Recent poppage disappointment

stevegarveyfan

I've had three submission pop recently, and I wonder whether my eyesight might be going. I have been very disappointed in all three of my submissions, and I've been doing this for many years. Is PSA just tougher lately, or is it something else (like my eyesight)?

Has anyone else experience this lately, or am adrift all alone on this boat?

zurbs17

I experienced the exact opposite. I sent in 146 cards (mostly oddball and newer cards) expecting 25-30 10s. I got more than 80.

stevegarveyfan

Thanks for the input. Maybe my most recent submission will have better results. It's no fun waiting 60+ days with bated breath, only to find out that you struck out!

zurbs17

I'm still fairly new at this and many of the cards I send in are sent in with the intent of the results serving solely as a learning tool. I sent in a few cards expecting 8s or 9s and thinking I could look at them closely to try and gauge grading potential of other cards. Some of them came back 10s, some 6s. I get them back tomorrow, looking forward to trying to figure out what I missed when I looked at these cards before I sent them in.

cuse

I JUST HAD MY WORST SUBMISSION__EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A PSA 8 directly out of holder came back TRIMMED! I have submitted 50+/- times...NEVER anything like this.

ZERO 8.s out of 40 vintage cards. STANDARDS ARE CHANGING.

I WANT TO CALL TODAY AND CANCEL MEMBERSHIP

Robby

Sorry to hear about your " Sad Submission " results ! Believe me , we've all been there before !
There have been numerous discussions as to why after so many submissions that we get a stinker
submission ! From the ' Grader of Death ' theory to ' Toughing The Grades " to " Small Submissions vs
Big Submissions ' .............we've heard them all !
My personal theory is ...........and which I apply to myself .................is in the beginning , when you first started
subbing cards , you submitted your best and most expensive cards ! Then you subbed your nicest commons that you thought would garner 10's..................then you started subbing your possible 8 and 9's .............and then your subbing your maybe
this will get a 8 ..................and you get my drift , that when you are looking at your cards , you are starting to
be more lax about your grading because they are your cards and you want them to be graded high ! Unless
you have a infinite supply of Vintage cards laying around , ( I ran out after several years of grading ) , your
high end grades are going to end , unless you ' resupply your inventory with new blood ' !
Just something to consider and think about ! Don''t get discouraged and give up ! Maybe have
someone else look at your cards and give a second opinion ( a fellow friend or collector ) before you send in your
next submission !
Dave ' Robbie ' Robinson

cuse

I am a constant new supply guy. My submissions include many many cards that are pulled from high grade lots and sets. Futher, when you break out cards out of their own holders (not older ones either), AND look at the cards, the downgrading just doesn't add up.

I'm sure this has been discussed at nauseum. I have plenty of 8, 9 and 10s of the same vintage year to compare them too. I would guess that I submitted over 1000 cards from the same set over the years.

If they will refuind my 2 year subscription (which I just renewed), I'm out of the business. My #1 set will be for sale!!

jradke4

They way I look at it is this way. The difference between a 9 and a 10 is a total roll of the dice. Now in general I am not looking to flip cards as most of what I submit are for my own collections. As for the trimmed coming out of a cracked PSA slab I is Italy different than a trimmed or min size coming back stabbed later? To be honest I don't think I would crack out from PSA and resubmitt, that is what can happen. Ihave had a few cards come back min size twice only to come back as a 10 on the third attempt. So I normally keep submitting min size cards, they usually pop at some point.

I had two subs pop yesterday. One had two min size, the other had an evidence of recoloring. That is the biggest downfall of eBay, can't see that on the scans. I will have to look at it more when it returns. It's a low serial numbered card with three autos on it. Not sure if I want to throw it back on ebay orifice I could if I knew it was altered. Does anyone know if PSA would slab it as authentic??

Bosox1976

I just had a very mediocre poppage with a couple of decent saves.

Had a PSA 7 card go to PSA 10 (1976 Topps Doc Medich), had a nice 71 Clemente go from 8 (st) and after removing all wax, it came back PSA 6.5, had a tough 75 mini go from N6 to PSA 8, had a bunch of '71 high numbers go from N6 to PSA 8, and had a bunch of nice NM/MT cards come back PSA 6.... got a PSA 9 on a 1974 Topps Johnny Bench that was a nice surprise.... anyway, 10% better than expected, 20% worse than expected, and 20% rejected for whatever reason (all unexpected) - so a few nice cards turn it from a disaster to a "meh" sub.

stevegarveyfan

This is the submission I am referring to:

N4: QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY 1960 NU-CARD BASEBALL HI-LITES 24 GEHRIG CONSECUTIVE GAME RECORD
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1939 PLAY BALL 9 JIM TOBIN
EXCELLENT 5 1939 PLAY BALL 16 JOHNNY PEA*OCK
NEAR MINT 7 1939 PLAY BALL 113 AL SCHACHT
VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1950 BOWMAN 91 CASS MICHAELS
NEAR MINT 7 1950 BOWMAN 168 BOB SCHEFFING
NEAR MINT-MINT+ 8.5 1950 BOWMAN 206 STAN LOPATA
NEAR MINT 7 1951 BOWMAN 106 PAT MULLIN
EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1951 BOWMAN 196 BILL PIERCE
MINT 9 1951 BOWMAN 310 ERV DUSAK
VERY GOOD 3 1952 BOWMAN 184 CURT SIMMONS
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1952 BOWMAN 215 SHELDON JONES
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1953 TOPPS 187 JIM FRIDLEY
NEAR MINT-MINT+ 8.5 1954 BOWMAN 191 KARL A. DREWS
N0: AUTHENTIC 1955 JOHNSTON COOKIES BRAVES 32 ERNIE JOHNSON HAND CUT

Granted, there is a fair share of good stuff here, but honestly, each of these cards looked like at LEAST a 9 to my eyes.

jradke4

Well at least when you get them back you have things to compare them with from the same graders. I would say that you might have missed either some surface wrinkles or other small imperfections that can easily slide by the owners eye.

gemint

<< <i>I just had a very mediocre poppage with a couple of decent saves.

Had a PSA 7 card go to PSA 10 (1976 Topps Doc Medich), had a nice 71 Clemente go from 8 (st) and after removing all wax, it came back PSA 6.5, had a tough 75 mini go from N6 to PSA 8, had a bunch of '71 high numbers go from N6 to PSA 8, and had a bunch of nice NM/MT cards come back PSA 6.... got a PSA 9 on a 1974 Topps Johnny Bench that was a nice surprise.... anyway, 10% better than expected, 20% worse than expected, and 20% rejected for whatever reason (all unexpected) - so a few nice cards turn it from a disaster to a "meh" sub. >>



PSA 7 to 10? That's ridiculous! Congrats in any event.

gaspipe26

I had several 6's go to 9's after I cracked them out and 7's to 9. Ive had 8's go to 10. It always seems that I have to send cards in twice to get it graded properly. The graders are horrible in my opinion. They are looking at vintage and using modern standards. Thats why I dont submit much anymore and sell raw on ebay.

jradke4

<< <i>I had several 6's go to 9's after I cracked them out and 7's to 9. Ive had 8's go to 10. It always seems that I have to send cards in twice to get it graded properly. The graders are horrible in my opinion. They are looking at vintage and using modern standards. Thats why I dont submit much anymore and sell raw on ebay. >>



I never knew that there were two different grading scales. I was always under the impression that there is only one scale. 30 years ago when I started collecting as a kid I lived in the local card shop. Which happened to be one of the biggest in MKE. I Akers the owner if he used two different scales for when he buys really old cards for assess condition. His quick response was no. VG is VG. NM is NM whether its a 1982 Topps or a T206. I said I was surprised to hear that and we discussed the topic for some time. When it was over I fully understood. He said the only time he took year and condition together is if he was putting a set together. Any new set the cards would have to be NM or better. While older cards would have a sliding scale. As the availability of high condition cards decrease.

The approach I have taken with PSA is that it's all a roll of the dice between 8-10. So I can see how 8s could go to 10. Read the description and you see there is little difference between the three. So one grader might see it an 8 and another might see it a 9. From day to day the same grader might see it different. Now a 6 to a 9 is harder to see, unless the first thought they saw something and the other grader different.

gemint

<< <i>I had several 6's go to 9's after I cracked them out and 7's to 9. Ive had 8's go to 10. It always seems that I have to send cards in twice to get it graded properly. The graders are horrible in my opinion. They are looking at vintage and using modern standards. Thats why I dont submit much anymore and sell raw on ebay. >>



I hear you Bob. My '89 UD Griffey went from an 8 to a 10 but it's rare for me to get two grade bumps. I usually don't bother to resub cards unless they're 8s and I'm trying to bump them to 9s. I never resub 7s and lower. If I did, I'm sure I'd get some to bump a few grades.

gaspipe26

I have kept all the 313 labels of the cards I have cracked out and resubmitted

2- 3 grade bumps
23- 2 grade bumps
171- 1 grade bumps
114- No bump
3- 1 grade lower

jradke4

That's great data. This would suggest that a 2-3 bump is rare.

grote15

I once cracked a PSA 7 73 Ryan card that I knew was undergraded and it came back a 9.

cougar701

And just goes to show you...very subjective after PSA 8 in my opinion

Bosox1976

Here is the aforementioned 10 (how could it possibly have been a 7?) and a 6.5 that should be a 9 from the same sub....

Mickey71

I think it initially got a 7 because it is only centered 51/49 Side to Side. That being a 7 is just crazy. 2-3 graders and a reviewer/verifier looked at that card and said 7..........I think not.

fiveniner

Grading has become too inconsistent.

JoeBanzai

The grading game can make me



Joe

macboube

<< <i>Here is the aforementioned 10 (how could it possibly have been a 7?) and a 6.5 that should be a 9 from the same sub.... >>



Best looking 6.5 I have seen. That does have 9 written all over it. Whatta joke.

smallstocks

I bet the back is blank . . .

cougar701

The more I see these kinds of examples as well as my own examples of grades coming back jacked up one way or another completely deters me from subbing anything again... I actually stopped building graded sets a while back, sold my best graded cards and went to raw set collecting.

There is just too much subjectivity within the grading process to begin with and at the end of the day, we have all bought into the 'scam' of grading if you will. Don't get me wrong, it serves a legitimate purpose and I appreciate that purpose, but things seemed a lot more simple pre-1980's when it came to collecting your favorite cards. The grading business brought way too much of the business mentality to what was regarded as something fun for kids to do and enjoy.

Do I really need my 1986 Topps Mike Schmidt to grade out at PSA 10 to know the card I just pulled fresh from the cello pack that was dead centered and sharp cornered is truly MINT? Can't we just be happy with what our eyes are telling us? I can see where it’s extremely comforting to know or feel like you know that a PSA graded 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth is authentic after you just ponied up a ransom for it in 2013, so no issues with that. I really don’t need my 1981 Topps set to be graded when I opened a case to get a set put together in nearly perfect condition...I know its flawless and as crisp as any rich kid could have ever cared to afford or spend on it back in 1981. Is the PSA 10 complete set really THAT much better than mine to be about 1000 times as expensive?

To the guy that is so OCD he MUST have a professional company tell him it’s literally perfect... well, they have medicine for that.

I'm glad this kid don’t need it ....anymore

JMDVM

The rumor I heard is that they've got young kids that know nothing about cards working at PSA on low pay with a high turnover rate. If you have some inexperienced pup that could care less about what they are doing versus a serious experienced grader that has been there or years, that could explain why grades are all over the map. Personally, I don't think any one can tell the difference between trimmed or minimum size. I've been burned as well. Once took a 67 Agee PSA 8 ST out of the holder, removed the wax, and it came back trimmed. I resubmitted and it came back 8. A collector friend of mine thinks that it is in the interest of PSA to have cards under graded so collectors will spend money to regrade them. Just his theory. I'm waiting for the day some disgruntled ex-employee writes an expose to blow the lid off the whole thing.......

macboube

I have been in the grading room (about a year ago) and there is definitely a hierarchy in the setup. Reza and a couple of other senior graders are in a different area of the room. When I was there, they must of had about a dozen graders in total, and only one or two of them (other than Reza) appeared to even be approaching middle age.