Better PSA resubmissions: cracking cases or reviews?

avi29

Does anyone have any thoughts on the relative success rates of cracking cases and resubmitting the raw cards to PSA, as opposed to resubmitting them in their cases for "review"? My (mostly unsubstantiated) sense is that PSA is more reluctant to upgrade a card when they can see their original grade. For my 1973 Topps set, I used my first 25 free submissions by going through every PSA 8 that I owned (about 300 of them) and selecting those in better condition that I thought had a shot of being upgraded to an 8.5 or 9. I cracked those 25 cases and sent in those cards. Of those 25 here's what I got back on the regrade:
PSA 8 - 9 cards
PSA 8.5 - 6 cards
PSA 9 - 5 cards
PSA 6 - 2 cards
"N6" (card was trimmed) - 2 cards
PSA 7 - 1 card

I found it bizarre that two cards were given a PSA 6 since everything was graded PSA 8 originally (in fact I thought they were all strong PSA 8s, which is why I chose them for resubmission). But overall I still made out pretty well because a few of the cards that were upgraded to 8.5 or 9 were either low pop or HOFers. Of course I have no way of knowing what the results would have been if instead of cracking the cases I had submitted them in the old cases for "review", other than knowing that none of the cards would have been downgraded (which if I understand correctly is PSA's policy on reviews). But I question whether PSA would have upgraded over 40% of the cards as they did in this case where I cracked and submitted them as raw cards instead.

I would appreciate any thoughts from those of you with significant experience doing this. When a card appears to have been undergraded, are you always better off cracking and submitting the card raw versus submitting in its case for review? Or are there some circumstances where you are better doing one versus the other, and vice versa, and if so, what are those differing circumstances? Many thanks.

MintMoondog

thanks for sharing...my only general request would be to send in the tags to keep pop report accurate. I am disheartened that there is so much variance in the regrade

MCMLVTopps

I think you have to define "success rates". The key is that graders are human, therefore what they are grading is subjective, although they do have guidelines. I have seen some PSA 8, 1955 Topps Red Sox cards where the black square in the upper right corner was just peppered with imperfection. I guess Topps had a time with that back when. Really makes the card very unattractive...yet PSA touts eye appeal...hmmmm.

I sold a very high grade, 95% PSA 8, complete 1955 Topps set a year or so ago. Prior to doing that, I decided to have the set "regraded" for the half-point bump...thinking, why should I possibly leave money on the table. Well, when the dust settled, I got 19 cards to bump to 8.5 and shock of shocks, one got bumped to a 9. I almost fell over when I saw that, thinking nothing like that would ever happen. So, my "success rate" was about 10% and well worth the effort to ship and pay the vig. Some of the cards were star card bumps, most were commons, and one became the only 8.5 in the Registry, if only for a short while. The submission made the bottom line well worth it...but, you have to keep in mind that it was a very nice 1955 Topps set. To really tweak the story, the lone 8.5 was once an SGC84. Crazy stuff.

The whole deal is a craps shoot, no more no less. Yes, I submitted all 206 cards slabbed.

If you crack and submit raw...it is "expected" that you will enclose the flip so that the Registry people can adjust the POP report accordingly. Many don't, and that's why the POP report is FOREVER hosed.

GL.

avi29

Thanks for both of your thoughts. I have indeed submitted all of my cracked tags to PSA to adjust the pop report. To MCMLVTopps, I would roughly define "success rates" to be the average increase in the overall dollar value and/or PSA set rating of cards that are submitted under either of the two methodologies.

If I had the $ and the time to design a theoretical experiment to test this, here's what I would do. I would gather 1,000 1973 Topps (for example) PSA 8 NQ cards and randomly give 100 cards to each of 10 different 1973 Topps collectors with some grading expertise. I would instruct each collector to review their 100 cards and select the 10 "best" which he thinks was undergraded and might deserve an 8.5 or 9. For each of the 10 collectors' 10 "best" cards, I would randomly select 5 to be "reviewed" while still in their slabs and the other 5 to have their slabs cracked and re-submitted as raw cards (assuming a perfectly skilled "cracker" with no damage to cards). In aggregate, this experiment would generate a random sample of 50 cards to be "reviewed" in their slabs and 50 cards to be re-submitted as raw cards. I would then compare of the results of the two different 50 card PSA submissions to determine if one methodology or the other resulted in significantly more upgrades. I would also compare the % change in average VCP price of the two submissions (which would be highly correlated to the # of upgrades, although the "cracking" methodology would inevitably result in some downgrades).

My guess is that the cracking methodology would result in statistically significant better overall results, but I have no one of knowing this for certain without conducting such an experiment.

Avi

MintMoondog

I thought it through, I will crack 8s and review 9s (too much downside risk)...I will crack 10s only on crack

Mefer

I don't think you can objectively estimate the difference between the two. There are too many variables. For example, on crack and resubmit, you assume 100 percent perfect handling rate (ie no corner bumps or the like on crackout). That is something you can never accurately account for.

The biggest thing I see is the subjective factor-- if you are staring at a card already entombed in an 8 older, why would you doubt that grade as a grader? Too many bumps with graded cards would not seem to make sound business sense.

At the end of the day, we all have to remember grading is heavily subjective and done by humans. Mistakes will happen and variances will happen. To illustrate that, pick 100 of your cards and grade them. Write the grades down. Wait two months and repeat the exercise. I guarantee you will have some differences. It happens. I think you have to realize that especially in the context of the graders-- I can't imagine the number of cards they view in a day, week or month. Honestly it makes my head spin. If you view it in that context, there is no conspiracy to undergrade your cards or "punish" you. It's a large degree of human nature and the incontrollable variables human nature brings to the table.

In the end, you will have a good number of cards that fit within the range of a grade. You will then have those that are in the low end and high end. That is as perfect as we can get. While frustrating at times (never of course if you get that slider in the higher grade of course-- a point we sometimes conveniently ignore), the system overall in my opinion works.

So though I rambled, to answer the question, I think cracking and resubmitting is the way to go. The cards are seen as "fresh" rather than pre-determined grades. That creates a psychological advantage right there to you the submitter that is worth the extra effort.

Matt

bbuckner22

I'm with Henry on this one. No way I'd ever crack a 9 out but I often send them in for reviews. As far as 8's go, I've done both. When I was collecting 71's I would always review, but other years I might lean towards cracking out 8's if they were low pop 9's. I know I've talked with board members Grote15 (Tim) and Mickey 71 (Danny) about their review success and failures too. It's usually a low percentage of cards that will bump but the both of them and I have had cards go from 9 to 10 or Hall of Famers bump from 8 to 8.5 a few times. The only risk with a review is money, the grade will not go down. Cracking it out is a different story, Avi had 11 cards grade higher but 5 either lowered or did not grade.

Mickey71

This whole debate is simple for me now. It wasn't this way years ago...........If the card is quite valuable in it's current holder; you have to review. Way more EOT given out now than in the past. If the card is not all that valuable in it's current holder and the $ upside is huge with a bump from like 7 to 8 or 8 to 9 then I think a crack out is appropriate.

Now for a statement that most will not want to hear..................Some of us have high grade collections of the top tier HOF's. If you cracked out all of your PSA 8's and higher and sent them in again, the amount of EOT would make your head spin. Sorry folks; but it's true.

Mickey71

smallstocks

EOT?

tsalems1

I just got back a sub where I sent in multiple cards that were cracked out.

Original grade - new grade
PSA 8st - 7
psa 6 - 9!
PSA 9 -9
PSA 9 -9
PSA 8 -9
PSA 8 -9
PSA 8 - 10!!
PSA 8 - 8
PSA 8 - 8
PSA 8 -8
PSA 8 -9
PSA 8 -9
PSA 8 -8
PSA MINI SIZE -9
PSA 8 -8
PSA 8 -8
PSA 8 -8
PSA 8 -9
PSA 8 -9
PSA 8 -9

When I got the original sub back, I was pissed. I knew the grades were off! The new grades popped the other day

MintMoondog

<< <i>EOT? >>


Evidence of Trim

cougar701

Wow, nice job on those bumps tsalems1... It could be a PSA 6 EX-MT or wait, not it's 3 grades higher to MINT. WTF!! either someone was on dope on the first go round or dope the 2nd go round, either way what a crock of BS. the 8 goes to a 10...another crock of crap.

Anyway, why doesn't PSA just start accepting an extra 'C' note with the sub in a sealed envelop that goes directly to the grader with your card stack. Inside the envelope is the 'C' note and a list of the cards you subbed and the grades you want them to be so long as its close, they just stamp em out as the grade you say it is and call it good.

What a Fing joke...

CocoaBeachDodgers

avi29,

I think your idea on testing the two ways of submissions is a very good way to try to make a determination. It's not really practical, too expensive & time consuming, but it would give you a much better idea. It's very difficult to make a decission based on what others say because you do not know how strict they are in determining what cards to resubmit. What I am more interested in are the cards that were graded before the half point grading. It seems to me that PSA would not be contradicting themselves by giving these cards the half point bump, so it should be fine to send them in as a review? Any thoughts on that?