Are there certain cards that PSA is more strict with grading?
Kdog08
Posts: 771
I have read and re-read another forum members several attempts to get a higher grade on a Ripken Rookie and wondered if there are just certain cards that they are tougher on. Anyone have any experience with any specific cards that might be in the same category?
0
Comments
<< <i>1981 Topps baseball >>
I can understand how a particular series of a specific year would be condition sensitive....but what about individual cards. I was thinking about the more popularly collected or more valuable cards. Are they under a microscope more so than maybe other common or less valuable cards from the same set?
<< <i>I'm not telling you. Find out for yourself by submitting thousands of cards like the rest of us. No easy way here my friend. chaz >>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not telling you. Find out for yourself by submitting thousands of cards like the rest of us. No easy way here my friend. chaz >>
No problem. chaz
<< <i>I have found that it is really hit or miss. As far as the 82 Ripken goes, I sent in one where I thought I'd be lucky to get an 8 due to some corner wear, but it came back a 9. The best thing I can say is to pre-grade somewhat conservatively so you're less likely to be disappointed and more likely to be pleasantly surprised. >>
5...4...3...2...1 until Bill goes off about his Ripken escapades.
He's had some hard luck with this card from his earlier posts.
<< <i>5...4...3...2...1 until Bill goes off about his Ripken escapades.
He's had some hard luck with this card from his earlier posts. >>
That is the thread that peaked my interest. I know in the coin hobby...certain coins are graded differently. Just wondered if the Ripken, for an example, may be a classic card that they are more likely to give a lower grade...are there others?
<< <i>The answer to your question is no. PSA does not evaluate higher dollar cards or star cards within a set any differently than common cards. As a result, some sets have star cards that are plentiful (and cheap) in high grade, and some sets have commons that are very difficult (and expensive) in high grade. >>
I agree with you.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Some of the data clearly suggests otherwise -- maybe it's coincidence or there is some disparity in the quality of the manufacturing (that certainly explains low pop commons).
I once had a fairly substantial Bonds collection (~400 rookies) that I held for resale -- and got out mostly near the top -- so I followed the pops pretty carefully.
The 1987 Fleer set has 2,050 PSA 10s out of 29,020 graded = 7.06%
The Bonds has 850 10s out of 23,960 graded = 3.55%
Pulling the Bonds from the equation, you get 1,200 PSA 10s out of 5,060 graded = 23.7%
I know it's Bonds but 23.7% vs. 3.55% ?
There are dozens of commons that were submitted once and received a 10.
I expect that "submitters" are a little more careful with commons as any 9 and below is essentially worthless -- that certainly accounts for some of the disparity.
I'm also not very familiar with the overall quality (manufacturing) of the set but from what I've seen it's fairly consistent throughout.
Scott
p.s. Please don't turn this into a Bonds-bashing thread.
Always plenty of PSA-graded cards in my ebay store -- https://ebay.com/str/thelumbercompanysportscards
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Steve
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>1985 topps football. >>
Amen - ripped 4 boxes, picked the best of the best...2 10's. 2! Maybe its just me as the ones I sent in seemed nicer than the 9's I have and on par with the few 10's I have as well.
<< <i>I expect that "submitters" are a little more careful with commons as any 9 and below is essentially worthless -- that certainly accounts for some of the disparity. >>
I'd say submitters are a lot more careful with commons, and that accounts for most if not all, of the disparity. And with vintage cards in particular, star cards were handled more than commons, so of course a lower % of high grade cards.
Do graders look more closely at a 52 Mantle than a 52 common? Probably, but it is because the Mantle is far more likely to be altered, not because they have a different grading standard for it.
<< <i>The 1987 Fleer set has 2,050 PSA 10s out of 29,020 graded = 7.06%
The Bonds has 850 10s out of 23,960 graded = 3.55%
Pulling the Bonds from the equation, you get 1,200 PSA 10s out of 5,060 graded = 23.7%
I know it's Bonds but 23.7% vs. 3.55% ? >>
You will find similar results on any modern rookie card that is/was mass produced. Reason is simple. People subbed the rookies with less scrutiny simply because the resale value was much higher. On the other hand, the commons, semi-stars and even a lot of the stars are scrutinized in pregrading a lot tougher simply because the resale value in high grade is so much lower than the key rookies. In other words, a submitter would only submit a 1987 Fleer Don Sutton if he/she felt fairly sure that the card was a 10. The Bonds on the other hand, the same submitter would submit the card knowing it had little chance of a 10 but at the time, a 9 would sell for a lot more than a raw card would.