Speaking of grader "185" cards have been regraded.

54topps · September 3, 2011 6:45AM

Not sure of the validity behind the theory but im starting to be a believer. I cracked out my 1970 OPC Orr PSA 8 in hopes of an 8.5. Check the scan to see the result.

how the heck is this card a 6?

What do you think about this Mantle? I thought it was a 7 for sure. Thats not a stain on the bottom, its a hair Yuk!!

burke23 · September 3, 2011 6:58AM

I think your subbing costs were simply flushed down the toilet as you will obviously be re-subbing. I hate time-waster subs like that. Great cards - they deserve better.

swartz1 · September 3, 2011 7:28AM

the close up scans really exacerbate your point...

somebody had a thread similar to this the other day, but the scans looked like four sharp corner scans...

like the OP said - resub and better results will come...

GOOD LUCK!!!

or try the other companies...

bbuckner22 · September 3, 2011 7:32AM

My cards were all about 1- 2 grades lower than I expected from 185. I know I'm going to miss a few, but not every one. The more people that complain about their grades from him, the more likely something will be done. The worst of mine was a Yaz 8 RC that I cracked out of a holder with an old flip, really felt it could 9. Well, it didn't, came back a 6.

itzagoner · September 3, 2011 7:57AM

ok, humor me....i know they've gone techno-bonkers.

how does that Orr card, with a long vertical line print foul, multiple fish eyes and focus so poor you can't even see his eyes, receive an 8 the first time?

it seems like a gift which should have been gratefully accepted.

i don't honestly think you can throw all of the weight behind corners and centering for that card.

but.....as others have attested, it's simply a matter of re-subbing again to get your 8 back.

for all you know, it's the same darn grader f'n with you, it's not like that Orr card with those specific features comes through every day.

leadoff4 · September 3, 2011 8:16AM

WOW! That Mantle looks like a 7.5.

mlbfan2 · September 3, 2011 9:09AM

<< how does that Orr card, with a long vertical line print foul, multiple fish eyes and focus so poor you can't even see his eyes, receive an 8 the first time? >>

This PSA 9 has the same print line (or whatever it is), and the focus is nearly the same.
link

54topps · September 3, 2011 9:09AM

<< ok, humor me....i know they've gone techno-bonkers.

how does that Orr card, with a long vertical line print foul, multiple fish eyes and focus so poor you can't even see his eyes, receive an 8 the first time?

it seems like a gift which should have been gratefully accepted.

i don't honestly think you can throw all of the weight behind corners and centering for that card.

but.....as others have attested, it's simply a matter of re-subbing again to get your 8 back.

for all you know, it's the same darn grader f'n with you, it's not like that Orr card with those specific features comes through every day. >>

For those not familiar with this card, those vertical lines running top to bottom around where his shoulders are and the out of focus look are standard on every card. If you look at the PSA 9's and the 8's on the Orr master list you can see them there too.

itzagoner · September 3, 2011 9:12AM

i won't even bother blessing you or this forum with semantics.

if someone handed you those two cards in raw form, which would you rather have and which do you believe is worthy of the higher grade?

hammered · September 3, 2011 9:37AM

I thought it was grader 186 that everyone has a problem with?

Indy78 · September 3, 2011 9:56AM

Well, over the last few months it's been grader 189, 187, 186, and now 185 that have been tough. Perhaps it's the first two numbers that really matter, as in grader "18"?

zep33 · September 3, 2011 10:00AM

<< i won't even bother blessing you or this forum with semantics.

if someone handed you those two cards in raw form, which would you rather have and which do you believe is worthy of the higher grade? >>

they're the same card

itzagoner · September 3, 2011 10:07AM

Mantle vs. Orr.

twiley · September 3, 2011 11:15AM

<< I thought it was grader 186 that everyone has a problem with? >>

I thought it was 187!?!?!?

StickNutzman · September 3, 2011 11:37AM

Are we absolutely sure that the grader numbers always stay the same? Wouldnt it be smarter for PSA to shuffle them from time to time to avoid the conversation we are having?

hammered · September 3, 2011 12:22PM

<< Are we absolutely sure that the grader numbers always stay the same? Wouldnt it be smarter for PSA to shuffle them from time to time to avoid the conversation we are having? >>

Exactly. Which is why the mods and the rest of PSA probably get a good chuckle from the idea that they would include flip information that might identify a specific grader, or open themselves up to public assertions that one grader is tougher than others.

Boopotts · September 3, 2011 12:55PM

There's no question but that you've been hosed on the Orr, though I think anyone might reasonably question the decision to crack a PSA 8 in hopes of receiving a grade that raises the card value by less than 10%.

twiley · September 3, 2011 1:01PM

<< 

<< Are we absolutely sure that the grader numbers always stay the same? Wouldnt it be smarter for PSA to shuffle them from time to time to avoid the conversation we are having? >>

Exactly. Which is why the mods and the rest of PSA probably get a good chuckle from the idea that they would include flip information that might identify a specific grader, or open themselves up to public assertions that one grader is tougher than others. >>

I have to agree with this. PSA cert#s are random which is why I posted my joke about "187".

We all know PSA has graders that specialize in certain era of cards. For example they wouldn't have a grader that specializes in 1970s grade 1990s or 2000s right? I believe I have seen someone at PSA post something similar explaining how unknown a grader is. Well if you assume a graders are assigned cert#s "185" or "187" your probably wrong. Here is example of why I believe it is just random.

"187"

I can't say I ever owned a slab with "185" I looked. Still you get the idea on what I am trying to get at.

Indy78 · September 3, 2011 10:37PM

I think you're correct in that the first three numbers don't shed any light on the grader. I went back over my submissions of '75 minis over the last two years and the first three numbers were as follows:

Feb. 2009: 144
Aug 2010: 173
Sep 2010: 171
Oct 2010: 179
Nov 2010: 179
Apr 2011: 189
May 2011: 189
July 2011: 186
early Aug 2011: 186

I haven't done any submissions since early Aug, but it looks like late Aug/Sep is 185 based on what folks are posting lately.

I agree that we can't tell the grader by the first three numbers, but it looks like we may be able to look at the first three numbers and tell within a month or two when they were graded. I'd be curious to see based on other's submissions what the three numbers were in the months I didn't submit anything.

mlbfan2 · September 4, 2011 12:19AM

I would be surprised if "185" meant anything. I would think that PSA could type in any serial number and that would pull up the date the card was graded, and the name of the grader. There's no need to have a certain grader grade the 185s.

By the way, if "185" really is a grader, then it is confirmed that he/she grades modern cards, vintage cards, AND autographs (there's a recent PSA/DNA poppage thread here).

thedutymon · September 4, 2011 12:27AM

<< I think you're correct in that the first three numbers don't shed any light on the grader. I went back over my submissions of '75 minis over the last two years and the first three numbers were as follows:

Feb. 2009: 144
Aug 2010: 173
Sep 2010: 171
Oct 2010: 179
Nov 2010: 179
Apr 2011: 189
May 2011: 189
July 2011: 186
early Aug 2011: 186

I haven't done any submissions since early Aug, but it looks like late Aug/Sep is 185 based on what folks are posting lately.

I agree that we can't tell the grader by the first three numbers, but it looks like we may be able to look at the first three numbers and tell within a month or two when they were graded. I'd be curious to see based on other's submissions what the three numbers were in the months I didn't submit anything. >>

Morning,

For all the Conspiracy Theorists out there, here's some more Non Support of the Theory:

Last Year worth of subs:

My Subs: The First Three of Cert/Makeup Type of Cards/Date Shipped/Results

185/Mostly 55 Bowman Baseball W/86 Basketball and mixed 60's/70s/ Football/9/1/11/ Major Hosed
188/All 56/57/62 Football/8/1/11/ Awesome
188/Most Non Sport W/57/62 Football/7/19/11/ Good
189/Mix 69 Football/Non Sport/Modern Crap/77 Cloth Stickers/7/16/11/ Good
189/100% Non Sport/6/6/11/ Hosed
176/1950's Baseball/Football Mix/2/17/11/ Hosed
178/100% 1955 Bowman Baseball/12/13/10 Good
173/100% 1965 Topps Football/9/2/10/ Good
173/Mix Non Sport/Football/Baseball/8/27/10/ Hosed
173/All 1971 Milk Dud/10/13/10/ Awesome
173/All 70's/80's Football/8/16/10/ Hosed
173/All 1954 Topps Baseball/7/29/10/ Good
173/100% 1985 Football/7/30/10/ Major Hosed

Anybody can get a pattern other than Random from that, other than a small nod to not mixing subs up with too much different stuff, then your a better man then Me!

So much for the Grand Conspiracy!!!

YeeHah

Neil

Indy78 · September 4, 2011 1:17AM

Call me crazy, but I see a bit of pattern here when adding dutymon's dates to my list. My dates are the "shipping dates" which typically are within a day or two of when the cards are graded and assigned a cert number.

I'm not insinuating any kind of conspirancy here. As a 75 mini collector, I find it very helpful to know when the cards were graded. If the cert numbers tell me that, then it's an edge I'd like to use when purchasing these cards.

Feb. 2009: 144
July 2010: 173
Aug 2010: 173
Aug 2010: 173
Sep 2010: 173
Sep 2010: 171
Oct 2010: 173
Oct 2010: 179
Nov 2010: 179
Dec. 2010: 178
Feb 2011: 176
Apr 2011: 189
May 2011: 189
June 2011: 189
July 2011: 189/188
July 2011: 186
Aug 2011: 188
early Aug 2011: 186
Sept 2011: 185

cards651 · September 4, 2011 2:17AM

Interesting thread. IMO mlbfan2 sums it up best. To me the grader is irrelevant. I think itzagoner hits on some great points which are not really addressed. He argues (and others agree) that there is a big printline, a couple of fisheyes and the card is out of focus. Others seem to imply that since the card was produced this way, it is OK to give it an 8. PSA is very inconsistent in applying this concept. There are many cards notoriously off-center or with heavy print dots or smudges that were all consistently 'produced that way' but will never garner a high grade. It's inconsistent and inconsistency strikes at the heart of any sort of grading process. Under PSA guidelines the Orr card appears to be a 6 and there are probably lots of more 6's out there in PSA 8 holders. Frustrating.

WinPitcher · September 4, 2011 2:19AM

MLB is correct no one grader uses the 185 cert number.

grote15 · September 4, 2011 2:57AM

The cert #s are used over time and while a specific grader may be grading cards beginning with 185 today he may be grading cards starting with a cert # 189 tomorrow.

vladguerrero · September 4, 2011 12:20PM

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Grader 185 is Keyser Soze.

thedutymon · September 4, 2011 12:27PM

<< The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Grader 185 is Keyser Soze. >>

ga5150 · September 4, 2011 12:36PM

I think it would be cool if someone from PSA would simply come on here and say "Look, here's what the numbers mean. Or, the numbers don't mean anything...or whatever". It would certainly cut out a lot of the speculation on the collectors part.

twiley · September 4, 2011 12:39PM

<< I think it would be cool if someone from PSA would simply come on here and say "Look, here's what the numbers mean. Or, the numbers don't mean anything...or whatever". It would certainly cut out a lot of the speculation on the collectors part. >>

They already have! Collectors saying "I got hosed by grader 185" is an assumption.

ga5150 · September 4, 2011 12:41PM

For those of us that missed it, could you point us to the thread, or give a summary of what was said?

Thanks in advance!

twiley · September 4, 2011 12:52PM

I will look for it. I hope I can find it. I believe it was Joe Orlando that came on here and made the statement.

twiley · September 4, 2011 1:07PM

Here ya go!

ga5150 · September 4, 2011 10:38PM

Intersting, thanks!

I'm sorry to say that I haven't seen that, although I probably should have by now.

ddfamf · September 4, 2011 10:55PM

I thought each card was reviewed by 3 different graders?

WinPitcher · September 5, 2011 1:21AM

<< I think it would be cool if someone from PSA would simply come on here and say "Look, here's what the numbers mean. Or, the numbers don't mean anything...or whatever". It would certainly cut out a lot of the speculation on the collectors part. >>

PSA has been there and done that.

Carol a few years ago, maybe more, came on here and stated that no one grader uses a specific cert number.

If 185 is being used during a specific time period more than one grader is using it.

She did not state IRRC why they change from time to time.

Also, Joe has also come here and stated the same thing.

Indy78 · September 5, 2011 2:05AM

In my job, we review applications against a certain set of standards by which the applicant must follow. Every now then for any number of reasons, we get pushed to be extremely stringent on making sure the application completely follows the standards. This lasts for a period until we start getting push back from our applicants about us being way too picky compared to the prior period and then we back off a little. Then something comes up again, and we go back to stringently following the standards, and the cycle continues.

I can see this very thing happening at PSA with grading. IMO, we happen to be in a "stringent" period right now at least for the cards I know something about.

At this point, I agree with those who say that the first three numbers don't tell squat about the identity of the grader. But it appears to me that they say something about when the card was graded, and I find this info to be valuable when purchasing graded cards online.

itzagoner · September 5, 2011 2:21AM

sounds like police work.

ymarea · September 5, 2011 2:30AM

<< The Bobby Orr has focus issues, multiple fish eyes, a counter-clockwise tilt and ... >>

How can you be certain that it's not a clockwise tilt that didn't quite make it all the way around?

twiley · September 5, 2011 6:47AM

I must apologize. I got a post Joe Orlando posted on another topic mixed up with with this one.

This is what I was mixed up about.

Does it make a difference WHO submits to PSA?

Still it kind of relates to this topic because if the grader doesn't know who the submitter is then I seriously doubt we can determine who graded the card just by looking at a cert #.

I know I have read somewhere a PSA Admin saying the cert #s are just cert #s and nothing more. That the certs have no relation on who graded the card. I wish I had more time to read old threads to find it.

Dpeck100 · September 5, 2011 7:31AM

I have been submitting cards since April 2010. Each time the first three digit numbers have gotten higher. I think they just run through a serious of numbers and keep going.

I highly doubt there is any correlation to the grader you got and more the date of the submission.

cards651 · September 5, 2011 7:55AM

twiley - Thanks for the link to the prior thread and the video. Pretty interesting. Had not seen either before. - Kevin

CrazyMind2017 · September 5, 2011 8:26AM

What about cert numbers that begin with 9?

WinPitcher · September 5, 2011 8:29AM

David

That is simply coincidence, 2 years ago they went back to 0 for a while.

Dpeck100 · September 5, 2011 8:38AM

Okay Steve, you obviously know much more then I so I will take your word for it.

I just checked my best set of 1982 Wrestling All Stars series A on my wall and I have 17 different starting three cert numbers.

I could be wrong but I am not sold on the concept the first three numbers mean a specific grader.

54topps · September 27, 2011 11:38AM

I had the Orr and Mantle regraded. Very happy with the PSA 9 on the Orr. I new that 6 was just wrong. Bummed about the Mantle but the Orr definitely makes up for it.

olb31 · September 27, 2011 11:45AM

<< I had the Orr and Mantle regraded. Very happy with the PSA 9 on the Orr. I new that 6 was just wrong. Bummed about the Mantle but the Orr definitely makes up for it.

>>

is the mantle for sell?

Dboneesq · September 27, 2011 11:56AM

No big deal on the ORR. A "PSA 6" is a $100.00 card and a "PSA 9" is a $1,500.00 card! LOL

jeffcbay · September 27, 2011 11:57AM

<< is the mantle for sell? >>

That Mantle should be for resub.

twiley · September 27, 2011 11:58AM

<< 

<< is the mantle for sell? >>

That Mantle should be for resub. >>

I agree. I would resub if it were my card...

Black00SS · September 27, 2011 12:05PM

I'm sorry, but isn't this particularly worrisome??? The same card has been submitted 3 times to PSA and received an 8, a 6, and a 9?

The Mantle received a 6.5, then came back miscut the second time. I realize grading is subjective, buy the card not the slab, blah blah blah, but come on. It is absurd IMO that a card can go from an 8 to a 6, to a 9. I could see if it came back .5 different, hey no big deal, but this is ridiculous imo. When you are talking thousands of dollars in price difference between the grades, then I think some consistency should be in order.

jimrad · September 27, 2011 12:10PM

<< I'm sorry, but isn't this particularly worrisome??? The same card has been submitted 3 times to PSA and received an 8, a 6.5, and a 9?

The Mantle received a 6.5, then came back miscut the second time. I realize grading is subjective, buy the card not the slab, blah blah blah, but come on. It is absurd IMO that a card can go from an 8 to a 6.5, to a 9. I could see if it came back .5 different, hey no big deal, but this is ridiculous imo. When you are talking thousands of dollars in price difference between the grades, then I think some consistency should be in order. >>

Speaking of grader &quot;185&quot; cards have been regraded.

Comments

Speaking of grader "185" cards have been regraded.