How Can This Happen?
trex
Posts: 179
Here awhile back I decided to pull a bunch of cards off the PSA registry and transfer them to the SGC registry, just for personal preference, no more, no less. This involved cracking the cards out of their PSA holders, my decision, and submitting them raw to SGC. Most came back as I had expected, pretty much the same as PSA, a couple bumped up a grade and the rest the same, except for one. This one was a 1974 card cracked out of an 8.5 PSA holder. Now, I bought the card from a reputable seller, who is active on the boards, and I have no doubt he did not alter the card in any way. Also, the case had no evidence whatsoever of tampering. I have cracked a lot and I know what to look for. At any rate the card came back from SGC evidence of trimming top/bottom. I didn't believe it, so once I got the card back, I measured it and sure enough it was 1/16" off. I even pulled some of my 1974 cards and compared them and this card was definitely shorter. Okay, so I'm at fault for not checking closer prior to submission. Basically, I trusted PSA, so why check.
My question is this, what is the validity of the rest of my PSA graded cards? Should I pull them all out and measure them all? I read all these threads about the backlog at PSA and the frustration with it all, are they rushing things through to meet a quota...quality be damned? Are they giving preference to the big sellers like 4SC....well a huge majority of these cards came from 4SC and they all came back at least PSA grades. This card was not a 4SC card.
So is this a once in a million mistake, a trend....your thoughts.
My question is this, what is the validity of the rest of my PSA graded cards? Should I pull them all out and measure them all? I read all these threads about the backlog at PSA and the frustration with it all, are they rushing things through to meet a quota...quality be damned? Are they giving preference to the big sellers like 4SC....well a huge majority of these cards came from 4SC and they all came back at least PSA grades. This card was not a 4SC card.
So is this a once in a million mistake, a trend....your thoughts.
0
Comments
I've had cards submitted to PSA, get evid of trim, and grade the next time
I've had cards submitted to SGC, get evid of trim, and grade the next time.
I've cracked PSA slabs and had them rejected by SGC
I've had a bunch of SGC slabs, cracked them, and had them rejected by PSA
I've had SGC slabs cracked and bumped in PSA
I've had SGC slabs cracked and drop 2-5 grades in PSA
I've had PSA slabs cracked and bumped in PSA
I've had PSA slabs cracked and drop a grade in PSA.
It's an opinion, and only that.And certainly not the same every time.
If the grade doesn't fit, you must resubmit.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>My experience:
I've had cards submitted to PSA, get evid of trim, and grade the next time
I've had cards submitted to SGC, get evid of trim, and grade the next time.
I've cracked PSA slabs and had them rejected by SGC
I've had a bunch of SGC slabs, cracked them, and had them rejected by PSA
I've had SGC slabs cracked and bumped in PSA
I've had SGC slabs cracked and drop 2-5 grades in PSA
I've had PSA slabs cracked and bumped in PSA
I've had PSA slabs cracked and drop a grade in PSA.
It's an opinion, and only that.And certainly not the same every time.
If the grade doesn't fit, you must resubmit. >>
True I get that, but this card has been trimmed, that's not an opinion, and it came from a PSA 8.5. An opinion in grade you debate....you can't debate a card was trimmed.
eyebone
I just got grades from PSA on about 15 1975 BB cards and one was graded N6 minimum size requirement.
Maybe SGC made a mistake and its not trimmed, just short.
Just because it was graded by SGC I wouldnt give them any credit on there grading skills.
<< <i>Some cards can be a little short and not be trimmed. Maybe thats the case with your card.
I just got grades from about 15 1975 BB cards and one was graded N6 minimum size requirement.
Maybe SGC made a mistake and its not trimmed, just short. >>
I measured it myself...it's 1/16" short. I put it up against other 1974 cards and it is noticeably shorter. Okay, maybe it wasn't trimmed, maybe it came from the factory this way. The point is PSA put an 8.5 grade on a card that undeniably doesn't meet specs.
Just grab a stack of raw cards from any thing topps made pre 1981 and they will all be a different size is some way.
<< <i>
<< <i>Some cards can be a little short and not be trimmed. Maybe thats the case with your card.
I just got grades from about 15 1975 BB cards and one was graded N6 minimum size requirement.
Maybe SGC made a mistake and its not trimmed, just short. >>
I measured it myself...it's 1/16" short. I put it up against other 1974 cards and it is noticeably shorter. Okay, maybe it wasn't trimmed, maybe it came from the factory this way. The point is PSA put an 8.5 grade on a card that undeniably doesn't meet specs. >>
Okay, I did miss the point. I thought you were just concerned that PSA graded a trimmed card. I don't know why they would have missed a short card, I thought they measured them all.
<< <i>Also if you can show a pic. The card might just be shorter from the factory which is what I feel is going on.
Just because it was graded by SGC I wouldnt give them any credit on there grading skills. >>
It may have been shorter from the factory, but SGC didn't grade it. PSA did, SGC kicked it back.
So, your point is?
SGC thumbs down!
<< <i>Cards can be also bigger than most regular cards. And yes they can even be of the same brand and year. They can also be smaller than some as well. The 1975 minis are a perfect example of this.
Just grab a stack of raw cards from any thing topps made pre 1981 and they will all be a different size is some way. >>
It's a 74, it's not a mini. Even with my old eyes I can tell a mini from a full-sized card. Human error, I can buy, to a certain extent...but I thought PSA measured them. Again even with my old eyes I can still see 1/16 " off.
Grading term
<< <i>SGC didnt want to have to refund for grading the card as MIN size?
SGC thumbs down! >>
I submitted 42....why would they pick this one out? If what you say is true why this one? It certainly wasn't the most expensive of the bunch, in fact it was close to the bottom as for as price goes. Besides, I measured it myself, once i git it back, it's off.
Just from experience with my own experince with SGC. I started subing with them the first year they came out. Today I will never spend a dime on there opinion.
<< <i>So we hear stories all the time of people subbing cards over and over again until they get their EOT or MSRQ cards into an actual grade, and then we're surprised when when crack one out and it's EOT? Mmmkay... >>
I'm not worried about the grade. I would have been happy with 8.5, 8 or even 7. I sub'd it for personal reasons. My concern is PSA graded a card 8.5 that didn't meet minimum specs., and should us collectors be concerned about this. If not then so be it. I can't help but wonder how many folks are measuring their PSA cards now. No wait, it's Friday night...it'll wait till morning.
<< <i>So we hear stories all the time of people subbing cards over and over again until they get their EOT or MSRQ cards into an actual grade, and then we're surprised when when crack one out and it's EOT? Mmmkay... >>
+1
Also this is the second negative post about PSA from you. Last time it was the backlog and how your SGC cards popped so quick compared to PSA, etc, etc.
You obviously like SGC better than PSA, which is fine, your choice, you did crack your PSA cards and pull them from the registry here. Okay cool whatever floats your boat. You said most came back the same grade, and a few bumped, and one came back evidence of trimming. Okay.... sound like you made out pretty good on a couple, and not good on one. Seems pretty fair to me?
So now you question all your PSA graded cards? You think you need to measure them all? If you've been reading here for awhile PSA certainly sends back cards for evidence of trimming or MSRQ.
People have been using PSA for years and years. I don't think this all of a sudden changes anything. If we take your word for it, no evidence...., then it sounds like a mistake possibly.... Don't think you need to worry about all your PSA cards, but if you feel the need go ahead and measure them all..
But anyway good luck with SGC and your new registry set.
"Live everyday, don't throw it away"
Because my card was in an old flip, I wonder if there might have been a time in PSA history when size requirements weren't so strict. Maybe what I thought was a print defect actually wasn't, and it was the size of the card that was considered the defect?
This is my first claim to a possible ALT. Have never claimed that about anyone. But this is the second post in just a few days....???? hmmm...
"Live everyday, don't throw it away"
<< <i>Also this is the second negative post about PSA from you. Last time it was the backlog and how your SGC cards popped so quick compared to PSA, etc, etc.
You obviously like SGC better than PSA, which is fine, your choice, you did crack your PSA cards and pull them from the registry here. Okay cool whatever floats your boat. You said most came back the same grade, and a few bumped, and one came back evidence of trimming. Okay.... sound like you made out pretty good on a couple, and not good on one. Seems pretty fair to me?
So now you question all your PSA graded cards? You think you need to measure them all? If you've been reading here for awhile PSA certainly sends back cards for evidence of trimming or MSRQ.
People have been using PSA for years and years. I don't think this all of a sudden changes anything. If we take your word for it, no evidence...., then it sounds like a mistake possibly.... Don't think you need to worry about all your PSA cards, but if you feel the need go ahead and measure them all..
But anyway good luck with SGC and your new registry set.
Is he not allowed to post here since he likes SGC better than PSA? Is he wrong to question the general validity of PSA grades on the basis of everyone knowing that many short and/or trimmed cards eventually get slabbed with a number grade? You're clearly not concerned that mistakes can and do happen. Other people are entitled to be concerned, and they're allowed to express it.
<< <i>Min size also wont show the typical signs of trimming. So that is a good reason why some get past graders. It bugs me that SGC cant tell when an oversized card was trimmed. >>
Simple and cheap cutters can make perfectly square cuts. Not everyone trims freely by hand with an ordinary pair of scissors. I used a cheap paper cutter to get perfectly square cuts on some wax box bottoms that I sent in not too long ago. I butchered some of them, but a couple looked perfect and totally clean, like they were straight from the factory.
<< <i>
<< <i>So we hear stories all the time of people subbing cards over and over again until they get their EOT or MSRQ cards into an actual grade, and then we're surprised when when crack one out and it's EOT? Mmmkay... >>
+1
Also this is the second negative post about PSA from you. Last time it was the backlog and how your SGC cards popped so quick compared to PSA, etc, etc.
You obviously like SGC better than PSA, which is fine, your choice, you did crack your PSA cards and pull them from the registry here. Okay cool whatever floats your boat. You said most came back the same grade, and a few bumped, and one came back evidence of trimming. Okay.... sound like you made out pretty good on a couple, and not good on one. Seems pretty fair to me?
So now you question all your PSA graded cards? You think you need to measure them all? If you've been reading here for awhile PSA certainly sends back cards for evidence of trimming or MSRQ.
People have been using PSA for years and years. I don't think this all of a sudden changes anything. If we take your word for it, no evidence...., then it sounds like a mistake possibly.... Don't think you need to worry about all your PSA cards, but if you feel the need go ahead and measure them all..
But anyway good luck with SGC and your new registry set.
Okay, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I will submit the same card to PSA for grading. And I will tell you the results when they come back....6 months from now. Fair enough. I thought so. Just curious though, if it should come back 8.5, 8 or even graded....what say you then?
Thanks for your good luck wishes, and yes I did do good on the subs and yes it was fair and yes SGC pops quicker, who don't know that due to volume, and I still have more PSA cards that SGC and will remain so. And no, I don't necessarily like SGC better than PSA. "People have been using PSA for years and years." Oh wait a minute a history lesson. It's refreshing though that you can read my mind and on your own come up with that conclusion. No, I don't think it changes anything. Yes it was probably a mistake. But if this mistake was made on a $6000 card rather than a $40 card, would this not be a bigger deal?
I suppose I'm sorry for being so naive as to bring up a point, I would think we should all be concerned about. But back to the sidelines.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>I have been a SGC guy for years. I have had a similar experience with SGC which in my mind demonstrates their consistency. I cracked a PSA 7.5 that came back as trimmed by SGC. I waited almost a year and resubbed....it came back trimmed again. Tried a third time and came back as trimmed again. 3 strikes and your out! Unlike Handyman, I think SGC is A1 first class and is my preferred grader. Of course, I am sure someone will chime in and say they were probably consistently wrong 3 times! >>
Agreed and well said Ryan!
<< <i> Of course, I am sure someone will chime in and say they were probably consistently wrong 3 times! >>
If you must. I cracked out an SGC '3' card and sent it back to SGC, because the card looked better than a '3'. Came back trimmed. This is SGC now! What grade is right - the '3' it got the first time or the 'trimmed' it got the 2nd time??
I think boardmember Griffins said it best. Just read his post. Nothing else needs to be said on the matter. By the way, we are talking 1/16" of an inch? Really? 1/16"!! If you are talking about vintage cards, did you realize there are natural fluctuations in the manufacturing process that can result in differences as minute as that?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Is he not allowed to post here since he likes SGC better than PSA? Is he wrong to question the general validity of PSA grades on the basis of everyone knowing that many short and/or trimmed cards eventually get slabbed with a number grade? You're clearly not concerned that mistakes can and do happen. Other people are entitled to be concerned, and they're allowed to express it. >>
Thank you. I don't necessarily like SGC better than PSA. That being said, I do think SGC is more consistent...but that's just my opinion, having submitted many raw cards to both. I know that's an issue up for debate and that's fine...this is my opinion and I'm not trying to sway one person one way or the other. The other thing is, I'm a collector and my cards look better to me in SGC holders, that's just my personal opinion. I'm not looking to resell and/or make a profit. I don't crack and resubmit to get a "higher" grade. If I should get the higher grade...great, if not that's great too. I have a good looking card in a good looking holder, and that's all I'm concerned about. Suppose that makes me a "back in the day" collector.
I suppose the point I was trying to bring out, I hear thread after thread concerning how long it takes PSA to grade cards. This has to put pressure on graders, when you put pressure on people, they make mistakes. It's human nature. If you ever look at 4SC, they literally put up hundreds if not thousands of PSA cards daily...daily. At last count they had over 57, 000 graded cards up. That's just one seller. Now when someone brings an issue of this potential magnitude to "collectors" of something they might want to be aware of, especially those who make a business of buying and selling graded cards, one would thing one might want to have this information whether they use it or not. Now, I did make a comment a few nights back regarding the threads as to how long PSA is taking to grade cards, and I did mention that SGC is turning 20 day turnarounds in 18 days, merely as an alternative if you should choose to do so. I am in no way endorsing SGC. I thought this forum was for sharing information, sharing ideas and bringing attention to items/issues that other members might want to know about. Guess I was wrong. Besides if the thread doesn't interest you, just pass on by...I do it all the time. I don't rip waxes, cellos, racks, boxes etc. so I don't read those threads, they're of no interest to me. Now when MattyC starts talking about what he looks for in gradable cards, I'm all ears. When BigRed writes about what he looks for in cards, and scanning techniques, I'm there. I'm there to learn and not criticize. I might have my opinion, but in most cases I keep it to myself, realizing others have their opinions too.
S ubmit
A gain
With all the trimming,coloring and who knows what other doctoring this hobby has had, there was inevitably going to be a cottage industry popping up to make sure your card was at least authentic. Out of the doctoring racket came this racket, grading and authenticating cards. Who is trimming a 1963 Topps Felix Mantilla card? Maybe/probably no one but these companies have guidelines to go by and they (supposedly) try to follow these. Human error does come into play and quite frequently. We all have stories of resubmitting. If you want to make sure that your card isn't doctored and in good shape then play this racket. I myself am doing only one set just to say that I'm pretty sure that all these cards are original and not doctored with. When I was a kid a collected the 1961 Topps Baseball set and found out later Mantle was trimmed,Maris was colored, Clemente this, Mays that and got fed up with a-holes ruining old cards to make a buck. Like life insurance,protection or charities this is just another racket.
Wonder what the outcome will be.
I could guess.
The coment mickey71 said earlier( I agree with) about the SGC 92 and how they dont even fit the grade makes me think that those grades were gifts almost. Not saying they are but the way they come out it almost looks like that to me. One reason I dont search for SGC cards nor submit to them.
The SGC/PSA debate will always be. Its a simple matter of personal preference. I personally feel I get a higher quality card from SGC. I understand most will choose
PSA because of the registry and resale value.
My personal theory? If your buying the label PSA, If your buying the card SGC.
I have both in my collection.
John
All American Hobbies Online Store
This comment steps away from the trimmed/altered topic, but ...
It may take a little time, but either that thread response, or the entire thread, will be deleted. Questioning is not allowed and a couple of
threads have vanished recently.
I've become extremely skeptical/annoyed with the extreme leniency granted to the very high volume graders, i.e. 4SCX.
I completely understand treating high volume customers well, but for '80s cards, I see a lot of garbage 10's being sold, perhaps some trimmed.
I've purchased 10's from high volume guys, that have 2, not 1, corners that are just not GEM MINT quality, let alone MINT. Perhaps another company
will pop up named 2SC. Overall, I'm satisfied with the quality, but the percentage of non-10's in 10 cases is growing.
When I receive a 9 back from a submission, then compare it to some of the 10's I purchased, I get ....
Just like the stock market, it is, in my opinion, becoming more of a rigged system.
Outside of that, LIFE IS FUN/GOOD
An EOT or evidence of trimming is an opinion that the card has been altered or trimmed. It is just an opinion and is not factual as the grader did not witness the assumed trimming. Such opinions are not always accurate and I have had cards that have been kicked for EOT and MINSIZE holdered upon resubmission. Most commonly, this occurs with pack fresh or vending issued cards. The worst was years ago when I broke up a '62 Presentation Set that PSA and Rocchi/Baker refused to holder due to MINSIZE (normal for the Presentations) and SGC holdered nearly the entire run and noted "Presentation" on the flip. About 4 years ago, I cracked about 10 of the SGC's that I had remaining and subbed them with some pack fresh '62s and PSA holdered 8 of them (they had been rejected years earlier) and EOT'd the others.
I had a PSA 9 (PD) with no print defect that I could find, cracked it out, came back an 8, cracked it out again, this card is a 9 all day long. We'll see how many times it takes.
Sounds like you have been involved with graded cards for a while and this should be expected.
Joe
Of course you can. I have received EOT on cards that were subsequently graded by PSA.
But because it's so subjective, it tends to be somewhat inconsistent.
This leads to collectors cracking cards out for resubmission in hopes of getting a higher grade.
The evidence is very clear that some cards get misgraded the first time around, but PSA is very reluctant to bump too many grades on a review submission. It would seem they are afraid to admit they were previously wrong. THIS IS AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM, because it leads to collectors cracking out cards instead of sending them in for review in their original PSA holders. The separate return shipping requirements also play a role in this activity. For example, I recently posted about sending this card for both review and reholdering, which would have cost me $15 for the single-card review submission plus the separate cost of return shipping. Instead of paying the extra costs, I cracked it out and sent it in on my $4.50 March baseball special, willing to gamble. Even if it comes back as a 7, I'll pretty much break even. In other words, if I had paid around $25 to have the card reviewed and shipped back to me, I'd be able to sell it as an 8 for $65 with a $25 associated cost, allowing me to pocket $40. By cracking it out, I'm paying only $4.50 and the increase in return shipping is negligible. If it comes back as a 7, it will be the strongest 7 anyone has ever seen, and I'll probably be able to sell it for $40, for a net difference of $0, making the gamble of cracking it out worth it. I see this as a secondary issue that adds to the original problem, making it worse.
So the inconsistency that most collectors ultimately understand and are ok with has become the elephant in the room that PSA isn't willing to talk about. The main problem here is that collectors who are looking for a bump put too much faith in the legitimacy of the original grade, even if they think the number is too low. They figure that if it's slabbed and graded, it can be cracked out, graded, and slabbed again, and that it won't come back as altered, trimmed, or min size. This is when collectors begin to have a problem with the inconsistency. They put too much faith in the original grader's determination that the card was worthy of a number grade, despite lacking confidence in the number itself assigned by that same grader. They figure that if a previous grader missed evidence of trimming the first time, the same card should be slabbed every time it's submitted in the future, kind of like being grandfathered in because it slipped by once. I see why PSA wouldn't want to allow this, but then they should reimburse for the value of the graded card for their original mistake. The problem is that once the card is cracked out, there's no way to prove the altered/trimmed card is the same one that was cracked out of the original PSA holder.
The monetary arrangement creates an appearance problem for PSA. By inadvertently compelling collectors to crack cards out (due to the lack of review bumps as well as separate return shipping requirements), PSA is causing people to gamble when they wouldn't ordinarily want to gamble. And they're getting paid for it. This is clearly a problem in PSA's business model. The solution would be for PSA to make it easier to get a bump on review submission AND to ease up on separate shipping requirements and costs. USPS charges $1.64 to ship a single card in a bubble mailer. There's no reason to pay $17.50 for essentially the same shipping service, or even the $10-12 it would cost a customer when using his own Fedex account, which is what I would have done on that Murray card if I'd sent it for review instead of cracking it out and sending it in on the $4.50 special.
I am a confessed crack-a-holic that belongs in a 12 step program. It sucks having to break a card out, but if you are persistant(and more importantly correct), you will eventually get the grade the card deserves.
I specialize in 1975 mini and have cracked roughly two cases worth personally. One as a straight case break, the rest in boxes over time. I have had cards that I personally pulled come back EOT and many, more come back n6. I don't take it personally, I simply resub.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
This is all an allegation, I think we need facts.
"Live everyday, don't throw it away"
<< <i>Grading is an opinion, I get that.
But because it's so subjective, it tends to be somewhat inconsistent.
This leads to collectors cracking cards out for resubmission in hopes of getting a higher grade.
The evidence is very clear that some cards get misgraded the first time around, but PSA is very reluctant to bump too many grades on a review submission. It would seem they are afraid to admit they were previously wrong. THIS IS AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM, because it leads to collectors cracking out cards instead of sending them in for review in their original PSA holders. The separate return shipping requirements also play a role in this activity. For example, I recently posted about sending this card for both review and reholdering, which would have cost me $15 for the single-card review submission plus the separate cost of return shipping. Instead of paying the extra costs, I cracked it out and sent it in on my $4.50 March baseball special, willing to gamble. Even if it comes back as a 7, I'll pretty much break even. In other words, if I had paid around $25 to have the card reviewed and shipped back to me, I'd be able to sell it as an 8 for $65 with a $25 associated cost, allowing me to pocket $40. By cracking it out, I'm paying only $4.50 and the increase in return shipping is negligible. If it comes back as a 7, it will be the strongest 7 anyone has ever seen, and I'll probably be able to sell it for $40, for a net difference of $0, making the gamble of cracking it out worth it. I see this as a secondary issue that adds to the original problem, making it worse.
So the inconsistency that most collectors ultimately understand and are ok with has become the elephant in the room that PSA isn't willing to talk about. The main problem here is that collectors who are looking for a bump put too much faith in the legitimacy of the original grade, even if they think the number is too low. They figure that if it's slabbed and graded, it can be cracked out, graded, and slabbed again, and that it won't come back as altered, trimmed, or min size. This is when collectors begin to have a problem with the inconsistency. They put too much faith in the original grader's determination that the card was worthy of a number grade, despite lacking confidence in the number itself assigned by that same grader. They figure that if a previous grader missed evidence of trimming the first time, the same card should be slabbed every time it's submitted in the future, kind of like being grandfathered in because it slipped by once. I see why PSA wouldn't want to allow this, but then they should reimburse for the value of the graded card for their original mistake. The problem is that once the card is cracked out, there's no way to prove the altered/trimmed card is the same one that was cracked out of the original PSA holder.
The monetary arrangement creates an appearance problem for PSA. By inadvertently compelling collectors to crack cards out (due to the lack of review bumps as well as separate return shipping requirements), PSA is causing people to gamble when they wouldn't ordinarily want to gamble. And they're getting paid for it. This is clearly a problem in PSA's business model. The solution would be for PSA to make it easier to get a bump on review submission AND to ease up on separate shipping requirements and costs. USPS charges $1.64 to ship a single card in a bubble mailer. There's no reason to pay $17.50 for essentially the same shipping service, or even the $10-12 it would cost a customer when using his own Fedex account, which is what I would have done on that Murray card if I'd sent it for review instead of cracking it out and sending it in on the $4.50 special. >>
Well said, well said. This is the issue I faced with my 1933 Goudey Max Bishop (my prior thread). I would have preferred to send it in in the SGC holder but: (1) it is cost prohibitive; and (2) I believe PSA is inherently prideful in wanting to be the "tougher grader" and therefore would not cross at the same grade. Grading is inherently subjective and the imperfections of human emotion/review cannot be removed.
I also just read the thread about the "cracker" of the Joe Montana card. That is of course tragic but make me at least feel a bit better on my Max Bishop. It could have been worse.
Maybe for fun, I should send the Max Bishop back to SGC and see what happens. Who knows.
Matt
Enough of my ramblings and to my point...Flip a coin and thats the odds of getting what you want in any grading scenario.
Best of Luck!