grading accountable when we see potential problems that may need to be addressed.
Ive been in this hobby for over 30 years and I do agree with Jason that it is in a person's best interest to educate themselves about the grading scales of these third party grading companies.
But the VERY exsistance of Third Party Graders is to HELP protect the collector's from being frauded and to offer an ACCURATE, Proffessional Service to ALL collectors, Even the uneducated collectors from being cheated. After all is that not Joe's tagline? "Never Get Cheated"
Yes the whole grading thing is subjective, but a 2-3 point swing on a 10-point scale is just plain unacceptable to me. I know others will disagree for reasons already posted in this thread. It's unacceptable to me personally though, for anyone calling themselve's "Leaders in the Hobby" which PSA is.
Here is a PERFECT example:
Here is a Card that I purchased on ebay. The auction showed a nice scan of the card front. A very nicely centered 71 Topps. It fit all the requirements that I would have to allow it in my set. I get the card and was very dissapointed. Look at that big nasty stain on the back. How does a so called Professional grader miss that? When simply turning the card over is all it would take to spot this, it is obvious that they did not even look at the back. A train monkey could have done better. This kind of lack of professionalism should NEVER happen, not ever, not once. If your to lazy to turn the card over a check the back you should be relieved of your duties as a "Professional grader"
I know some of you are going to say I should have requested to see the back of the card, But Why? I was content with whatever the back centering might have been and TRUSTED PSA's Professional grading to, at the very least turn the card over and let me know if there was a big nasty wax stain on the back. Is that not what we entrusted them to do?
While I will always have PSA cards in my collection, as there's no doubt that many of the finest cards in the hobby are in PSA holders, Its obvious that their grading standards as of late needs to be tighted up, more consistant and better quality control.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>and as i have said how does going to a 0.5 scale help, if they can swing between 3 full grades. >>
Well, now a 3 grade swing will mean 7.5, 8, 8.5..
My 61 cards went in for review today. Hoping for 20% half point bumpage or better, but will be ok with 10%+...I've got a bunch of others valued under $100 ready to go in whenever the next special rolls around.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
While I will always have PSA cards in my collection, as there's no doubt that many of the finest cards in the hobby are in PSA holders, Its obvious that their grading standards as of late needs to be tighted up, more consistant and better quality control. >>
No doubt...And that's not just as of late. Improvements are always needed in a system such as card grading and that goes for all the grading companies. PSA has been job hunting for card graders here on the message boards. I think it's safe to say they haven't had the same grading staff the last 10 years.
As long as we all realize that mistakes will be made along the way, and that we will always have disagreements not only among us, but with the PSA graders as well...When we are posting opinions, like card grading, there will be differences...
For every ugly misgraded card you see out there, I could post a thousand scans of cards that are accurately graded. Lets keep it in perspective...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I don`t want to say anything else at this point as i am 100% sure it would not go over well with psa.
I do want to say something about Rich however .He is with out a doubt 1 of the best guys i have ever bought from ,sold to ,traded with just a class act all the way around.
Ironic this news comes the same day i get my notice to renew my psa membership , Man i am having a hard time not really saying whats on my mind
<< <i>Its obvious that their grading standards as of late needs to be tighted up, more consistant and better quality control. >>
Lucky for all of us PSA afficianados, Joe Orlando is on top of this. The .5 grading scale will solve all of our problems once and for all. I am sure that the graders would have given that card a 7.5 and then you would've passed on it.
<< <i>Just got a email from Rich ( cardbender) seems he has been locked off the boards and can only guess that it had something to do with what he has said in this thread .
I don`t want to say anything else at this point as i am 100% sure it would not go over well with psa.
>>
Hmmm..I just re-read his posts here, I don't see anything that would deserve a lock out...
I agree Rich is a top notch guy. I would be shocked if something in this thread would have done that.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Steve
I too have been dissapointed paying top dollar for a Mint 9 card and it comes with a 90/10 back, or buying a 52 Bowman and getting a card with a stain reverse.
I guess you have to ask sellers questions b4 bidding lest you get one of these dogs.
Steve
<< <i>Reagrding that Csonka card, perhaps Ebay should make sellers of graded cards show both the front and back like they are now making the coin sellers do.
I too have been dissapointed paying top dollar for a Mint 9 card and it comes with a 90/10 back, or buying a 52 Bowman and getting a card with a stain reverse.
I guess you have to ask sellers questions b4 bidding lest you get one of these dogs.
Steve >>
Trouble is, a lot of seller's refuse to send scans of the backs. Some big-time sellers, too. I had one guy reply to my request for a scan by saying that in interest of time constraints they don't send scans of the back.
Well, you might say, "Just don't buy from those dealers." And I would agree. But, if the card is a low pop, it's awfully hard to pass up. Better maybe to take your chances.
Russell
He is one of the good guys, and I hope he gets back on soon.
Maybe we can resubmit him under the new review process?
Mike
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
Steve
We discussed this at length, no need to revisit...The moral of the story is the grade is in the eye of the beholder..Anyone expecting 100% accuracy on a scale that is opinion based needs to find a new hobby...One man's 100% accuracy is the next guys 50% accuracy...Its all a matter of opinion.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Anyone expecting 100% accuracy on a scale that is opinion based needs to find a new hobby...One man's 100% accuracy is the next guys 50% accuracy...Its all a matter of opinion. >>
You are 100% right in that I agree 100% that you're 50% right, except when you're not. Then I agree 50% that you're 100% right. Er . . . um . . . You know what I mean.