If PSA admitted their mistake on this one, how many have they goofed up over the years and left a customer stuck with Customer Service.... grading this card at this time is a bad move for PSA IMHO.
In my opinion, it's never a bad move or time to do the right thing, admit a mistake, and fix things right. That's what good customer service is all about. Unfortunately it took awhile and some work to get there, but the OP was done right in the end.
There have been dozens of threads showing poppage, and a few cards in those subs had EOT.
Something tells me that if the graders are not 100% sure, they go ahead and give it an EOT, whether or not it was trimmed?
This is made obvious by the many EOTs, that have been reported on these threads over the years, ...and some with 100% certainty that were not trimmed, PSA needs to just come out and say, that they cannot grade a card because they are not 100% certain that it is, well, ...all original!
Instead of saying something like this: 1 1 14414884 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1986 FLEER 57 MICHAEL JORDAN Card US
PSA, PLEEEEEZE STOP MAKING THIS SAME GRADING MISTAKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THAT IS, STATING "EOT", BUT THE CARD HAS NOT BEEN TRIMMED!
If the grader(s) are not sure a card is "all original", just say so, and not use a default "EOT" to save face...
Very frustrating to read this thread!
rd
edit: Its almost like "evidence of trimming" is like a code for "we are just not sure" about this one? Could I be right?
Either the Jordon has been trimmed or it is not trimmed. "Evidence of Trimming" should NOT be used if PSA is not 100% sure that an item has been trimmed. If PSA's (3) graders are 100% certain about the Jordan (as stated by Customer service) showing evidence of trimming, ...then what the heck is going on here?
EDIT AGAIN: WOW! GLAD TO SEE YOUR JORDON WAS INDEED, "ALL ORIGINAL" AS MOST HERE ALREADY KNEW! CONGRATS!!!
THANKS PSA, FOR ADDRESSING THIS, AND YOU STILL NEED TO ADDRESS THIS "EOT" ISSUE WHEN GRADING.
I am glad this was worked out.. the right way.. I don't feel I need an explanation.. I mean it is a judgment call when it is all said.. a guesstimate at best.. like I have said.. when you have a mint looking high $$$ card.. I think they start off at EOT and work their way to the grade if they see fit
I am so glad for you that it got resolved. I think MANY of us are still wondering how many cards have we gotten back that really deserved a higher grade!! This will stay in our minds for quite a while. On a lower $$ value card we would not get the same service that you just received, IMO.
ANYWAY, I am glad that Joe stepped up to the plate, admitted his company's mistake and corrected that mistake. I just hope that Joe now goes to the next step and makes sure that the graders know what to look for and give the cards the grade they truly deserve ... without people having to waste precious money by cracking and re-subbing. Things sure have changed over the past 8 or so months.
AGAIN, kudos to Joe for admitting the mistake and making it right.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
The problem that I have not heard explained is this...
If the card was eventually graded, why wasn't it initially ruled a "Minimum Size Req" fail? That to me wouldn't have caused half the amount of strife that appeared here. And it also wouldn't have led to all the speculation about wanting resubs for more money etc.
As I said before, I hate stirring the pot. I am a PSA card owner. I have many registries. I cannot tell you all how much I enjoy this community, but I don't think it's wrong to ask that this be explained.
<< <i>The problem that I have not heard explained is this...
If the card was eventually graded, why wasn't it initially ruled a "Minimum Size Req" fail? That to me wouldn't have caused half the amount of strife that appeared here. And it also wouldn't have led to all the speculation about wanting resubs for more money etc.
As I said before, I hate stirring the pot. I am a PSA card owner. I have many registries. I cannot tell you all how much I enjoy this community, but I don't think it's wrong to ask that this be explained.
edited for horrendous grammar. >>
I agree 100% numerous cards from the 86 rip were ruled as trimmed not Minimum Size Req, big diff IMO. So it goes from trimmed to PSA 9. Im missing something here. When you have to get Joe on the line to correct an issue that is messed up.
Should this be revised to state, "PSA will not grade ..., unless Joe Orlando states otherwise." Unless PSA can provide a rational explanation (beyond the simple Graders 1, 2 and 3 made mistakes), I think they set a bad precedent because from this point forward, the owner of any card not graded due to "evidence of trimming" will (or should) reference the Jordan and request PSA to further explain themselves.
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot accept all's well that ends well, to wit:
Grader 1: Evidence of trimming; Grader 2: Evidence of trimming; Grader 3: Evidence of trimming; and Joe Orlando: PSA 9
That's simply not right.
Moreover, PSA will not grade cards which bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.
Should this be revised to state, "PSA will not grade ..., unless Joe Orlando states otherwise." Unless PSA can provide a rational explanation (beyond the simple Graders 1, 2 and 3 made mistakes), I think they set a bad precedent because from this point forward, the owner of any card not graded due to "evidence of trimming" will (or should) reference the Jordan and request PSA to further explain themselves.
/s/ JackWESQ
That is a rather ridiculous statement..there are MANY cards that come back EOT on the first (or second) try and get holdered upon resubmission. In this case, Joe O. was able to review the card before it was shipped back out, simple as that..I'm sure there many degrees of certainity when determining if a card shows EOT and I'd guess that PSA usually errs on the side of caution (as they should). However, that does not mean that the card is definitely trimmed, as the grading process itself is purely subjective and an inexact science based on OPINION. Obviously, there are some cards that are OBVIOUSLY trimmed, but I'd be willing to bet that this card was certainly NOT in that category.
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>In my opinion, it's never a bad move or time to do the right thing, admit a mistake, and fix things right. That's what good customer service is all about.
<< <i>
Good point. I agree. It was obviously a mistake, but.............it's fixed now, right??
Should this be revised to state, "PSA will not grade ..., unless Joe Orlando states otherwise." Unless PSA can provide a rational explanation (beyond the simple Graders 1, 2 and 3 made mistakes), I think they set a bad precedent because from this point forward, the owner of any card not graded due to "evidence of trimming" will (or should) reference the Jordan and request PSA to further explain themselves.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Jack ... I have no proof of this, but in my opinion the hiring process of graders was quite slack over the past year. It is my feeling (and that is all it is) that PSA hired ANYBODY for an hourly wage and "trained" them to be graders. If this is the case, HOW CAN YOU DO THAT? The whole premise of these TPG was that they KNEW THE INDUSTRY. Why would you pay someone to grade your card when they know MUCH less about the industry than the advanced collector? It just does not make sense! I think PSA needs to hire people who are experienced in the field. Do you think Steve took a couple of people off the street, "taught" them in one week what it took him 25+ years to learn about the unopened industry, and let them run the show? I doubt it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PSA ... you had a real good thing going here ... let's get it back to the way it was. We will ALL be happy then! AGAIN, thank you Joe for stepping up to the plate on the Jordan.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>but I'd be willing to bet that this card was certainly NOT in that category. >>
... and that's my point. We all "know" that the Jordan was not trimmed. But, OBVIOUSLY, Graders 1, 2 and 3 saw something that simply wasn't there. The Jordan should have been graded from the outset.
And the next card that comes back with "evidence of trimming." It could very well be that the graders are again seeing something that isn't there.
but I'd be willing to bet that this card was certainly NOT in that category. >>
... and that's my point. We all "know" that the Jordan was not trimmed. But, OBVIOUSLY, Graders 1, 2 and 3 saw something that simply wasn't there. The Jordan should have been graded from the outset.
And the next card that comes back with "evidence of trimming." It could very well be that the graders are again seeing something that isn't there.
/s/ JackWESQ
That is all true, but just further illustrates the point that card grading (like coin grading) is a purely subjective process and subject to varying degrees of certainty. If this were not the case, then every card submitted would come back graded the same way every time it was submitted, but we know obviously that is not the case, as cards are graded by different gradersw with different opinions, and even the same grader may decide a card is an 8 one day and a 9 the next. As far as EOT goes, I'm sure there are also many degrees of certainty with regard to a card being trrimmed, and that graders are instructed to err on the side of caution, especially on higher value cards.
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 would be interested in one of the Jordans from this rip if they are available. i need one for my set and would love to have a story to go with the card as well. PM me if anyone who pulled a Jordan from this rip is selling.
"I have a question then. In the card hobby, as well as in other hobbies, the grade plays an important role. The Jordan card is worth different values as a PSA-8, PSA-9, or a PSA-10. In some cases, there may be an ungradeable defect. Now, what do I pay for a submission? The $35.00 on the belief that if I pay that, I would get a better grade? Or The $15.00 on the "probable grade" theory?"
Again that has nothing to do with it. Just because you pay Mint 9 submission price does not mean you get the better grade.
The reason I would pay 35.00 for the card is two fold, 1, I want the card graded fast, 35.00 assures me of 3 day grading I believe. Two, Insurance, by claiming it is a 35.00 fee card that means I value it at 1000.00 thus while in transit it is insured for that amount.
It really isn't rocket science guys.
As for it getting resolved Im glad it worked out for you Leah, I was thinking that Joe was going to back the grader and you were going to have to resub it.
<< <i>"I have a question then. In the card hobby, as well as in other hobbies, the grade plays an important role. The Jordan card is worth different values as a PSA-8, PSA-9, or a PSA-10. In some cases, there may be an ungradeable defect. Now, what do I pay for a submission? The $35.00 on the belief that if I pay that, I would get a better grade? Or The $15.00 on the "probable grade" theory?"
Again that has nothing to do with it. Just because you pay Mint 9 submission price does not mean you get the better grade.
The reason I would pay 35.00 for the card is two fold, 1, I want the card graded fast, 35.00 assures me of 3 day grading I believe. Two, Insurance, by claiming it is a 35.00 fee card that means I value it at 1000.00 thus while in transit it is insured for that amount.
It really isn't rocket science guys.
As for it getting resolved Im glad it worked out for you Leah, I was thinking that Joe was going to back the grader and you were going to have to resub it.
Steve >>
Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results?
<< <i>Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results? >>
Why do you think that Steve can tell you what someone else perceives?
I'm glad that it worked out in the end. I've only had 1 card (1981 Topps Football Art Monk) rejected as trimmed, even though I bought the card new in 1981. The group rip inspired me to go for 2 packs from the second box Steve had. I received them today. #74 Mike Mitchell and #64 Alton Lister on the top. Stickers were Dr. J and Patrick Ewing. Low probability of a Jordan, so I'm sending them to be slabbed. I hope I don't run into issues....
<< <i>Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results? >>
Why do you think that Steve can tell you what someone else perceives? >>
Because Steve knows everything...
You have been around these boards long enough and read his threads....
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps - uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>I'm glad that it worked out in the end. I've only had 1 card (1981 Topps Football Art Monk) rejected as trimmed, even though I bought the card new in 1981. The group rip inspired me to go for 2 packs from the second box Steve had. I received them today. #74 Mike Mitchell and #64 Alton Lister on the top. Stickers were Dr. J and Patrick Ewing. Low probability of a Jordan, so I'm sending them to be slabbed. I hope I don't run into issues.... >>
Very interesting, people complain about pack searchers in Target/Wal Mart etc, but you never hear anything about searching the 86 Basketball like you have just done but you are going to send in to get graded becasue you know they are S*** packs.
You can see through the packs. Like cellos, but not so much. I can't say I blame him. There's a slight difference between seeing through a translucent pack, and going to Target/Mouthbreather-Mart and bending packs looking for GUs, or looking for the thicker packs.
i'm looking for a psa 8 jordan rookie, if anyone sends out a jordan and is dissappointed with the 8 please let me know. thanks fred
Fred
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
<< <i>Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results? >>
Perception is not reality. I get better results on bulk submissions (the lowest priced grading tier) than I get with any higher tiered service. The reason being, expensive cards are scrutinized more closely and for a longer period of time than less expensive commons typically. I would assume PSA would reject more expensive cards porportionately more than they would lesser priced cards.
I'm glad the OP got his Jordan slabbed a 9. Kudos for Joe for making it right.
Also, '86 Fleer cards are often undersized left to right. Usually it's every 11th card in the set. So card # 11, 22, 33, and so on. Those cards were all located on the right edge of the sheet and many times (though not always), they ended up being cut narrow. Lengthwise they usually run pretty consistent in card size.
However the Jordan RC didn't fall under that criteria as is it card # 57.
Comments
Resubmit.
Chaz
Congrats on the 9, it's a beautiful card.
Something tells me that if the graders are not 100% sure, they go ahead and give it an EOT, whether or not it was trimmed?
This is made obvious by the many EOTs, that have been reported on these threads over the years, ...and some with 100% certainty that were not trimmed, PSA needs to just come out and say, that they cannot grade a card because they are not 100% certain that it is, well, ...all original!
Instead of saying something like this: 1 1 14414884 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1986 FLEER 57 MICHAEL JORDAN Card US
PSA, PLEEEEEZE STOP MAKING THIS SAME GRADING MISTAKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THAT IS, STATING "EOT", BUT THE CARD HAS NOT BEEN TRIMMED!
If the grader(s) are not sure a card is "all original", just say so, and not use a default "EOT" to save face...
Very frustrating to read this thread!
rd
edit: Its almost like "evidence of trimming" is like a code for "we are just not sure" about this one? Could I be right?
Either the Jordon has been trimmed or it is not trimmed. "Evidence of Trimming" should NOT be used if PSA is not 100% sure that an item has been trimmed. If PSA's (3) graders are 100% certain about the Jordan (as stated by Customer service) showing evidence of trimming, ...then what the heck is going on here?
EDIT AGAIN: WOW! GLAD TO SEE YOUR JORDON WAS INDEED, "ALL ORIGINAL" AS MOST HERE ALREADY KNEW! CONGRATS!!!
THANKS PSA, FOR ADDRESSING THIS, AND YOU STILL NEED TO ADDRESS THIS "EOT" ISSUE WHEN GRADING.
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
I don't feel I need an explanation.. I mean it is a judgment call
when it is all said.. a guesstimate at best.. like I have said..
when you have a mint looking high $$$ card..
I think they start off at EOT and work their way to the grade if they see fit
ANYWAY, I am glad that Joe stepped up to the plate, admitted his company's mistake and corrected that mistake. I just hope that Joe now goes to the next step and makes sure that the graders know what to look for and give the cards the grade they truly deserve ... without people having to waste precious money by cracking and re-subbing. Things sure have changed over the past 8 or so months.
AGAIN, kudos to Joe for admitting the mistake and making it right.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
My Sandberg topps basic set
My Sandberg Topps Master set
If the card was eventually graded, why wasn't it initially ruled a "Minimum Size Req" fail? That to me wouldn't have caused half the amount of strife that appeared here. And it also wouldn't have led to all the speculation about wanting resubs for more money etc.
As I said before, I hate stirring the pot. I am a PSA card owner. I have many registries. I cannot tell you all how much I enjoy this community, but I don't think it's wrong to ask that this be explained.
edited for horrendous grammar.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Anyone want to buy a bunch of PSA graded cards? I don't think I want them anymore.
glad you didnt take the advice of many and just resubmit...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>The problem that I have not heard explained is this...
If the card was eventually graded, why wasn't it initially ruled a "Minimum Size Req" fail? That to me wouldn't have caused half the amount of strife that appeared here. And it also wouldn't have led to all the speculation about wanting resubs for more money etc.
As I said before, I hate stirring the pot. I am a PSA card owner. I have many registries. I cannot tell you all how much I enjoy this community, but I don't think it's wrong to ask that this be explained.
edited for horrendous grammar. >>
I agree 100% numerous cards from the 86 rip were ruled as trimmed not Minimum Size Req, big diff IMO. So it goes from trimmed to PSA 9. Im missing something here. When you have to get Joe on the line to correct an issue that is messed up.
My Sandberg topps basic set
My Sandberg Topps Master set
Grader 1: Evidence of trimming;
Grader 2: Evidence of trimming;
Grader 3: Evidence of trimming; and
Joe Orlando: PSA 9
That's simply not right.
Moreover, PSA will not grade cards which bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.
Should this be revised to state, "PSA will not grade ..., unless Joe Orlando states otherwise." Unless PSA can provide a rational explanation (beyond the simple Graders 1, 2 and 3 made mistakes), I think they set a bad precedent because from this point forward, the owner of any card not graded due to "evidence of trimming" will (or should) reference the Jordan and request PSA to further explain themselves.
/s/ JackWESQ
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
Grader 1: Evidence of trimming;
Grader 2: Evidence of trimming;
Grader 3: Evidence of trimming; and
Joe Orlando: PSA 9
That's simply not right.
Moreover, PSA will not grade cards which bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.
Should this be revised to state, "PSA will not grade ..., unless Joe Orlando states otherwise." Unless PSA can provide a rational explanation (beyond the simple Graders 1, 2 and 3 made mistakes), I think they set a bad precedent because from this point forward, the owner of any card not graded due to "evidence of trimming" will (or should) reference the Jordan and request PSA to further explain themselves.
/s/ JackWESQ
That is a rather ridiculous statement..there are MANY cards that come back EOT on the first (or second) try and get holdered upon resubmission. In this case, Joe O. was able to review the card before it was shipped back out, simple as that..I'm sure there many degrees of certainity when determining if a card shows EOT and I'd guess that PSA usually errs on the side of caution (as they should). However, that does not mean that the card is definitely trimmed, as the grading process itself is purely subjective and an inexact science based on OPINION. Obviously, there are some cards that are OBVIOUSLY trimmed, but I'd be willing to bet that this card was certainly NOT in that category.
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>In my opinion, it's never a bad move or time to do the right thing, admit a mistake, and fix things right. That's what good customer service is all about.
<< <i>
Good point. I agree. It was obviously a mistake, but.............it's fixed now, right??
<< <i>I'm sorry, but I simply cannot accept all's well that ends well, to wit:
Grader 1: Evidence of trimming;
Grader 2: Evidence of trimming;
Grader 3: Evidence of trimming; and
Joe Orlando: PSA 9
That's simply not right.
Moreover, PSA will not grade cards which bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.
Should this be revised to state, "PSA will not grade ..., unless Joe Orlando states otherwise." Unless PSA can provide a rational explanation (beyond the simple Graders 1, 2 and 3 made mistakes), I think they set a bad precedent because from this point forward, the owner of any card not graded due to "evidence of trimming" will (or should) reference the Jordan and request PSA to further explain themselves.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Jack ... I have no proof of this, but in my opinion the hiring process of graders was quite slack over the past year. It is my feeling (and that is all it is) that PSA hired ANYBODY for an hourly wage and "trained" them to be graders. If this is the case, HOW CAN YOU DO THAT? The whole premise of these TPG was that they KNEW THE INDUSTRY. Why would you pay someone to grade your card when they know MUCH less about the industry than the advanced collector? It just does not make sense! I think PSA needs to hire people who are experienced in the field. Do you think Steve took a couple of people off the street, "taught" them in one week what it took him 25+ years to learn about the unopened industry, and let them run the show? I doubt it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PSA ... you had a real good thing going here ... let's get it back to the way it was. We will ALL be happy then! AGAIN, thank you Joe for stepping up to the plate on the Jordan.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>but I'd be willing to bet that this card was certainly NOT in that category. >>
... and that's my point. We all "know" that the Jordan was not trimmed. But, OBVIOUSLY, Graders 1, 2 and 3 saw something that simply wasn't there. The Jordan should have been graded from the outset.
And the next card that comes back with "evidence of trimming." It could very well be that the graders are again seeing something that isn't there.
/s/ JackWESQ
... and that's my point. We all "know" that the Jordan was not trimmed. But, OBVIOUSLY, Graders 1, 2 and 3 saw something that simply wasn't there. The Jordan should have been graded from the outset.
And the next card that comes back with "evidence of trimming." It could very well be that the graders are again seeing something that isn't there.
/s/ JackWESQ
That is all true, but just further illustrates the point that card grading (like coin grading) is a purely subjective process and subject to varying degrees of certainty. If this were not the case, then every card submitted would come back graded the same way every time it was submitted, but we know obviously that is not the case, as cards are graded by different gradersw with different opinions, and even the same grader may decide a card is an 8 one day and a 9 the next. As far as EOT goes, I'm sure there are also many degrees of certainty with regard to a card being trrimmed, and that graders are instructed to err on the side of caution, especially on higher value cards.
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.
Dave
1957 Topps 99% 7.40 GPA
Hank Aaron Basic PSA 7-8(75%)
"I have a question then. In the card hobby, as well as in other hobbies, the grade plays an important role. The Jordan card is worth different values as a PSA-8, PSA-9, or a PSA-10. In some cases, there may be an ungradeable defect. Now, what do I pay for a submission? The $35.00 on the belief that if I pay that, I would get a better grade? Or The $15.00 on the "probable grade" theory?"
Again that has nothing to do with it. Just because you pay Mint 9 submission price does not mean you get the better grade.
The reason I would pay 35.00 for the card is two fold, 1, I want the card graded fast, 35.00 assures me of 3 day grading I believe.
Two, Insurance, by claiming it is a 35.00 fee card that means I value it at 1000.00 thus while in transit it is insured for that amount.
It really isn't rocket science guys.
As for it getting resolved Im glad it worked out for you Leah, I was thinking that Joe was going to back the grader and you were going to have to
resub it.
Steve
Can't PSA just reject a card that's been submitted under the wrong service ?
Yes they can.
Try sending in a 52 Mantle under the bulk sub 7.00 see how far that gets.
Steve
Why do you insist that 3 graders all said that card was trimmed?
Just because some CS rep spouted company policy that 3 graders all said it was trimmed
and if resubbed 100 times it would get the same grade?
Cmon.
Steve
<< <i>"I have a question then. In the card hobby, as well as in other hobbies, the grade plays an important role. The Jordan card is worth different values as a PSA-8, PSA-9, or a PSA-10. In some cases, there may be an ungradeable defect. Now, what do I pay for a submission? The $35.00 on the belief that if I pay that, I would get a better grade? Or The $15.00 on the "probable grade" theory?"
Again that has nothing to do with it. Just because you pay Mint 9 submission price does not mean you get the better grade.
The reason I would pay 35.00 for the card is two fold, 1, I want the card graded fast, 35.00 assures me of 3 day grading I believe.
Two, Insurance, by claiming it is a 35.00 fee card that means I value it at 1000.00 thus while in transit it is insured for that amount.
It really isn't rocket science guys.
As for it getting resolved Im glad it worked out for you Leah, I was thinking that Joe was going to back the grader and you were going to have to
resub it.
Steve >>
Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results?
<< <i>Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results? >>
Why do you think that Steve can tell you what someone else perceives?
......... on sneaking your trimmed Jordan through.
Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results?
Cuz they are nit wits? Cuz they have no idea? What else can I say?
I sure as heck do not share that perception.
I tried to explain to you why PSA has various tiers.
It has nothing to do with getting better grades, It has everything to do with
how I value the item I am submitting.
Steve
I know when I go to the house on the corner (with the red porch light) the more I pay the better the results are!
SBJ = 20
missionary = 50
around the world = 100
all night long = 250
<< <i>I know when I go to the house on the corner (with the red porch light) the more I pay the better the results are!
SBJ = 20
missionary = 50
around the world = 100
all night long = 250
You forgot half and half.
<< <i>
<< <i>I know when I go to the house on the corner (with the red porch light) the more I pay the better the results are!
SBJ = 20
missionary = 50
around the world = 100
all night long = 250
You forgot half and half. >>
and with that, this thread has officially gone to hell
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
By the way, nice job on the 9!! That's what it was supposed to be all along.
<< <i>
<< <i>Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results? >>
Why do you think that Steve can tell you what someone else perceives? >>
Because Steve knows everything...
You have been around these boards long enough and read his threads....
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>I'm glad that it worked out in the end. I've only had 1 card (1981 Topps Football Art Monk) rejected as trimmed, even though I bought the card new in 1981. The group rip inspired me to go for 2 packs from the second box Steve had. I received them today. #74 Mike Mitchell and #64 Alton Lister on the top. Stickers were Dr. J and Patrick Ewing. Low probability of a Jordan, so I'm sending them to be slabbed. I hope I don't run into issues....
Very interesting, people complain about pack searchers in Target/Wal Mart etc, but you never hear anything about searching the 86 Basketball like you have just done but you are going to send in to get graded becasue you know they are S*** packs.
thanks
fred
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
Steve
so high school...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>Then I have a question, Steve. Why do some people have the perception that if you pay for the better service, you will get the better results? >>
Perception is not reality. I get better results on bulk submissions (the lowest priced grading tier) than I get with any higher tiered service. The reason being, expensive cards are scrutinized more closely and for a longer period of time than less expensive commons typically. I would assume PSA would reject more expensive cards porportionately more than they would lesser priced cards.
I'm glad the OP got his Jordan slabbed a 9. Kudos for Joe for making it right.
Also, '86 Fleer cards are often undersized left to right. Usually it's every 11th card in the set. So card # 11, 22, 33, and so on. Those cards were all located on the right edge of the sheet and many times (though not always), they ended up being cut narrow. Lengthwise they usually run pretty consistent in card size.
However the Jordan RC didn't fall under that criteria as is it card # 57.
<< <i>Why the change in thread title? >>
The thread turned into a non productive name calling session... If you would like to continue discussing this please start a new thread.
I'm considering this case closed and I personally thank Joe O for his assistance.
+1 to PSA!
mike