Can you receive an unbiased review while the card is in another grader's holder? *UPDATE 6/19*
nam812
Posts: 10,531 ✭✭✭✭✭
I can't speak for everyone, but my experience says that the answer is no.
A few months ago I sent in some cards in various other TPGer's holders, and while many did not cross at equal grades the results of 2 cards in particular were interesting.
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1963 TOPPS 167 JIM FREGOSI (was SGC 92 - asked for PSA 9)
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1963 TOPPS 192 CLAY DALRYMPLE (was SGC 92 - asked for PSA 9)
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING.............1968 TOPPS 460 JIM LONBORG (was GAI 10 - asked for PSA 10)
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING............1968 TOPPS 484 PHIL ROOF (was GAI 10 - asked for PSA 10)
GEM MINT 10.......................................1968 TOPPS 511 BILL KELSO (was GAI 10 - asked for PSA 10)
NEAR MINT-MINT 8............................1960 TOPPS 42 HOBIE LANDRITH (was SGC 86 - asked for PSA 8)
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1960 TOPPS 201 LARRY OSBORNE (was SGC 86 - asked for PSA 8)
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1960 TOPPS 222 AL LOPEZ (was GAI 8 - asked for PSA 8)
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1960 TOPPS 243 BUBBA PHILLIPS (was SGC 86 - asked for PSA 8)
The 2 cards deemed "evidence of trimming" are the interesting cards, because after the crossover attempt, I cracked them and subbed them raw. Here are those results:
MINT 9.....................................1968 TOPPS 460 JIM LONBORG
NEAR MINT-MINT 8..............1968 TOPPS 484 PHIL ROOF
How is it possible that they saw something while in the GAI holders that made them suspect trimming, but when submitted raw the cards apparently measured up fine?
For those that think there is a rational explanation for that, what if I did it happened in reverse? To illustrate what I mean let's use the 1963 Jim Fregosi card which is not suspected of being trimmed because they would have noted that like they did on the two 1968 cards. I wonder what would happen if that card was submitted raw? Well wonder no more:
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING.............1963 TOPPS 167 JIM FREGOSI
While in the SGC holder the 1963 Jim Fregosi was not thought to be trimmed, so is it just a bias against cards in GAI holders? Is it a ploy to get more submissions? I wish I had the answers, but I am now officially stumped, and not sure if I will be renewing my recently expired membership.
Edited to add: Disregard my "many did not cross at equal grades" statement above since I tried to cross most at higher PSA grades.
A few months ago I sent in some cards in various other TPGer's holders, and while many did not cross at equal grades the results of 2 cards in particular were interesting.
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1963 TOPPS 167 JIM FREGOSI (was SGC 92 - asked for PSA 9)
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1963 TOPPS 192 CLAY DALRYMPLE (was SGC 92 - asked for PSA 9)
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING.............1968 TOPPS 460 JIM LONBORG (was GAI 10 - asked for PSA 10)
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING............1968 TOPPS 484 PHIL ROOF (was GAI 10 - asked for PSA 10)
GEM MINT 10.......................................1968 TOPPS 511 BILL KELSO (was GAI 10 - asked for PSA 10)
NEAR MINT-MINT 8............................1960 TOPPS 42 HOBIE LANDRITH (was SGC 86 - asked for PSA 8)
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1960 TOPPS 201 LARRY OSBORNE (was SGC 86 - asked for PSA 8)
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1960 TOPPS 222 AL LOPEZ (was GAI 8 - asked for PSA 8)
MG: MINIMUM GRADE........................1960 TOPPS 243 BUBBA PHILLIPS (was SGC 86 - asked for PSA 8)
The 2 cards deemed "evidence of trimming" are the interesting cards, because after the crossover attempt, I cracked them and subbed them raw. Here are those results:
MINT 9.....................................1968 TOPPS 460 JIM LONBORG
NEAR MINT-MINT 8..............1968 TOPPS 484 PHIL ROOF
How is it possible that they saw something while in the GAI holders that made them suspect trimming, but when submitted raw the cards apparently measured up fine?
For those that think there is a rational explanation for that, what if I did it happened in reverse? To illustrate what I mean let's use the 1963 Jim Fregosi card which is not suspected of being trimmed because they would have noted that like they did on the two 1968 cards. I wonder what would happen if that card was submitted raw? Well wonder no more:
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING.............1963 TOPPS 167 JIM FREGOSI
While in the SGC holder the 1963 Jim Fregosi was not thought to be trimmed, so is it just a bias against cards in GAI holders? Is it a ploy to get more submissions? I wish I had the answers, but I am now officially stumped, and not sure if I will be renewing my recently expired membership.
Edited to add: Disregard my "many did not cross at equal grades" statement above since I tried to cross most at higher PSA grades.
0
Comments
I never use the crossover service because of crap like this. You never, ever will get a fair shake
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Steve
independent grading service when in reality they will downgrade your card in most situations.
Very interesting thread and thanks for sharing this insightful information.
Bosox1976
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I want a fresh look at the card.
Steve
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I would say, "You will never KNOW for sure, if you got a fair shake."
But, if we don't 'trust' the grading company, we prolly should not be
sending them cards.
PSA has a very low confidence level in other graders' numbers. I think
that accounts for the VERY strict look-see on the crossover service.
They also have justifiable concerns about "warranty claims."
Consistency is a long way off, when you have numerous eyeballs on
an item that is graded, in part, subjectively.
The PSE grading book (stamps) can be adapted to card-grading, but
it will still take a long time to get to the desired level of consistency.
Somebody needs to come up with a "compu-grading" platform. Short
of having ONE person grade every card, that is the only way I can
think of to always be consistent.
<< <i>I only crack and re sub that way.
I want a fresh look at the card. >>
Same here. If the card is cracked out and submitted raw, the chance for any bias is eliminated.
I also have had 0 luck in bumping in PSA holders. I am still bitter about a PSA 8 1961 Pirates Team Card that I tried to bump and gave up after 2 tries sold it to a PSA dealer buddy who on the first try, popped it and got a PSA 9. I lost 1K on that deal, thanks PSA.
Just to be fair, when subbed raw with the 1963 Fregosi, the 1963 Dalrymple came back as a PSA 8.
I don't find it that disturbing. The problem as I see it is the grading company can't grade
a card through a slab in a way where it feels comfortable enough to cross at the min grade
requested. If you request no min grade I would think they would cross more often.
Steve
<< <i>Nick, This is a very interesting and disturbing thread at the same time. Wondering out loud, I'm surprised someone hasnt created a computer program to grade cards based on parameters these TPG's put in print, thus taking all human elelments out of the equation. Stories like this aren't healthy for graded card companies. >>
Being a programmer and a collector I've given the concept of using software to help the process many thoughts ever since I got into graded cards. I see something like a "Turbo Tax" interview type process that steps you through each phase. It could have scanning abilities to measure centering, tilt and diamond cuts. Would gave visual examples for grading corners, chipping, print defects, etc. It could even be made "smart" to include details on specific issues and specific cards. For example, for a highly counterfeited card it would additionally step you through an authentication process based on known examples or for cards that all have a known defect it would account for that. You would have an on going tally of the grade and the ability to view a summary of why it's that grade. There could do many other cool thing too...
But, that would take time and motivation that I currently don't have! :-)
I'll never do it again. I never even think about it now.............their crossover service doesn't even exist in my mind.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
When GAI appeared on the scene, my buddy liked the new half grades offered by GAI, he knew Mike Baker was the head grader and trusted his judgement and was probably the guy who graded the Aaron RC in the first place when he was the head grader at PSA back in the 1990's. So he crossed the Aaron into a GAI 8.5 holder. He was happy then and thought he added value to the card. He planned on keeping it in his collection.
Well now that GAI is almost extinct, recently he tried crossing the Aaron back into a PSA 8 holder and PSA said it wouldn't cross. No explanation was given why it wouldn't cross to an 8. So now PSA is saying that the card is either trimmed or it's only a 7.5 or lower according to their latest grading standards.
So my buddy is basically screwed.
I told him to try SGC but he's never been a big fan of them (not sure why). Or another alternative is to pop the card out of the GAI holder and resub to PSA again and cross his fingers. That's an expensive lesson to learn about crossing cards into another companies holders. They may not cross back over if you need them to.
<< <i>I told him to try SGC but he's never been a big fan of them (not sure why). >>
I'm not sure why I rejected the idea of subbing with them either. Or why I rejected the idea that they are a great grading company.
"Everything you know is wrong"
Seriously though, I became disgusted with Boxing because of the judges. Marvin Hagler never lost a fight IMO. And Jimmy Owens gets props for being the only man to ever knock him down. Chuck Norris gets props for never looking at Champ Marvin sideways, a great move by the second greatest fighter all time.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Can a great fighter expect to receive an unbiased view for another sanctioning bodies belt?
No.
How does PSA know it is the same card? Once it was crossed and placed into
the GAI holder everything changed.
If it is so high for the grade it should have no problem getting back into the PSA 8
holder.
Like Nick said the card needs to be out of the case for them to properly judge it.
Possible expensive lesson? Yes, but your friend is the one that crossed it.
Steve
that you request, especially if it is a high dollar card or a high grade, or if a gap exists in value between grades.
Even at the lower grades we have seen people not get cards crossed.
I think it has everything to do with them not being able to see the whole card while slabbed that
is the fault of cards not crossing to the grade that the person subbing wants.
Steve
<< <i>..........I think it has everything to do with them not being able to see the whole card while slabbed that
is the fault of cards not crossing to the grade that the person subbing wants.
Steve >>
I will agree with that point Steve because my main problem was not with the few cards that did not meet my minimum grade. What I want to know is how can they see that the two 1968 are trimmed through the other company's holder, and then when those same two cards are subbed raw, suddenly they are not trimmed and given a number grade?
I have had cards subbed raw that got EOT that the next time sent in graded.
It is all a crap shoot. The bottom line is if you want to sell cards w/o the BS associated with
selling raw sell them graded by SGC or PSA.
They offer only an opinion. many here can grade as good as them. It is not rocket science.
Steve
<< <i>Submitted raw they can see them better?........... >>
If there is that much room for error, then "crossover" should not be one of their services. It's not like I paid them with twigs and berries.
1 1951 Bowman 58 ENOS SLAUGHTER 40 (was BVG 5, minus 2)
2 1951 Bowman 108 VIRGIL STALLCUP 84 (was PSA 5, plus 2)
3 1951 Bowman 132 CASS MICHAELS 80 (was PSA 5, plus 1)
4 1951 Bowman 209 KEN WOOD 50 (was PSA 5, minus 1)
5 1951 Bowman 233 LEO DUROCHER 50 (was PSA 5, minus 1)
6 1956 Topps 164 HARMON KILLEBREW 80 (was PSA 6, even)
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Steve
PSA remained consistent with their incorrect assessment of the Fregosi, but miraculously the Dalrymple has gone from a PSA 8 to evidence of trimming.
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1963 TOPPS 167 JIM FREGOSI
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1963 TOPPS 192 CLAY DALRYMPLE
These two cards have now been to sunny California more than me (I've been there twice). Have 2 baseball cards ever made a man go broke and crazy at the same time? Stay tuned.
Looking for Charlie (Charley) Maxwell cards.
<< <i>I feel it but I would have given up after one try. >>
Sadly, I have not yet begun to fight.
Bosox1976