Inconsistent Grading Results
lifeshouldbefun
Posts: 431
Submitted the same '73 Ryan and '76 Ryan 2 times and received EOT for both cards on both occasions.
Submitted again, and finally got an 8 NQ back for both. SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRIGGIN' 9's WTF
Submitted again, and finally got an 8 NQ back for both. SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRIGGIN' 9's WTF
0
Comments
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.
In the end, it is an inexact science. Once you come to accept that, the frustrations can become a little easier to swallow.
Matt
<< <i>Grading is inherently subjective. If you were personally to review thousands of cards over a span of, lets say, a month, and review those same thousand cards again the next month, I am sure you would grade some of the cards differently. Many perhaps would recieve the same grade but there would be changes.
In the end, it is an inexact science. Once you come to accept that, the frustrations can become a little easier to swallow.
Matt >>
Sure, except in this case the law of averages would dictate that 6 submissions for two cards the OP felt were 9 should not net a 6 quality result.
If the qualifier is a MC I would think maybe your perception of centering on the cards isn`t accurate.
But in the end don`t sweat because life should be fun.
<< <i>Submitted the same '73 Ryan and '76 Ryan 2 times and received EOT for both cards on both occasions.
Submitted again, and finally got an 8 NQ back for both. SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRIGGIN' 9's WTF >>
If the grade don't fit, you must resubmit.
Bosox1976
<< <i>All I know is BGS sucks. >>
fixed.
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
I was howling after reading this. THANKS
<< <i>All I know is SGC sucks. >>
Actually, I think their grading is better (more consistent). However, their return/sell price on Mint/Gem Mint commons suck!
<< <i>That's why I finally decided to get out of the graded game/set registry and just collect them the way I did as a kid...RAW! >>
Brave man.
Buying raw cards on line is like banging a hooker. Feels great at the time, but a week later when the card(s)/STDs arrive, not so much.
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
<< <i>
<< <i>That's why I finally decided to get out of the graded game/set registry and just collect them the way I did as a kid...RAW! >>
Brave man.
Buying raw cards on line is like banging a hooker. Feels great at the time, but a week later when the card(s)/STDs arrive, not so much. >>
I'm not buying any big dollar amount cards so I'm not that worried. Plus to be honest I have been more disappointed over the years with cards sitting in PSA holders compared to buying stuff raw. Plenty of room for everyone in the collecting pool. The graded thing just ran it's course for me. Feels good getting back to basics.
<< <i>
<< <i>That's why I finally decided to get out of the graded game/set registry and just collect them the way I did as a kid...RAW! >>
Brave man.
Buying raw cards on line is like banging a hooker. Feels great at the time, but a week later when the card(s)/STDs arrive, not so much. >>
Appartently even graded cards could have EOT and be holdered 8's so the only difference is that the hooker is wearing a yellow wig on one occasion and a black one on the next occasion.
<< <i>Grading is inherently subjective. If you were personally to review thousands of cards over a span of, lets say, a month, and review those same thousand cards again the next month, I am sure you would grade some of the cards differently. Many perhaps would recieve the same grade but there would be changes.
In the end, it is an inexact science. Once you come to accept that, the frustrations can become a little easier to swallow.
Matt >>
Grading is subjective, but not being able to tell the difference between a trimmed card and a legit card should not be subjective.
<< <i>
<< <i>Grading is inherently subjective. If you were personally to review thousands of cards over a span of, lets say, a month, and review those same thousand cards again the next month, I am sure you would grade some of the cards differently. Many perhaps would recieve the same grade but there would be changes.
In the end, it is an inexact science. Once you come to accept that, the frustrations can become a little easier to swallow.
Matt >>
Grading is subjective, but not being able to tell the difference between a trimmed card and a legit card should not be subjective. >>
Well in all due respet, I am not sure I entirely agree. We have all (or at least a large number of us, myself included) submitted cards that received "EOT" that we pulled straight from packs. Given the poor quality control of Topps back in the day, there are cards that don't "measure up" in size. Those cards are, technically, unaltered and legitimate cards. However, I think erring on the side of caution, they are generally rejected by PSA. The gray area comes in as to whether it will receive the "minimum size" kick back or the "EOT" kick back. At least in my mind, there is not a clean distinction between the two and it may not in all cases be easy to designate a card within one category over the other.
There are also some cards that, due to poor cutting at the factory, came out a bit larger than the standard size. Conceivably, especially given modern cutting equipment, someone could trim such a card down to within the proper size and in the process, create dynamite corners. I have collected baseball cards since 1978 and while I do not profess to be an expert, I personally would have a difficult time identifying all such cards that were "trimmed down" but are still within minimum size requirements. Sure, some may appear "off" to even myself but I am certain there are skilled card doctors out there that can effectively improve such a card's appearance and even possibly pass muster with even the most advanced collectors.
Interesting discussion.
In the end, and while it is frustrating to many, myself included, erring on the side of rejecting cards for failing to meet minimum size requirements is the more prudent and conservative call by PSA. That lessens the chance cards that were actually trimmed end up in a slab.
In the end, and while it is frustrating to many, myself included, erring on the side of rejecting cards for failing to meet minimum size requirements is the more prudent and conservative call by PSA. That lessens the chance cards that were actually trimmed end up in a slab. >>
I agree with what you are saying about factory cuts, undersize, etc but my point is the size off the card didn't change as it made its way from "EOT" to "minimum size" and eventually in to a graded holder. It tells me that graders can't tell the difference. Over the years I've heard claims that one can look at the cardboard along the edge to tell if it is trimmed or natural by the appearance of the cardboard stock. True or false?
<< <i>In the end, and while it is frustrating to many, myself included, erring on the side of rejecting cards for failing to meet minimum size requirements is the more prudent and conservative call by PSA. That lessens the chance cards that were actually trimmed end up in a slab. >>
I agree with what you are saying about factory cuts, undersize, etc but my point is the size off the card didn't change as it made its way from "EOT" to "minimum size" and eventually in to a graded holder. It tells me that graders can't tell the difference. Over the years I've heard claims that one can look at the cardboard along the edge to tell if it is trimmed or natural by the appearance of the cardboard stock. True or false? >>
I agree with your point. Even the graders cannot sometimes tell (and thus the confusion with "EOT" and "minimum size requirement."
Addressing your point, you can, in some cases, tell by looking along the side and the cut. If it appears unnaturally wavy that is a huge tip off. My point is with precise modern cutters, some may even pass the most skilled eyes.