<< <i>"And you truly think that PSA reads all the posts here on a message board in order to find ways to improve their business??? That's dillusional.."
I have ZERO problem with anybody posting their pumps/bashes. They will be responded to by those who agree/disagree with them.
A fun marketplace of ideas. >>
Has there ever been an example of this in the past?? PSA reading the boards and acting on a complaint from a poster or posters??? I'd be interested to hear...
Wouldn't it be MUCH more efficient to call PSA directly to make a complaint rather than come here and pile on to thread number 1,001 on why PSA sucks??
I don't get it... 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.
NickM- that's a good idea. For every 7th sub I'll send in an 89 Topps common or something. I think you just saved me about $30,000 over the course of the rest of my life.
<< <i>Honest criticism is good for PSA, keeps them on their toes.
In some cases the complaints do see 100% justified. Ron has a great eye for cards and it seems as if he got the shaft on a number of cards.
I buy very few graded cards, but I don't have anything against PSA, I do happen to like SGC holders better on vintage, white bordered cards; really makes'em pop. I also feel SGC is as accurate as PSA. >>
I totally agree about some criticism and posting one's disappointment.
Some of the discontent is directed at people who seem to have it their sole purpose for posting.
Anyone here who brings other content to the table will most likely be better received and with less incredulity.
That's my concern.
A whine and cheese part here gets 30 replies while a post about a card - someone's passion - a piece of memorabilia - at times may get only 1 or 2 replies.
Perhaps CU may want to consider a special forum just for bringing up the concerns about service, mistakes in grading and producing flips or something like that.
Hey if someone wants to vent about poor grades then so be it, the less people that feed into it then more than likely the thread will just move right along and get buried with other topics. I think all points have been discussed and countered in this thread alone. Bottom line Ron felt he got burnt on his submission and hes not happy, its his choice to not submit anymore-some will follow suit and some will not. We have all seen Rons posts of raw cards and I think we all agree he has got an eye for nice cards, unfortunately the grader that viewed his cards saw something that he may or may not have seen. It has happened to a lot of people but I think many others have been happy with their subs as well.
Everyone knows the deal, you hope to get the best grades when you submit but there is NO garuntee that you will get what you think/hope they deserve, it is what it is. As far as SGC goes they are another option- however I have spoken with a few people that have said that PSA tends to be more critical of centering? Curious what you folks think of that?
SGC does not use OC qualifier they seem to net grade the card, sorta like PSA does when you request 'no qualifiers' on a sub.
All a grader has to see (under 10x magnification) is wear on 2 or more corners and that will make a card a 6. I really can't believe with those they say that you have to send in your cards 2x before you get the proper grade as if PSA knows that the card has been sent in 2x.
SGC does not use OC qualifier they seem to net grade the card, sorta like PSA does when you request 'no qualifiers' on a sub.
All a grader has to see (under 10x magnification) is wear on 2 or more corners and that will make a card a 6. I really can't believe with those they say that you have to send in your cards 2x before you get the proper grade as if PSA knows that the card has been sent in 2x.
Barcodes anyone?
Steve >>
My inexperience shows! - I guess thats what was meant when they said PSA was more critical of centering then! Good to know..
"...As far as SGC goes they are another option- however I have spoken with a few people that have said that PSA tends to be more critical of centering? Curious what you folks think of that?"
/////////////////////////////////////////
IF the market decides that PSA is the "toughest grader," my high-grade PSA cards should be EXTRA valuable.
I have NO problem with that.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
To do so, with NO indication on the flip that the card had already been double-round-tripped, would induce/condone fraud in the market. It would also be unethical/fraudulent to charge a relook fee and ONLY look at a barcode.
NOT going to happen.
The graders will NOT know how many times the card has visited. CS may know, BUT NOT the graders.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
I really can't believe with those they say that you have to send in your cards 2x before you get the proper grade as if PSA knows that the card has been sent in 2x
Looks like I ignited a real imbroglio here. May I offer up the following thoughts:
1) Thank you to those of you who complimented me on my eye for raw cards. I've been lucky that my batting average has been pretty good, but like everyone I miss some. But I still don't think I missed by 2 grades on 14 out of 30 cards and I don't think many of you would either.
2) I really didn't want to come on and vent like others have done about poor grades but these were terrifically off the mark in my opinion. Maybe I'll get them back and see the issues with each of them. I doubt it.
3) I think this highlights one of the real issues with grading in general.
4) I would discourage criticism of Joe. Until Thursday, I had zero contact with Joe but after receiving these results (and also not knowing whether these cards were graded on the half grade scale), I emailed him. I got a prompt response and an offer from Joe to have reviewed any cards that I disagreed with. So many of these will be on their way back to Newport Beach after I get them back. You have to give him credit for that.
Stay classy,
Ron
Ron Burgundy
Buying Vintage, all sports. Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Good of Joe to listen to your gripe, and certainly respectable of him to afford you a review of the cards you felt got a bad shake. Hopefully it works out for the good Ron.
JasP24 and stone, great points as always. No need to continue it, especially since I'm an employee of PSA.
: snickers :
Ron, glad to hear Joe is going to review your cards.
You know I admire your eye for sharp cards and I hope you know my comments to 124342923 had absolutely nothing to do with you.
Keep us posted
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Just received the cards back from PSA. On further review the number of what I would call egregious errors is about 9 out of 30, not 14. Here they are and these are the cards I'm sending back to Joe:
5 03193341 1959 TOPPS 338 GEORGE ANDERSON N/A 7 -
7 03193343 1959 TOPPS 230 BILL FISCHER N/A 7 -
19 03193355 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 6 - 20 03193356 1958 TOPPS 331 PEDRO RAMOS N/A 6 -
28 03193364 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 7 - 29 03193365 1958 TOPPS 13 BILLY HOEFT WHITE NAME 6 - 30 03193366 1958 TOPPS 183 DAVE JOLLY N/A 6 -
All of these, with the exception of maybe the Robinson, are head scratchers, so I'll have to loupe them this weekend. I do appreciate Joe's review offer and will have to post what happens if I send them back.
Ron
Ron Burgundy
Buying Vintage, all sports. Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Comments
<< <i>"And you truly think that PSA reads all the posts here on a message board in order to find ways to improve their business??? That's dillusional.."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
They read 'em. They may even ACT on some of them.
I have ZERO problem with anybody posting their pumps/bashes.
They will be responded to by those who agree/disagree with them.
A fun marketplace of ideas. >>
Has there ever been an example of this in the past?? PSA reading the boards and acting on a complaint from a poster or posters??? I'd be interested to hear...
Wouldn't it be MUCH more efficient to call PSA directly to make a complaint rather than come here and pile on to thread number 1,001 on why PSA sucks??
I don't get it...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Honest criticism is good for PSA, keeps them on their toes.
In some cases the complaints do see 100% justified. Ron has a great eye for cards and it seems as if he got the shaft on a number of cards.
I buy very few graded cards, but I don't have anything against PSA, I do happen to like SGC holders better on vintage, white bordered cards; really makes'em pop. I also feel SGC is as accurate as PSA. >>
I totally agree about some criticism and posting one's disappointment.
Some of the discontent is directed at people who seem to have it their sole purpose for posting.
Anyone here who brings other content to the table will most likely be better received and with less incredulity.
That's my concern.
A whine and cheese part here gets 30 replies while a post about a card - someone's passion - a piece of memorabilia - at times may get only 1 or 2 replies.
Perhaps CU may want to consider a special forum just for bringing up the concerns about service, mistakes in grading and producing flips or something like that.
mike
Everyone knows the deal, you hope to get the best grades when you submit but there is NO garuntee that you will get what you think/hope they deserve, it is what it is. As far as SGC goes they are another option- however I have spoken with a few people that have said that PSA tends to be more critical of centering? Curious what you folks think of that?
SGC does not use OC qualifier they seem to net grade the card, sorta like PSA does when you request 'no qualifiers' on a sub.
All a grader has to see (under 10x magnification) is wear on 2 or more corners and that will make a card a 6. I really can't believe with those they say that you have to send in your cards 2x before you get the proper grade as if PSA knows that the card has been sent in 2x.
Barcodes anyone?
Steve
<< <i>Perk
SGC does not use OC qualifier they seem to net grade the card, sorta like PSA does when you request 'no qualifiers' on a sub.
All a grader has to see (under 10x magnification) is wear on 2 or more corners and that will make a card a 6. I really can't believe with those they say that you have to send in your cards 2x before you get the proper grade as if PSA knows that the card has been sent in 2x.
Barcodes anyone?
Steve >>
My inexperience shows! - I guess thats what was meant when they said PSA was more critical of centering then! Good to know..
that have said that PSA tends to be more critical of centering? Curious what you folks think of that?"
/////////////////////////////////////////
IF the market decides that PSA is the "toughest grader,"
my high-grade PSA cards should be EXTRA valuable.
I have NO problem with that.
PSA cannot use those for the purpose suggested.
To do so, with NO indication on the flip that the card
had already been double-round-tripped, would induce/condone
fraud in the market. It would also be unethical/fraudulent to
charge a relook fee and ONLY look at a barcode.
NOT going to happen.
The graders will NOT know how many times the card has
visited. CS may know, BUT NOT the graders.
I was being sarcastic.
Steve
1) Thank you to those of you who complimented me on my eye for raw cards. I've been lucky that my batting average has been pretty good, but like everyone I miss some. But I still don't think I missed by 2 grades on 14 out of 30 cards and I don't think many of you would either.
2) I really didn't want to come on and vent like others have done about poor grades but these were terrifically off the mark in my opinion. Maybe I'll get them back and see the issues with each of them. I doubt it.
3) I think this highlights one of the real issues with grading in general.
4) I would discourage criticism of Joe. Until Thursday, I had zero contact with Joe but after receiving these results (and also not knowing whether these cards were graded on the half grade scale), I emailed him. I got a prompt response and an offer from Joe to have reviewed any cards that I disagreed with. So many of these will be on their way back to Newport Beach after I get them back. You have to give him credit for that.
Stay classy,
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
: snickers :
Ron, glad to hear Joe is going to review your cards.
You know I admire your eye for sharp cards and I hope you know my comments to 124342923 had absolutely nothing to do with you.
Keep us posted
5 03193341 1959 TOPPS 338 GEORGE ANDERSON N/A 7 -
7 03193343 1959 TOPPS 230 BILL FISCHER N/A 7 -
19 03193355 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 6 -
20 03193356 1958 TOPPS 331 PEDRO RAMOS N/A 6 -
22 03193358 1958 TOPPS 285 FRANK ROBINSON N/A 6 -
26 03193362 1958 TOPPS 310 ERNIE BANKS N/A 6 -
28 03193364 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 7 -
29 03193365 1958 TOPPS 13 BILLY HOEFT WHITE NAME 6 -
30 03193366 1958 TOPPS 183 DAVE JOLLY N/A 6 -
All of these, with the exception of maybe the Robinson, are head scratchers, so I'll have to loupe them this weekend. I do appreciate Joe's review offer and will have to post what happens if I send them back.
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Steve
Would ya consider scanning the most egregious error in grading? A large - >1000 pixel would be nice.
Thanx and good luck on the resub.
mike