Just sounding off...

olb31 · August 1, 2011 11:39AM

just got back my grades on my latest submission and for the 3rd time in a row I am horribly disappointed. To preface, I have submitted nearly 1000 cards to psa over the years and collect three different set registries of which i am number 1 in one. So i think i have a decent eye for nice cards. but the grades on some of this submission make positively no sense.

when i mailed off the submission the 3 top cards i sent, in my opinion, ended up grading a 5, 6, and 8. huh?????????????? i can see missing on maybe 1, but all three and none a 9????????? all three had 52/48 centering or better, 4 perfectly sharp corners. these aren't mantles or anything like that just some 70's stars, topps and opc. my overall average was a 7. and when i mailed them off, i would have told you that maybe 10 or fewer out of 66 would have scored 7 or worse.

without saying what i really think, i will leave it that this is a major major turn off!!!!!!!!!!!! any body else have this problem??? please, someone join me and let me know i am not the only one.

handyman · August 1, 2011 11:45AM

do you have scans before you sent them in?

wallst32 · August 1, 2011 12:07PM

Are you viewing the cards (especially the corners) with any sort of magnification or just with the naked eye? When I first submitted cards to PSA over 10 years ago I thought all my cards had 4 sharp corners. But under magnification I discovered many of them had minor chips and/or paper loss right on the corners that were not visible without using an aid. After using a magnification, it made it very easy to distinguish between an 8 and 9 grade.

ga5150 · August 1, 2011 12:10PM

I'm with you. You basically described my latest sub as well. I use a hand held magnifying glass, and then also a 10x loupe to look at every card. The results are drastically different than what I had been getting in the past and I certainly haven't changed how I pre-inspect the cards. I too, am getting frustrated and turned off....

Mickey71 · August 1, 2011 12:14PM

olb31,
I'm in slightly the same boat many times except mine are with EOT....Then I send them in through someone else and do fine. I should not say this but....I think I'm red marked or something. I'm serious. I can't explain it otherwise. I've never altered a card in my entire life. It's crazy. I had a sub like this one time....90% of the sub was EOT (about 10 cards) and they have all graded since. They were PSA 8's that I got 8.5's from GAI when they were relevant and then sent in crossover and PSA rejected all but 1 and another did not meet minimum grade. I cracked them out and sent in various subs and did fine. Between min size and EOT I've seen it all.

olb31 · August 1, 2011 12:16PM

<< do you have scans before you sent them in? >>

no i don't. maybe i need to start a before and after, huh?

JMDVM · August 1, 2011 1:35PM

I suspect some of it is purposely done to make us crack and resubmit. I'm sure we all have stories of 5s and 6s becoming 8s and 9s as well as "trimmed" and "minimum size" coming back encapsulated with grades.

jimrad · August 1, 2011 1:39PM

oh noes

+1

grote15 · August 1, 2011 2:05PM

5 is almost always a surface wrinkle.

olb31 · August 1, 2011 10:45PM

<< 5 is almost always a surface wrinkle. >>

You could be right, but the my top three, imo, were at least 9's, maybe 10's based on the corners (sharp), edges (flawless), centering (near perfect). Like I said maybe i missed comething on one of them, but 3 of them, no way!!

olb31 · August 1, 2011 10:47PM

<< I suspect some of it is purposely done to make us crack and resubmit. I'm sure we all have stories of 5s and 6s becoming 8s and 9s as well as "trimmed" and "minimum size" coming back encapsulated with grades. >>

That and maybe ebay name is not what it needs to be.

jeffcbay · August 1, 2011 10:57PM

Something tells me PSA's business doesn't survive based on forcing people to resubmit. They don't look at your card and say "hey I think we can milk this guy for a few resubs".

These are humans grading your cards, not machines. If you give your card to ten different people, you're bound to hear different opinions.

olb31 · August 2, 2011 12:24AM

<< Something tells me PSA's business doesn't survive based on forcing people to resubmit. They don't look at your card and say "hey I think we can milk this guy for a few resubs".

These are humans grading your cards, not machines. If you give your card to ten different people, you're bound to hear different opinions. >>

You are right, I doubt their is a conspiracy theory against me. I am just a little frustrated. I collect the 1978 OPC set and sometimes when I win an auction for a PSA 9, i wonder how in the world is this a nine and then I submit one that looks, at least to the naked eye, a lot better and I get a 6, it just makes me wonder.

jeffcbay · August 2, 2011 12:33AM

<< Also, get a single, bright light source and evaluate your cards in a dark room, tilting them at many angles to insure the surfaces are clean. >>

Funny you should mention that, because that's how PSA grades their cards... in a dark room with a single light source! I never knew this until I watched this video: PSA Grading Process. This is a pretty informative video that I'm willing to bet most of us haven't watched yet.

olb31 · August 2, 2011 12:55AM

I am mainly complaining about 25% of my order. I pretty much agrees with the other 75%. I did get a few nice ones:

1971 Rod Carew OPC psa 8
2004 Eli manning roy auto /25 psa 9 pop 1
1978 eddie murray opc psa 9
1979 pete rose opc psa 9
1977 nolan ryan opc psa 9
1975 george brett mini psa 8.5
1981 pete rose opc psa 8, believe it or not that is good
1977 schmidt, rose, yaz opc psa 9
1973 pete rose opc psa 7
1974 winfield topps, psa 8

drewsef · August 2, 2011 1:09AM

<< I am mainly complaining about 25% of my order. I pretty much agrees with the other 75%. I did get a few nice ones:

1971 Rod Carew OPC psa 8
2004 Eli manning roy auto /25 psa 9 pop 1
1978 eddie murray opc psa 9
1979 pete rose opc psa 9
1977 nolan ryan opc psa 9
1975 george brett mini psa 8.5
1981 pete rose opc psa 8, believe it or not that is good
1977 schmidt, rose, yaz opc psa 9
1973 pete rose opc psa 7
1974 winfield topps, psa 8 >>

sounds like what you are complaining about is the difference between you being a paid grader and not

CNote · August 2, 2011 1:18AM

<< 

<< Also, get a single, bright light source and evaluate your cards in a dark room, tilting them at many angles to insure the surfaces are clean. >>

Funny you should mention that, because that's how PSA grades their cards... in a dark room with a single light source! I never knew this until I watched this video: PSA Grading Process. This is a pretty informative video that I'm willing to bet most of us haven't watched yet. >>

I watched it before I ever sent in a card. Everyone should watch it just so people will stop blabbering about the slabs being "welded" or "glued".

olb31 · August 2, 2011 1:23AM

<< 

<< I am mainly complaining about 25% of my order. I pretty much agrees with the other 75%. I did get a few nice ones:

1971 Rod Carew OPC psa 8
2004 Eli manning roy auto /25 psa 9 pop 1
1978 eddie murray opc psa 9
1979 pete rose opc psa 9
1977 nolan ryan opc psa 9
1975 george brett mini psa 8.5
1981 pete rose opc psa 8, believe it or not that is good
1977 schmidt, rose, yaz opc psa 9
1973 pete rose opc psa 7
1974 winfield topps, psa 8 >>

sounds like what you are complaining about is the difference between you being a paid grader and not >>

Could be.

fiveniner · August 2, 2011 1:39AM

I know how you feel but thats the way it goes neither you or I can do nothing about it.This has happened to me also on almost every sub I have made.The odds of getting what you think you should on every card you send in is as scarce as a Honus Wagner.We can sometime miss a blemish,surface wrinke,or touched corner etc.

itzagoner · August 2, 2011 1:45AM

they have been very technical with regards to flaws lately, while the other obvious aspects such as centering and corners have been receiving what i believe is a bit of a softened stance when compared to long ago and the infancy of "dart board" grading, due to the fact there wasn't nearly as much around to make comparisons and judge accordingly.

when i look at cards that i feel very strongly about for submission and a high grade, i turn into Tyra Banks and break 'em down like the girls on America's Next Top Model.

if they shed even the slightest tear, i show 'em the door.

jbox · August 2, 2011 1:55AM

<< I am mainly complaining about 25% of my order. I pretty much agrees with the other 75%. I did get a few nice ones:

1971 Rod Carew OPC psa 8
2004 Eli manning roy auto /25 psa 9 pop 1
1978 eddie murray opc psa 9
1979 pete rose opc psa 9
1977 nolan ryan opc psa 9
1975 george brett mini psa 8.5
1981 pete rose opc psa 8, believe it or not that is good
1977 schmidt, rose, yaz opc psa 9
1973 pete rose opc psa 7
1974 winfield topps, psa 8 >>

Interested in selling that 77 opc ryan?

Mickey71 · August 2, 2011 2:09AM

I don't believe the light in the dark room thing. Sure...some of the grading goes on like that; but not all. The video shows all these QA checks....COME ON. Take a look at the Gale Sayers rookie in PSA 8.5 on EBAY. That bad boy went through the QA....whatever.

olb31 · August 2, 2011 3:40AM

<< I know how you feel but thats the way it goes neither you or I can do nothing about it.This has happened to me also on almost every sub I have made.The odds of getting what you think you should on every card you send in is as scarce as a Honus Wagner.We can sometime miss a blemish,surface wrinke,or touched corner etc. >>

I totally agree, but when two of the best cards you submit turn out to be a 5 and 6, that really got me. I have sent in probably 225 cards in my last 3 submissions and most of my cards are 55/45 or better centering and I have received three .5 grades out of 225. I don't know. Just blowing off some steam.

I appreciate you and the others chiming back.

olb31 · August 2, 2011 3:44AM

<< 

<< I am mainly complaining about 25% of my order. I pretty much agrees with the other 75%. I did get a few nice ones:

1971 Rod Carew OPC psa 8
2004 Eli manning roy auto /25 psa 9 pop 1
1978 eddie murray opc psa 9
1979 pete rose opc psa 9
1977 nolan ryan opc psa 9
1975 george brett mini psa 8.5
1981 pete rose opc psa 8, believe it or not that is good
1977 schmidt, rose, yaz opc psa 9
1973 pete rose opc psa 7
1974 winfield topps, psa 8 >>

Interested in selling that 77 opc ryan? >>

I honestly thought that the card would get a 10. Centering is perfect on the front and 60/40 or better on the back. No print spots. And I have some OPC 10's that have slanted 70/30 centering on the front and 80/20 on the back. I will assure you it has to be the best 9 around. What r u thinking about?

Fabfrank · August 3, 2011 12:20AM

Over the years, I've been mostly disappointed with my submissions. Maybe 1 out of 4 comes back with what I think are the right grades. I only submit stuff that I'd be happy with an 8, but if it comes back higher, I'm elated.

olb31 · August 3, 2011 12:34AM

<< Over the years, I've been mostly disappointed with my submissions. Maybe 1 out of 4 comes back with what I think are the right grades. I only submit stuff that I'd be happy with an 8, but if it comes back higher, I'm elated. >>

Maybe, we should all that attitude, hope for some thing manageable, then if we get a decent grade, it would make you feel better. What bothers me the most is when you see these PSA 10's out there that look like 7's because of their tilt/centering issues. There is currently a 1978 opc Roy White psa 10 for sale. If I had included that card in my order, I would have got maybe an 8, probably a 7.

MULLINS5 · August 3, 2011 1:42AM

If you're building a registry set and trying to get one card in a specific grade you should (from my experience) submit several of the same card, in many different grades.

For instance, I tried HARD to get a 1979 Mike Bossy #230 Topps card in 9 -- to do so I subbed about 10 of the same card on the same sub (purposely mixing in some 6s and 7s). Had one come back 8.5 and another the 9 I wanted.

I've done this with a few other cards as well for registry sets. Always works. Waste of moo-lah.

MULLINS5 · August 3, 2011 1:46AM

1 14696716 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 2 14696717 NEAR MINT 7 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 3 14696718 NEAR MINT 7 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 4 14696719 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 5 14696720 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 6 14696721 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 7 14696722 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 8 14696723 MINT 9 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 9 14696724 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY Card US
6 10 14696725 NEAR MINT-MINT+ 8.5 1979 TOPPS 230 MIKE BOSSY

Fabfrank · August 3, 2011 2:04AM

Mullins- I've done that too. Basically you're hoping that your obvious 5 or 6, will make your best card look like a 9.
I've found that for me, it's easier (and somtimes cheaper) to just buy the card in the grade you want.

MULLINS5 · August 3, 2011 2:07AM

<< Mullins- I've done that too. Basically you're hoping that your obvious 5 or 6, will make your best card look like a 9.
I've found that for me, it's easier (and somtimes cheaper) to just buy the card in the grade you want. >>

You're right -- it's just that there are some cards unavailable (low pop) so you have to do what you have to do....

detroitfan2 · August 3, 2011 9:22AM

It seems to me that so much of this could be solved if PSA would simply include reasons for the grade. "Wrinkle on top left", "right edge imperfection", "bottom corners touched", etc.

Blackie · August 3, 2011 10:28AM

To be honest thats why i switched to SGC over 30 cards this month alone came back very close if not right on the mark and thats after checking with magnification etc.... Just sayin...

Will probably take some heat on this response but its true

olb31 · August 5, 2011 4:14AM

just received my order, i guess psa was right. i figured they would be, but it felt nice to get my frustration out. thanks to all for your comforting responses.

Just sounding off...

Comments