Did you request no qualifiers? That set (and '73) are terrible with printing defects - both spots and snow. I think the PDs jump out on '76s because of the bold colors and simple design. That may also help to explain the lack of .5s.
Collector of 1976 Topps baseball for some stupid reason. Collector of Pittsburgh Pirates cards for a slightly less stupid reason. My Pirates Collection
The point 5 thing - they specifically said when they made the change that a .5 grade is not mid way to the next grade. A .5 grade is still technically the whole grade, BUT WITH NICE EYE APPEAL. They said that they would pay special attention to centering on the .5 . IF THAT'S THE CASE (yes, I'm yelling) HOW MUCH MORE CENTERED DO THEY HAVE TO FREAKIN' BE, JOE!!!! How can you possibly have any more eye appeal than those 7's and 8's? So, you are telling me that the Johnson and the Fryman (2 cards that I thought were lock 9's and possibly 10's) are 7's and not even a 7 POINT FREAKIN' 5!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????
Sorry, I had to let that out.
How much does an Ebay store cost (I'm not yelling anymore).
I mentioned I had a bad feeling about this sub. The cards have great eye appeal, but most have a minor flaw and graders sometimes key in on that. I think they were worth a shot, with cards like that you could have had a different grader and seen bumps on atleast a few cards. I was pulling for ya though.
I think you did pretty good overall and are still likely in the positive for the set you have and the quality we can see from the scans. I think most are still jealous (meaning I am) of your purchase.
Clear skies, Mark
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.
Nothing like a minus one submission (all cards a grade lower than you think) to infuriate and nauseate. I've had a few minus one subs, so I know how you feel. I once had a plus one sub and felt like I was cheating, but only for a minute before I rejoiced. Numbers guy is right that grading should be a lot more consistent than it has been lately. Sadly, this inconsistency is probably impacting more with the regrades and pretty good special (and the new bulk methodology).
I've got about 80 raw that I should submit, plus 2 cases of 87 FU Maddux rookies - but I am going to wait based on some of the misgrades that are being posted currently.
For what it's worth, on my last 1976T sub I got a 10 on that Johnson card you somehow got a 7 on. It sold for $134 on ebay, although I had it listed for $35 on the B/S/T board for 2 weeks. You might be surprised by some 9's and/or the 10's. Drop me a pm about the 7's and 8's if you like.
Sorry to hear that you're disappointed. Sounds like you got one of the many graders who are totally clueless. Just reinforces my belief that PSA opinions are not worth paying for.
And as to the lack of half grades....I'd have to agree that it's part of the plan to drum up more resubmission business by not giving half grades the first time around.
Gorgeous cards....too bad they cannot be displayed raw anymore!
You should have had 4sc's send those in for you if you wanted more 10's.........those are some of the best 30+ year old raw cards Ive seen scanned on these boards.....
Mark -------------------------------------------- NFL HOF RC SET
<< <i>You should have had 4sc's send those in for you if you wanted more 10's.........those are some of the best 30+ year old raw cards Ive seen scanned on these boards..... >>
You are absolutely correct about 4sc. They would have gotten 25 or 30 10's out of that submission. They say that the graders don't know who's cards they are grading. I used to believe that. I say that's a bunch of bull. Are you telling me that when someone sends in thousands of cards, the graders aren't notified about whose sub it is?
Most of the 7s probably had PD issues. The scan of the Fryman and Johnson look like they have too many white dots, so PSA 7 = PSA 9 PD
I haven't noticed that the gradng is any worse or better than normal. I think any time you are submitting believing you will get a bunch of 10s you will end up disappointed. For the most part 10s are solely at their discretion of the grader. Since I've been using PSA (grading and collecting PSA since the late 90s) they have always graded key cards for a set more harshly (unless you happen to be one of their bulk submitters).
He did have 40 of 70 cards get PSA 9 or better for this sub which is a pretty high rate for cards in the 70s. He had some cards without 50-50 centering and had cards with print defects and did not ask for any qualifiers. If the results had been:
10 - 3
9 - 37
8 - 21
9pd - 8
8pd - 1
Would this still be a bad sub? He did ask for no qualifiers.
Anyways Allen was right. Really nice cards but some minor flaws.
The 4SC comment was dead on as well. They get the +1 subs but we all know it and we all keep doing business just the same.
fergie's right- Both of those cards have snow, but they still should be 8s. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but one out of every 7 subs gets undergraded by a full grade across the board. It sucks when it happens but you have to at least expect that there's a possibility of it happening when submitting cards. I've had the benefit of accurate (benevolent, even) grades on my last 5 or so subs, so I'm pretty much expecting to get killed one of these times. Best thing to do would be to cherry pick the potential 10s (and 9s of stars) and resubmit. Or give up grading if you can't deal with the disappointment. It's not a fun game to play, but a profitable one if you know what you're doing.
Oh, I do know that it is a risk. I have been disappointed a time or two, but I have profited from it as well (ie $850 for a 1984 Donruss Mattingly PSA 10 and $2,125 for a 1993 Finest Ryan PSA 10). That's part of the game. It just irritating when I see so much inconsistency. On the snow, yes, you're right. They still should be 8's, at the very least. And even if they are in the 7 range, they still should have gotten a .5 bump due to the centering and eye appeal.
I will go over the Yount when I get it back. I am thinking about resending a couple of those back in with my 6 vouchers. Any ideas which ones? I am thinking the Yount and the Schmidt. Maybe the Munson, as well.
Shane- I think you might've used up all your good karma on that 93 Finest Ryan. I think I said I thought it would go for $100-$150. I was a little off.
<< <i>Shane- I think you might've used up all your good karma on that 93 Finest Ryan. I think I said I thought it would go for $100-$150. I was a little off. >>
i believe PSA has definately tightened up the gradin in 2008....i sent in a card i though had a chance at a 10 and it got a 7....i still cant see anything wrong with it....
oh well, i guess its better then them going the other way alla BGS...
Well, I have received my cards. I have sold Red Sox team card to Onlythe10s and a Dwight Evans to VitoCo1972. The rest are listed on Ebay, with the exception of the Mike Schmidt and the Robin Yount. I am definitely resubmitting the Schmidt with my voucher's. I found a raised spot on the Yount. They may have deemed it a surface wrinkle. Anyway, I hope you guys will forgive me for posting the Ebay link in this thread. I don't ever do this, but I think it is relevant to this thread. Here they are.
<< <i>Seeing them in person, do you still feel they were undergraded? >>
The answer to that is yes and no. I'll put it this way, I did look at some of the 8's again under magnification, and I did see the tiniest bit of a touch on maybe one corner and can see how a tough grader would give it an 8. On the 2 7's that were commons, the corners were super nice. There was some snow on the surface, but how did that knock them down to 7's. I am still clueless on those. If you had a grading scale for the graders of 1 lenient, 2 lenient-average, 3 average, 4 average-tough, 5 tough, I would give this submission a grade of 4 average-tough.
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I there is an update. I knew I got ripped on some of those cards, so I decided to resend one of them in just for the fun of it.
Here is the original slab.
Here it is after busting out and resending.
I wish that I would have saved a few more to resend. That one card makes an approximate $80 to $90 difference.
Awesome!! Very inspiring to see that! I have alot of very high end 9s that I want to crack out, but I always stop short of doing it. I figure a crackout from an 8 to a 9 is probably easier than 9 to a 10. Any thoughts?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Nice cards. I just sent my first sub in about 2 years in, am looking for the bonus grades to bribe me to send more in. Is very disappointing to know that the a card can go from an 8 to a 9 though, depending on the grader. Doesnt really lend much confidence to the whole grading scale, especially when you consider that an 8.5 would have been justified from the beginning.
Comments
Collector of Pittsburgh Pirates cards for a slightly less stupid reason.
My Pirates Collection
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
The point 5 thing - they specifically said when they made the change that a .5 grade is not mid way to the next grade. A .5 grade is still technically the whole grade, BUT WITH NICE EYE APPEAL. They said that they would pay special attention to centering on the .5 . IF THAT'S THE CASE (yes, I'm yelling) HOW MUCH MORE CENTERED DO THEY HAVE TO FREAKIN' BE, JOE!!!! How can you possibly have any more eye appeal than those 7's and 8's? So, you are telling me that the Johnson and the Fryman (2 cards that I thought were lock 9's and possibly 10's) are 7's and not even a 7 POINT FREAKIN' 5!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????
Sorry, I had to let that out.
How much does an Ebay store cost (I'm not yelling anymore).
Shane
/////////////////////////////
$16.00 a month.
Plus TINY listing fees, and FVFs.
It's like have hundreds of worms in the water 24/7;
the fishes can stop by at anytime.
Clear skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Strange grading pattern.
The two 7s may have been a bit snowy?
<< <i>Aside from Fisk and Rose, were any other stars graded 9s?
Strange grading pattern.
The two 7s may have been a bit snowy? >>
Nope. Only the Fisk. The Rose got a 7.
Shane
BTW, he got 9s on the 3 league leader cards that feature HOFers. Those count as stars in my book.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Can't see myself taking that gamble right now.
Perhaps it would be worth it to break into two or three different subs?
The grading industry seems rather volatile right now ... for some odd reason.
I've got about 80 raw that I should submit, plus 2 cases of 87 FU Maddux rookies - but I am going to wait based on some of the misgrades that are being posted currently.
For what it's worth, on my last 1976T sub I got a 10 on that Johnson card you somehow got a 7 on. It sold for $134 on ebay, although I had it listed for $35 on the B/S/T board for 2 weeks. You might be surprised by some 9's and/or the 10's. Drop me a pm about the 7's and 8's if you like.
Bosox1976
<< <i>I do have a question for you guys - how should I move them in order to maximize sales? >>
Resubmit.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4
Sorry to hear that you're disappointed. Sounds like you got one of the many graders who are totally clueless. Just reinforces my belief that PSA opinions are not worth paying for.
And as to the lack of half grades....I'd have to agree that it's part of the plan to drum up more resubmission business by not giving half grades the first time around.
Gorgeous cards....too bad they cannot be displayed raw anymore!
Matt
Mark
--------------------------------------------
NFL HOF RC SET
the pride of PSA!
<< <i>You should have had 4sc's send those in for you if you wanted more 10's.........those are some of the best 30+ year old raw cards Ive seen scanned on these boards..... >>
You are absolutely correct about 4sc. They would have gotten 25 or 30 10's out of that submission. They say that the graders don't know who's cards they are grading. I used to believe that. I say that's a bunch of bull. Are you telling me that when someone sends in thousands of cards, the graders aren't notified about whose sub it is?
Also, thank you for the compliment.
Shane
I haven't noticed that the gradng is any worse or better than normal. I think any time you are submitting believing you will get a bunch of 10s you will end up disappointed. For the most part 10s are solely at their discretion of the grader. Since I've been using PSA (grading and collecting PSA since the late 90s) they have always graded key cards for a set more harshly (unless you happen to be one of their bulk submitters).
He did have 40 of 70 cards get PSA 9 or better for this sub which is a pretty high rate for cards in the 70s. He had some cards without 50-50 centering and had cards with print defects and did not ask for any qualifiers. If the results had been:
10 - 3
9 - 37
8 - 21
9pd - 8
8pd - 1
Would this still be a bad sub? He did ask for no qualifiers.
Anyways Allen was right. Really nice cards but some minor flaws.
The 4SC comment was dead on as well. They get the +1 subs but we all know it and we all keep doing business just the same.
Robb
Oh, I do know that it is a risk. I have been disappointed a time or two, but I have profited from it as well (ie $850 for a 1984 Donruss Mattingly PSA 10 and $2,125 for a 1993 Finest Ryan PSA 10). That's part of the game. It just irritating when I see so much inconsistency. On the snow, yes, you're right. They still should be 8's, at the very least. And even if they are in the 7 range, they still should have gotten a .5 bump due to the centering and eye appeal.
I will go over the Yount when I get it back. I am thinking about resending a couple of those back in with my 6 vouchers. Any ideas which ones? I am thinking the Yount and the Schmidt. Maybe the Munson, as well.
Shane
<< <i>Shane- I think you might've used up all your good karma on that 93 Finest Ryan. I think I said I thought it would go for $100-$150. I was a little off. >>
Oh, man - don't say that!
Shane
i believe PSA has definately tightened up the gradin in 2008....i sent in a card i though had a chance at a 10 and it got a 7....i still cant see anything wrong with it....
oh well, i guess its better then them going the other way alla BGS...
1976 Topps
Shane
<< <i>Seeing them in person, do you still feel they were undergraded? >>
The answer to that is yes and no. I'll put it this way, I did look at some of the 8's again under magnification, and I did see the tiniest bit of a touch on maybe one corner and can see how a tough grader would give it an 8. On the 2 7's that were commons, the corners were super nice. There was some snow on the surface, but how did that knock them down to 7's. I am still clueless on those. If you had a grading scale for the graders of 1 lenient, 2 lenient-average, 3 average, 4 average-tough, 5 tough, I would give this submission a grade of 4 average-tough.
Shane
Here is the original slab.
Here it is after busting out and resending.
I wish that I would have saved a few more to resend. That one card makes an approximate $80 to $90 difference.
Shane
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Glad you were able to recoup some of your money, Frank.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Erik
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I wonder how much money I've lost because of "subjectivity" in the past.
I guess it all evens out in the long run.
Just a bit disheartening. That's all.