Vintage grades on 58/59 Topps posted.............cards received, and upon further review...........

RonBurgundy · February 7, 2008 2:59AM

I really hate to add my voice to those who complain about grades. Most of the time I shrug my shoulders and move on, but not this time. This is an absolute joke, in particular the back half of the order. Who looked at these, a 5th grader? Many of you know I have a decent eye for vintage cards, and if I'm off by a grade I can live with it. This is another story and was pretty much a waste of my money. I also realize that without scans it is hard for you to respond so I will post them once received. But in the meantime know that I will not be submitting anything to PSA for a long, long time (minimum 6 months). Comments follow.

1 03193337 1958 TOPPS 403 STEVE KORCHECK N/A 8 - accurate though the card is 9 worthy.
2 03193338 1958 TOPPS 399 MARV GRISSOM N/A 9 - this card was, at minimum, a 9.
3 03193339 1959 TOPPS 45 ANDY CAREY N/A 7 - accurate
4 03193340 1959 TOPPS 178 RUBEN AMARO N/A 8 - accurate
5 03193341 1959 TOPPS 338 GEORGE ANDERSON N/A 7 - ridiculous. Some dealers in Houston thought this was an 8.5 candidate.
6 03193342 1959 TOPPS 392 WHITEY HERZOG N/A 8 - the lowest possible grade for this card.
7 03193343 1959 TOPPS 230 BILL FISCHER N/A 7 - this card was thought by many of you to be 9 worthy when I scanned it.
8 03193344 1959 TOPPS 231 ELLIS BURTON N/A 8 - accurate.
9 03193345 1959 TOPPS 71 DON BESSENT N/A 8 - accurate.
10 03193346 1959 TOPPS 25 DON HOAK N/A 7 - probably accurate, thought it could slide to 8.
11 03193347 1975 TOPPS 660 HANK AARON N/A 7 - ? Pulled straight out of a pack. Vomit.
12 03193348 1980 TOPPS 482 RICKEY HENDERSON N/A 7 - double vomit.
13 03193349 1980 TOPPS 580 NOLAN RYAN N/A 8 - fine, I guess a dealer friend of mine was right. The crackdown on 9's is on.
14 03193350 1963 TOPPS 472 LOU BROCK N/A 7 - the lowest possible grade for the card.
15 03193351 1969 TOPPS 221 ART SHAMSKY N/A 8 - accurate.
16 03193352 1958 TOPPS 88 DUKE SNIDER N/A 5 - probably accurate, sent it in with a weird surface defect on the back.
17 03193353 1958 TOPPS 394 JIM GRANT N/A 7 - lowest possible grade for the card.
18 03193354 1958 TOPPS 19 GIANTS TEAM N/A 6 - here's where the fun starts. This card is a solid 7.
19 03193355 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 6 - hmmm. This card mirrors the Grissom. No surface wrinkles either. Did we invert 6?
20 03193356 1958 TOPPS 331 PEDRO RAMOS N/A 6 - let's see 50/50 centering, fresh gloss, sharp corners, no defects = 6. Ok.
21 03193357 1958 TOPPS 434 HARVEY KUENN N/A 7 - centering may have gotten this one, I can't remember.
22 03193358 1958 TOPPS 285 FRANK ROBINSON N/A 6 - LOL.
23 03193359 1958 TOPPS 190 RED SCHOENDIENST N/A 7 - centering probably makes this one accurate.
24 03193360 1958 TOPPS 283 RAY SHEARER N/A 7 - same (centering).
25 03193361 1958 TOPPS 238 BILL MAZEROSKI N/A 8 - the one gift of the lot.
26 03193362 1958 TOPPS 310 ERNIE BANKS N/A 6 - Are you $%#@! kidding me? Wow I can't wait to post the scan of this card.
27 03193363 1958 TOPPS 438 WHITEY HERZOG N/A 8 - Another carbon copy of the Grissom. Not the same grade.
28 03193364 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 7 - An uppercut to the chin.
29 03193365 1958 TOPPS 13 BILLY HOEFT WHITE NAME 6 - The final death blow. Absolutely unreal. Wait for the scan.
30 03193366 1958 TOPPS 183 DAVE JOLLY N/A 6 - Kicking the body after it's dead.

Final comment: I miss on cards from time to time. We all do, even the graders. But I didn't miss on all of these and I can assure you that many of you would feel the same way if you had these in your hands.

Ron

BobaFett72 · February 7, 2008 3:05AM

i'd love to see some scans.

and...where are the 1/2 grades???

Morgoth · February 7, 2008 3:05AM

2 questions, was this graded before the 0.5 point system and is the Maz for sale

CDsNuts · February 7, 2008 3:08AM

Every 7th sub for me is downgraded by a full grade across the board. I'm not sure how you don't know this as a regular submitter.

RonBurgundy · February 7, 2008 3:12AM

Perhaps I didn't know it until you just told me.

I would add these commons came from the same lot as the '58 stars I posted awhile back, 4 of which graded 8 and one graded 9. Guess I should be happy that I submitted those a long time ago.

Ron

julen23 · February 7, 2008 3:13AM

if the grade dont fit
you must resubmit.

still hella nice grades on cards over 40 years old bro!

1980 topps nolan ryan for sale? can i see scan?

j

WinPitcher · February 7, 2008 3:24AM

Not to beat a dead horse here but some 6's are (or could be) 8's at any given time. True 6's are EX-MINT. It is perhaps these cards were looked at very harshly and if resubmitted could possibly get the 2 pt. bump. Sadly we have been told time and time again that 6's are a mid grade card. And in a way they are but they also are MINT cards that have 2 minor flaws. In Ron's case maybe 2 corners were soft enough (under 10x magnification) which I think is ludicrous (thank the coin guys for that) to make the grader give them a 6 grade.

Because we also see cards graded 6 that are basically OC 8's we now have 2 classes of 6's.

I have done it b4, I have sent in SGC and PSA 6 and received 8's from them. I have also bought 6's I thought were better then many 7's.

Steve

samspop · February 7, 2008 3:26AM

RonBurgundy:

I would be interested in this one...without the vomit.

11 03193347 1975 TOPPS 660 HANK AARON N/A 7 - ? Pulled straight out of a pack. Vomit.

Let me know.

Thanks,

CDsNuts · February 7, 2008 3:41AM

Judging from the scans you posted, they were definitely undergraded for the most part. I've never deluded myself into thinking that PSA was all that consistent (accurate maybe 85% of the time?), so I just play the crack and resubmit game if I think they are undergraded. Sure it's a waste of money if you look at it from a rational perspective, but that's the game.

I suspect quality control is almost non-existent at this point and there are one or two graders that are extra tough, but that's just in my head so it may not be true.

stown · February 7, 2008 3:46AM

Sorry to hear that, Ron.

Please post some scans when they arrive.

onlyanumber · February 7, 2008 4:02AM

<< Every 7th sub for me is downgraded by a full grade across the board. I'm not sure how you don't know this as a regular submitter. >>

I thought I was the only one who felt that way...

JasP24 · February 7, 2008 4:11AM

The return of the GRADER OF DEATH...

I've had a few subs like this over the years...Sucks when it happens to you, but as Lee stated, its part of the territory...Most graders are pretyy accurate, but every once and awhile you see the overgraded sub with 50 out of 70 PSA 10's, and then other times you get undergraded across the board.

Luck of the draw...

Better luck next time, whenever that may be...If you don't resubmit the undergraded cards, someone else will in the future and reap the rewards...

Jason

envoy98 · February 7, 2008 4:53AM

I've gotten 6's on cards that came back later as 8's and 9's. Usually they had some sort of minor bend or "pack bend" in them on an edge or a corner. You can usually get rid of that pretty easily. I've also had stuff that had fingerprints on it that I've removed (pretty sure they were PSA's fingerprints every time), but they get a nice bump too once the fingerprint is gone. Especially those shiny modern cardboard ones.

nam812 · February 7, 2008 5:46AM

Ron, I thought you never check the sub until it arrives at your house? Did curiosity get the best of you?

ebayaddict · February 7, 2008 5:55AM

Great comments...LOL........that does suck. Thats why SGC just got 2 orders from me this week.

F1ferrari · February 7, 2008 6:25AM

I know that graders are human and mistakes are possible, but isn't accurate, quality grading what is being paid for here? If these cards can be mirrors of each other and one come back a 6 and one a 9, how the heck can PSA possibly determine 6 from 6.5 from 7.0 from 7.5 and 8? It all stinks of greed to me, knowing that you would crack and resubmit a Banks or Aaron 6 in hopes of an 8.

CDsNuts · February 7, 2008 6:36AM

Shockingly, yes, a publicly traded company in a capitalist economy will do whatever they can to make money.

RonBurgundy · February 7, 2008 6:48AM

Nick - with the new system I couldn't help it.

Ron

RipublicaninMass · February 7, 2008 7:09AM

...and I was just gona post a poll how everyone thought the grades were. I am sure to combat the enormous amount of subs from the new .5, which is given out 3/99 tiimes, they hired new graders. Looks like I will be waiting as well

RonBurgundy · February 7, 2008 7:12AM

For what it's worth, one of the dealers in Houston who looked at these told me they were THE nicest 58's he had seen in 20+ years of being a dealer. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, and you will be able to know my frustration.

I would be willing to bet that if I was willing to submit the Grissom enough times, it might make it into a 10 holder. That's how nice that card is.

Ron

WinPitcher · February 7, 2008 7:15AM

It all stinks of greed to me, knowing that you would crack and resubmit a Banks or Aaron 6 in hopes of an 8.

I disagree, it is more or less wanting the card to be graded what you feel it is.

Steve

Mickey71 · February 7, 2008 8:12AM

I think there has been a larger turn over of grader's than we think. I sent cards in a cross over that were 8's and 8.5 and they said minimum grade 7 on all of them. These cards supposedly went to the head grader about 3 times because I complained and he said 7 on all of them. I sent them a 63 Mantle that was sharp as a tack and the head grader said 7. These were SGC and GAI that I submitted myself. I think this is a much larger problem than it appears. I have owned numerous Mantle's and have graded them with consistant results except for the past 10 months. The last few subs. seem like they were not graded with the same set of standards as the previous 15 years-this is very alarming to me. Have the head graders changed lately? They would be the ones providing the training to newer graders- you would think. Has anyone asked the question to themselves that if the level of service and professionalism keeps going down hill and this company no longer exists what will become of your cards. Will they have to be regraded by the latest and greatest? I don't even need to see the scans Ron, your cards were undergraded-I don't have any doubts. It appears they want cards to be resubbed.
Mickey71

OAKESY25 · February 7, 2008 10:05AM

MICKEY71...

YOU ARE THE BIG WINNER!!!!!
your last sentence hit it on the head and it is what I said was going to be the case..
got bashed for it.. and now it turns out to be true.. my money will not be going to
psa anytime soon.. I just cant justify it.. I had a 120+ card sub getting ready..
it is going to go to sgc and see how it does..
resubs is the name of the game.. I would rather just have acurate grades the first time
since I paid good money for them

Goot · February 7, 2008 10:23AM

Time for REVOLUTION!!!!

My main man Bob Marley once said somethin like (If I remember the right lyrics).....

It takes a revolution to make a solution,
Too much confusion, so much frustration!!

WinPitcher · February 7, 2008 10:54AM

The problem IMO is simply cards from 7 and up are not all that indistinguishable. One day a card can be a 7 on another it can be an 8. We have bought into this 3rd party grading because 2 people could not agree on a cards grade and thus its worth. The old adage you reap what you sow comes into play here. If people were not so deceitful we wouldn't need a 3rd party to tell us what grade a card is. I mean grading is not rocket science. Some cards are graded harshly others not so. What we then get is grding that is all over the place. Add the fact that 10 cards all graded 8 (or whatever) will not all look the same, some will be centered differently, others will have honest wear while still others will have a manufacturers defect and so on. Place 10 of the same card all graded the same and I would think that you can put them into an order of best to worse. You may hav a few that are similiar.

We are getting what we deserve. We need someone else to tell us what grade our card is.

Steve

ahkmedbinladen · February 7, 2008 12:33PM

Can you say karma.... maybe bad mouthing Kyle sportscards multiple times on this board and Pologrounds caught up to ya. Whats funny is you whine about Kyles prices and there you are in Houston buying from him. On the 6s you flat out must of missed some light surface wrinkles. Happens all the time with the cardstock on 58s. Maybe your eye is not quite as good as you think it is. Sorry you didnt get the grades you wanted. Crack em and look closely for the wrinkles or crimps.Re submit em.Good luck to ya.

jojowest · February 7, 2008 12:52PM

Just another reason why I won't be renewing my membership anytime soon. I saw many of your earlier scans on those 58's and they were sharp. First the stupid half grades and now total inconsistency in grading whats next?

Goot · February 7, 2008 1:20PM

<< Can you say karma.... maybe bad mouthing Kyle sportscards multiple times on this board and Pologrounds caught up to ya. Whats funny is you whine about Kyles prices and there you are in Houston buying from him. On the 6s you flat out must of missed some light surface wrinkles. Happens all the time with the cardstock on 58s. Maybe your eye is not quite as good as you think it is. Sorry you didnt get the grades you wanted. Crack em and look closely for the wrinkles or crimps.Re submit em.Good luck to ya. >>

Teach me your ways master splinter since apparently YOU are the one witht he great eye.

RonBurgundy · February 7, 2008 1:32PM

Um, akhmed let's get some things straight:

1) I took a card back to Kyle in Houston that I had bought off him, submitted it twice, and it came back trimmed twice. I gave it back to him and took cards in return instead of cash. If you saw me "buying" off him in Houston why didn't you call me out in person rather than hide behind the anonymity of this board? Maybe because you were jumping to conclusions?

2) I "flat out" must have missed some surface wrinkles, huh? Sure, it's always the submitter's fault. Tell you what, next time I'm thinking of having cards graded I'll send them to you instead for a pre-review since apparently you are the expert.

3) As a matter of fact, I disagree I was "badmouthing" anyone. I was reporting the tactics of those 2 dealers and I won't stop doing it. People can draw their own conclusions whether they are good or bad.

4) I'm puzzled why you would launch such a diatribe when you thought nothing of calling me last summer and discussing (badmouthing?) one of those same dealers. If you had such an issue with this post, you could have called me. You have my number. What's funny is you have a history of badmouthing certain individuals on this board but apparently no one else is entitled to their opinion.

Ron

ColleSystem · February 7, 2008 1:42PM

<< On the 6s you flat out must of missed some light surface wrinkles. >>

No. surface wrinkles don't get 6s, they get 5s.

Stone193 · February 7, 2008 1:48PM

Ron

Sorry to hear about this and tho I don't submit alot - I've had that disappointing feeling also.

When ya scan them, could a "Link" a larger scan - since posting it would eat the screen.

E.g. here's a card I just scanned yesterday:

And here's a link with the card before I resized it.

I think one can get a good idea of the card this way? Thanx for considering it.
mike

11235813 · February 7, 2008 2:00PM

Funny how everyone is now starting to agree with my comments from last month (which I got blasted for) noting that it is impossible to consitently and accurately discern such minute differences in card condition and that PSA's graders are no more accurate than the collectors on this board!

RonBurgundy · February 7, 2008 2:09PM

Thanks Mike. And you said it well - I am just disappointed and frustrated. That's all.

Ron

RawPlusSlabbed · February 7, 2008 2:12PM

<< I've gotten 6's on cards that came back later as 8's and 9's. Usually they had some sort of minor bend or "pack bend" in them on an edge or a corner. You can usually get rid of that pretty easily. I've also had stuff that had fingerprints on it that I've removed (pretty sure they were PSA's fingerprints every time), but they get a nice bump too once the fingerprint is gone. Especially those shiny modern cardboard ones.

>>

Card doctor:&gt

Stone193 · February 7, 2008 2:17PM

<< Funny how everyone is now starting to agree with my comments from last month (which I got blasted for) noting that it is impossible to consitently and accurately discern such minute differences in card condition and that PSA's graders are no more accurate than the collectors on this board! >>

Can't argue with you about that.

Grading is very subjective - but those graders make errors in judgement probably out of fatigue and having a bad day - no different than anyone else and that's the inherent problem IMO.

But - I think one would be totally underestimating the expertise these guys have - they look at countless cards - some have the ability and knowledge to spot a fake a mile away - and generally have a depth of understanding about a myriad of different brands - both pre and postwar that I can only dream about.

I liked the original mission of grading back during it's inception when Superlative Grading was the new guy on the block - PSA was a dream and Alan Hager was developing the Arrowhead holder and the 10 point - simplified grading system.

Grading had some distinct advantages when buying thru the mail - no scans - no internet - just a rather obscure picture in SCD e.g.

A graded card offered peace of mind - a shot that it was real and a shot that it was fairly graded.

Keep in mind - back in the 80s, a card that was graded Nmmt - would more likely be a PSA 6 today in many instances.

mike

Carew29 · February 7, 2008 2:22PM

And not one .5 in the bunch to boot!!!!!!!!!! Sorry to hear Ron. I know i have graded some of your postings. I don't recall giving anything below a 7 to your scans.

Leiascards · February 7, 2008 2:49PM

Send em to SGC for restoration and regrading.

TheMcgwireMuseum · February 7, 2008 2:52PM

<< Send em to SGC for restoration and regrading. >>

(ahem) its rerating

11235813 · February 7, 2008 4:06PM

Mike,

Thanks for your supportive comments.

The problem, as I see it, is that people aren't paying for a 95% accuracy rate, especially considering the prices PSA and the other grading companies charge. They are submitting cards for grading with the expectation that they will be graded accurately every single time.

This is also true on the buying side, especially given the vast differences in prices at the high end. If someone pays a huge premium for a PSA 10, they expect to receive an accurately graded card, not an inaccurately graded card that really should be a PSA 9 or 8.

The whole reason for third-party grading collapses if grading companies cannot consistently provide accurate grades.

Stone193 · February 7, 2008 10:16PM

<< Mike,

Thanks for your supportive comments.

The problem, as I see it, is that people aren't paying for a 95% accuracy rate, especially considering the prices PSA and the other grading companies charge. They are submitting cards for grading with the expectation that they will be graded accurately every single time.

This is also true on the buying side, especially given the vast differences in prices at the high end. If someone pays a huge premium for a PSA 10, they expect to receive an accurately graded card, not an inaccurately graded card that really should be a PSA 9 or 8.

The whole reason for third-party grading collapses if grading companies cannot consistently provide accurate grades. >>

Again - I feel your pain.

But first one is gonna have to define consistency relevant to grading.

And further - expectation.

No company can do anything 100% of the time and meet expectation 100% of the time.

On the fees - many specials involve a 5 buck submission - even in bulk - there's just so many hours in the day - so things aren't gonna go the way one wants all the time. It's just too darn subjective.

In order to meet the expectation you're alluding to - the cost would be much higher - i.e. - if every card got the full monty and 2nd and 3rd opinion? Not gonna happen for 5 or even 20 bucks.

As I said - the original expectation that we had about grading was met - in the 90s - now? Perhaps not - but what's the alternative?

Again - no one can do something right all of the time - no matter how much money one throws at it?

But, I'm a man with a dream - so stay tuned.

mike

CDsNuts · February 8, 2008 1:04AM

Numbers guy- PSA has never been anywhere close to 95% accurate, nor has any other grading company. Expecting that level of accuracy would be like going to a Ford dealer and buying a Taurus and expecting it to last 30 years. Sure it might happen, but odds are it won't.

As of now, I believe PSA (and SGC) is somewhere around 80-85% accurate/consistent, and that's not likely to improve any time soon. Sometimes you have to pay more than once to get the card in the right slab. You may not like it, but that's the way it's always been and always will be, so what's the point in complaining about it? You can bash PSA all you want about this, but the definition of crazy is to continue to do the same things and expect different results. Do you really think anyone on this board deludes themselves into thinking PSA is 95% consistent?

I could slam McDonald's all day long because their food tastes like crap, but they're not going to change it. Why do you continue to come here and do this? You have to know you're wasting your breath. Maybe you just like complaining about stuff you have no control over. Maybe you just like attention. Maybe you like being the bad guy. Whatever your intentions, your spiel is getting old. We know PSA grading is inconsistent.

stown · February 8, 2008 1:21AM

edited

trolls arent worth it.

honestly, cant recall ever calling anyone a troll before now.

julen23 · February 8, 2008 1:28AM

money money money

it's the root of all evils.

we need to think more along lines of '70s & women's liberation,
naked & raw is good!

slabs are like foot length dresses covering up so much beauty that simply cannot be seen b/c of a set of #'s.

kumbaya my lord....

j

11235813 · February 8, 2008 2:41AM

<< Sometimes you have to pay more than once to get the card in the right slab. >>

No I don't. I can decide that PSA does not provide good value for money and not have my cards slabbed at all.

<< what's the point in complaining about it? >>

To enlighten the thousands of collectors out there submitting cards to grading companies in the incorrect belief that their cards will always be accurately graded. There are many new collectors joining these boards every single day. Not everyone is a highly informed veteran collector.

<< Do you really think anyone on this board deludes themselves into thinking PSA is 95% consistent? >>

Yeah, I think lots of newer collectors (and more than a few older ones) believe that grading companies are 99-100% accurate and provide definitive opinions. Maybe not that many people on this board, but certainly a majority of the hobby in general.

The whole secondary market for graded cards is based on the premise that slabbed cards are always accurately graded and that you are getting the grade you pay for. When you pay a premium for a PSA 9 card, you expect to get a PSA 9 quality card 100% of the time. You'd be mighty upset if you paid that premium (which is often 300-400% of the PSA 8 price) only to discover that the card you bought was really an inaccurately graded PSA 8 quality card.

And Stown....instead of calling me and everyone else who is critical of PSA a troll, why don't you actually engage in discussion and provide some counter-arguments. You childlishly criticize just about every comment I make, but I've yet to see you actually try to refute any of the points I make.

Stone193 · February 8, 2008 3:33AM

<< but I've yet to see you actually try to refute any of the points I make >>

Numbers

I think you may be missing the point - no one is arguing with your premise - it's more - like why beat a dead horse.

As I said - grading - whether it be PSA, SGC or Beckett provides "some" peace of mind that it's authentic and "some" peace of mind that it's as described by a seller.

I think most here - perhaps way more than you give credit - understand that not all 9s or 8s are created equal.

The reality - if ya gonna go graded - be ready to invest in resubs - it's just part of the game I guess.

And last - I have no problem with someone coming here and being disappointed with their grades from a sub - as long as a few of their threads also help to further our appreciation of the hobby.

Some - and valid - are tired of the constant harangue of complaints that aren't tempered with something positive.

I think you're singing to the choir out of tune.
mike

RonBurgundy · February 8, 2008 3:45AM

I think collectors accept crack and resubmit to a point. For instance, 3 or 4 cards on my 30 card submission would've been fine. 14 that need to be looked at again is not acceptable.

Ron

leadoff4 · February 8, 2008 3:52AM

Ron, I agree. My recent submission of '63 BB(43 of them). I thought around 5 of them should have been 9s and out of the 21 7s, half of those could/should have been 8s. We're put between a rock and hard place when it comes to resubmitting. (1) it costs more $$, (2) we have to play the waiting game again, and (3) you don't know if they're going to get them right this time either. Also, I think they are harder on the bulk vintage subs than anything else. I've had accurate grading recently with the $13/5-day and also my 6 freebies for renewing. Anyone else have this experience?

11235813 · February 8, 2008 4:00AM

What if PSA offered customers X amount of free resubmits a year or offered half-price resumits?

Stone193 · February 8, 2008 4:01AM

<< I think collectors accept crack and resubmit to a point. For instance, 3 or 4 cards on my 30 card submission would've been fine. 14 that need to be looked at again is not acceptable.

Ron >>

Can't argue with that Ron.

I would expect with a 30 card sub anywhere from 3 to 6 cards - 14 is off the chart!

If ya resub - I will be interested to see how ya do?
mike

RipublicaninMass · February 8, 2008 4:08AM

mkg809 · February 8, 2008 4:55AM

11 03193347 1975 TOPPS 660 HANK AARON N/A 7 - ? Pulled straight out of a pack. Vomit.

Hmmm...... so all cards pulled straight from the pack should be 10s?
You gotta be kidding me. Just because it's "PACK FRESH" doesn't mean jack about the condition. I thought you would know better.