Card was PSA graded but after resub came back Min Size Req

BaltimoreYankee

I understand that card grading is subjective but I cracked out a PSA graded 5 1961 Yaz and resubmitted it. The card came back Min Size Req. I would not think there was any room for subjectiveness in terms of size.

Any thoughts? Perhaps the card was originally graded when size standards were different?

jeff8877

Happens all the time...have had PSA graded cards come back as trimmed, min size etc. You will just need to send back in.

Jeff

WinPitcher

Review is your friend.

RynoandBo

I think it is time that we stop using the word "subjective" when we are specifically talking about min size req. That is an OBJECTIVE measurement.

fiveniner

IMO cards that have not been altered should be graded.Recieved the same noise from PSA Mantle card did not fit holder/Maris min size requirement.

BaltimoreYankee

"I think it is time that we stop using the word "subjective" when we are specifically talking about min size req. That is an OBJECTIVE measurement"

That was my point - if it measures up, it measures up. The card is defiinitley smaller than a standard card but apparently it was OK the first time.

Mickey71

Baltimore,
I agree with you. Having a "min size" voucher on a sub basically means you have to send in another group of cards to use the voucher??????? Is centering that's measurable.....subjective?

JoeBanzai

Let's not forget out new favorite "miscut" I had SEVERAL well centered cards grade poorly, cracked and resubbed...............came back "miscut".

Please, somebody how can that happen?

Joe

otwcards

MINSIZE should be a welcome rejection. Aside from having to resub, it costs you nothing but time. I've seen many cards grade, then MINSIZE and then grade again. It is a pain, but I would argue that it is subjective with respect to the fact that the grader is determining that the card is authentic and not trimmed and is thus, making the determination as to whether it is then market acceptable as a MINSIZE, but I digress. Would you rather have an EOT reject and be out the grading fees as well?

JoeBanzai

<< <i>MINSIZE should be a welcome rejection. Aside from having to resub, it costs you nothing but time. I've seen many cards grade, then MINSIZE and then grade again. It is a pain, but I would argue that it is subjective with respect to the fact that the grader is determining that the card is authentic and not trimmed and is thus, making the determination as to whether it is then market acceptable as a MINSIZE, but I digress. Would you rather have an EOT reject and be out the grading fees as well? >>



OK how about "miscut" on a well centered card? Isn't this supposed to mean card doesn't have 90 degree corners and won't fit in a holder? In my last two submissions I have had over a dozen crackouts returned "miscut".

I would rather have the cards I send in graded a little more carefully so I don't have to send them in multiple times to get the correct grade. I wonder how many people don't even know about vouchers or just don't bother to ask for them. They should come automatically, you shouldn't have to ask, sometimes multiple times.

Joe

onebamafan

PSA= Please Submit Again

vladguerrero

Link

perkdog

<< <i>PSA= Please Submit Again >>






Bottom line I had ZERO trust in cracking cards out and sending them in regardless of what I thought my card deserved for a grade, review is the only way to go and even that is a waste of money 75% of the time IMO.

braves72078

Recipe for success with ALL grading companies:

Just crack and resub till you get desired grade.

perkdog

<< <i>Recipe for success with ALL grading companies:

Just crack and resub till you get desired grade. >>



Really? First off when you say "ALL" grading companies are you refering to the 3 grading companies that count? or are you including csa, gai and other companies who's reputation are that of a drug addict?

Also how is it a success when you spend a ton of money playing the crack and submit game? Bottom line its a WASTE of money 75% of the time!

PSARich

Fact is that when you "crack" and re-submit you are always taking a chance. I have had it go both ways...1) got the grade I really thought the card deserved or 2) got a lesser grade, the same grade, min/size, or a qualifier. As Woody Hayes said about the forward pass: three things can happen and two of them are not good. The same thinking applies to craking a card from its holder and sending it back, one good thing can happen but more not-so-good possibilities are possible. I agree it is frustrating and "min size" is perhaps the most frustrating of all. I agree with those who wrote that subjectivity comes into play even though we tend to think it shouldn't. I just think that PSA tends to error on the conservative side because whenever a card is posted on the message boards, eBay, etc. that appears to be too small for the holder, they take a beating. Card alteration is so sophisticated now that they take a hard line on what appears to be a trimmed or min. sized card.

We all know that especially vintage cards tend to vary in size. Heck, I had a very nice 1958 Yogi Berra come back as min.size a few months ago...not because it was too small but because it was too big...over-sized! When I compared it to other 1958's it was obviously bigger than the rest. Probably would not fit into a normal holder.

My most recent frustration was a 1959 Topps BB card that I bought very cheap in a SGC 96 Mint holder. Popped it out, sent it in to PSA and got it back evaluated as being trimmed. I looked it over very carefully under my super-duper blue light magnifier and could not find that it appeared trimmed. Perhaps slightly smaller T-B than other 59's but I couldn't agree it was trimmed. I was so confident in my grading abilities that I sent it in again and it came back again "Evidence of Trimming". Now I have the cost of the card plus $11.00 in grading fees tied up in this card and it is no longer in a SGC 96 holder. My gamble, my loss. In this case I have to submit that PSA disagreed with both SGC and me. The card, now labeled as determined by PSA to be trimmed, goes in my bad investment drawer that my kids will probably someday inherit because I have learned to forget about the specific contents of that drawer and don't visit it often.

BaltimoreYankee

In my case, I cracked the card out a few years ago because I preferred to have raw cards. I just held onto the flip in case I ever decided to sell it - I could say it used to be a PSA 5. I may try the resubmit route but if I do sell it, I will clearly state the PSA history. At least it didn't come back EOT.

ClockworkAngel

I pulled an absolutely gorgeous 1986 Topps Steve Young out of a pack. Was really jacked up about getting a 9. I have submitted twice and both times got a "Min Size Requirement". I don't see the difference. I put them up against other 1986 Topps cards and they feel the same.

Will probably try a 3rd time LOL

jmmiller777

I really wish PSA would offer a new service, that they would accept their holders and regrade after they cracked it open. Maybe, the current grade the card comes in would keep some of those qualifiers out of the mind of the grader. It does sound like there is some subjective influences on the sizing.

BaltimoreYankee

Clockwork - That's pretty crazy that the Steve Young card measures up to regular cards from that series. In the case of my Yaz card, it is 1/10 of a millimeter shorter than a standard sized card.

Mickey71

Jmmiller,
Can you be more specific with the new service. I'm not following what you're saying.

Mickey71