PSA's new wax pack grading policy
grote15
Posts: 29,710 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just spoke C/S this afternoon and was advised that PSA will no longer grade any wax packs in which the gum is either loose or broken in the pack. The only wax packs that will be graded going forward are those in which the gum is fused to the top card. If you are planning on submitting any packs, please be aware of this.
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.
0
Comments
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>I'm not at all knowledgeable about the unopened pack segment of the market, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. Will this policy change adversely affect pack grading? What percentage of unopened packs have loose/broken gum? If it's a large number, I would think that really makes pack grading tough. Also, I would have to assume this has the potential of significantly decreasing already graded packs that have broken/loose gum. >>
I would say the vast majority of packs have at least loose, if not broken gum. Essentially only those packs that were improperly stored over the years in which the gum has fused to the top card, will be graded. Any pack straight from a fresh wax box, if the box was properly stored and not exposed to heat/moisture, should have loose gum.
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.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>Stick the packs with loose gum out in the sun light for a few hours and the packs should be good for grading >>
I was gonna say 30 seconds in the microwave, but that works too.
Jmaciu's Collection
that said , I understand why psa is doing it. it is too expensive for them to buy back every pack that gets damaged and they were taking in much less in revenue than they potentially have to pay out.
Thats sucks
however, a pack which was exposed to actual alteration, as it seems to be suggested about creating a permanent resting position for the aforementioned gum, then that's ok.
i think.
Pretty Please!
Would a grade of BBCE/authentic be enough for collectors or does the pack need to have a number grade to
make them happy.
By the way, BBG's gum is all unbroken
I would have to think so, especially for those packs graded Mint 9, and free from any tears.
Snuffy, you are too much, LOL!!!
But seriously, why not just develop a holder to correct this issue--the shrinkwrap in the newer holders was doing an effective job at preventing damage to the wrapper from the gum, even if it didn't look very pretty, I'd prefer that over buying high grade packs that have been microwaved or left out to bake in the sun just to get graded. Because if people start doing that, what potential damage are you going to cause to the cards inside the pack, condition-wise? Isn't part of the reason of buying a higher grade wax pack the possibility of finding high grade cards inside the pack, should you decide to ever open it? Would you pay the same amount of money for a wax box that looked real nice from the outside but that you knew had damaged cards in the packs?
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.
<< <i>I have mixed feeling about it. It will likely end the pack grading/authentication service but it will save scarce packs from damage. I could see Steve Hart starting a service where he seals packs in his BBCE wrapper to authenticate them without risk of gum damage. Only question is how tamper proof those wrappers are. I wonder if this will make those packs that are already PSA graded more valuable? >>
I think it will make the PSA packs already out there worth more. Of course, people may come up with ways to immobilize the gum in wax packs in order to get them to grade which will do more damage to the cards inside. Also, PSA may eventually come up with a better holder and start grading any wax pack again with the onus on the sender for any damage to the wrapper prior to the numerical grade.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
Collecting:
Any unopened Baseball cello and rack packs and boxes from the 1970's and early 1980s.
<< <i>
Pretty Please! >>
Nice handkerchief in the breast pocket on Jimmy.
<< <i>this essentially puts an end to pack wax pack grading and will make it much more difficult to trade/sell legit packs. this is a resealers dream.
that said , I understand why psa is doing it. it is too expensive for them to buy back every pack that gets damaged and they were taking in much less in revenue than they potentially have to pay out. >>
Yah, this is unfortunate. I always thought Psa was going to come up with something full proof on the wax packs to prevent the tear.
aconte
<< <i>
<< <i>
Pretty Please! >>
Nice handkerchief in the breast pocket on Jimmy. >>
OMG LOL
I missed that the first time!
Sorry for the rant, but this is what stood out to me.
<< <i>I think it will make the PSA packs already out there worth more. >>
I think PSA, just acknowledged that few packs with gum that were graded a PSA 9 are really going to stay a 9. You would think this would reduce the value, but psa has a stanglehold on the mindset of many, so who knows. I think the packs with the reynolds wrap gum protection will go up.
Either way I wouldn't submit packs with gum stuck to a card (ie lesser condition packs) and I would have never sent in another pack with "box fresh" loose gum anyway. I had a terrible experience with gum damage on my last submission. I never complained to PSA and just sold off the packs with gum damage. I made the gum damage the focal point of my pictures and descriptions, so I'm sure I took a hit.
Another +1 for snuffy - it couldn't be any simpler. Of course, fixing the holder would hurt the value of packs in the old holder. But appropriately so.
*Box Fresh is property of grote15
<< <i>*Box Fresh is property of grote15 >>
Until he rips them, then it is Pack Fresh!!!
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
Collecting:
Any unopened Baseball cello and rack packs and boxes from the 1970's and early 1980s.
<< <i>
<< <i>*Box Fresh is property of grote15 >>
Until he rips them, then it is Pack Fresh!!!
Looks like he will have more to rip. Oh the temptation!!
aconte
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>*Box Fresh is property of grote15 >>
Until he rips them, then it is Pack Fresh!!!
Looks like he will have more to rip. Oh the temptation!!
aconte >>
I foresee lots of "Late Night Rips" moving forward, LOL..
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.
<< <i>Tim, how do you see this policy affecting you and your fellow pack graders down the road, and do you think this adversely affects packs already graded? >>
That is a very good question, Geordie. It will certainly affect me as a pack submitter, as I will probably send only cellos in going forward, with the exception of packs like 1972 OPC wax in which it is typical for gum to be fused to the top card as OPC used a very sweet stick of gum that year. I think it will actually place a premium on higher grade wax packs in PSA holders that aren't plagued by wrapper tewars, as these will be much tougher to come by going forward, as most higher grade packs are going to have mobile gum which is a characteristic of a box fresh pack that has been properly stored over the years.
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.
I have examined 100's of packs and the bad ones always have detached/broken gum. Always. Are there good packs with detached gum? Of course, but if you can't tell the difference between a good pack with detached gum and a bad then you shouldn't grade either. This should help slow the ungraded wax bubble and it'll increase the value of graded wax. I see this as a good thing.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>I might be in the minority, but I like the change. I have read countless threads calling for a PSA policy to fix the problem of bad packs making their way into holders and torn wrappers.
I have examined 100's of packs and the bad ones always have detached/broken gum. Always. Are there good packs with detached gum? Of course, but if you can't tell the difference between a good pack with detached gum and a bad then you shouldn't grade either. This should help slow the ungraded wax bubble and it'll increase the value of graded wax. I see this as a good thing. >>
Jason,
This decision has nothing to do with bad packs--it was implemented solely because of the liability issue in which PSA was paying out for packs that suffered wrapper tears due to gum shifting and tearing the wrapper in transit. Any authentic pack from a box that has been properly stored over the years (including all the mini boxes Steve has sold), should have gum that is mobile in the pack. While it is true that resealers will often shatter gum in a pack because they have difficulty obtaining the right-sized gum for that particular year, in no way should a pack be deemed suspect just because the gum is broken.
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.
Not really sure what to make of this other than broken pieces is an almost automatic N9 while moving whole pieces are a big question.
<< <i>I just got off the phone with Veronica at PSA. It was my order on the other thread with all of the N9's. According to her, it has always been PSA's policy to not grade packs if they feel that moving gum (pieces in particular) pose a threat to the wrapper. So, moving gum by itself is not necessarily going to get an N9 grade. Although that is reassuring, I am shocked to think that 24 out of 26 wax packs I submitted were deemed to be too "dangerous" to attempt to slab. Ultimately, she said it is up to the grader to make a decision on whether or not moving gum poses a risk to the wrapper.
Not really sure what to make of this other than broken pieces is an almost automatic N9 while moving whole pieces are a big question. >>
I have never encountered this issue, either personally, or with anyone I know, prior to now, and have submitted packs since the inception of PSA pack grading. It is definitely a newly enforced policy on PSA's part.
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.
didnt want to have to pay the insurace premium to cover the potential liability.
One might think that an alternate approach to resolving this problem would be to increase the cost of grading a pack,
but depending on how much the increase would be it might kill the business model for pack grading.
What I would be interested to know is if you get a pack back as an "N9" are you "out" the fees you paid for the grading
work? Is it like the pack came back as "bad" or is it like MINSIZ where you get a voucher for future credit?
Dave
work? Is it like the pack came back as "bad" or is it like MINSIZ where you get a voucher for future credit?
There is no fee for wax packs not graded due to mobile gum. They will just subtract the amount from your sub fee before charging your card.
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.
<< <i>No offense, but this is the dumbest thing I ever heard. They should just stop grading packs, that would make a whole lot more sense. >>
+1 except I'm not clear who I'm saying "no offense" to. This is like only grading cards if two corners are dinged.
More than a few of you suggested a new holder. To me, that makes the most sense and I hope PSA is considering this angle. I would prefer an "ugly holder" to no option at all. There has to be a way to immobilize the gum in a safe manner. I personally feel solving this problem would be wise by PSA as this remains a growing collector focus.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
Collecting:
Any unopened Baseball cello and rack packs and boxes from the 1970's and early 1980s.
<< <i>I personally feel solving this problem would be wise by PSA as this remains a growing collector focus. >>
I also think it would be wise for PSA to employ (part-time or otherwise) someone to come on these boards and be proactive with information, especially when there is a significant policy change like this one. Unfortunately, the inevitable happens. People get more and more ticked off, the responses get more and more inflammatory, and the thread either gets locked or deleted. There have been a ton of informative posts in this thread and I for one have have learned something about a segment of the hobby that I really didn't pay much attention to. But like I said, things get said and CU decides that enough is enough. Bye bye, thread... and often bye bye, CU member(s).
IMO, CU could do so more to help foster some good will here by being part of the discussion rather than sitting back and doing nothing until things get out of hand. Maybe this board is seen as a necessary evil, but the membership is not seen as indicative of their clientele as a whole.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>
<< <i>I personally feel solving this problem would be wise by PSA as this remains a growing collector focus. >>
I also think it would be wise for PSA to employ (part-time or otherwise) someone to come on these boards and be proactive with information, especially when there is a significant policy change like this one. Unfortunately, the inevitable happens. People get more and more ticked off, the responses get more and more inflammatory, and the thread either gets locked or deleted. There have been a ton of informative posts in this thread and I for one have have learned something about a segment of the hobby that I really didn't pay much attention to. But like I said, things get said and CU decides that enough is enough. Bye bye, thread... and often bye bye, CU member(s).
IMO, CU could do so more to help foster some good will here by being part of the discussion rather than sitting back and doing nothing until things get out of hand. Maybe this board is seen as a necessary evil, but the membership is not seen as indicative of their clientele as a whole. >>
+1 Well said Geordie.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
Collecting:
Any unopened Baseball cello and rack packs and boxes from the 1970's and early 1980s.
<< <i>I am following this thread with interest. I appreciate all the comments.
More than a few of you suggested a new holder. To me, that makes the most sense and I hope PSA is considering this angle. I would prefer an "ugly holder" to no option at all. There has to be a way to immobilize the gum in a safe manner. I personally feel solving this problem would be wise by PSA as this remains a growing collector focus. >>
Unfortunately this is unlikely. When approached about developing a holder for rack packs they declined because the die costs to build such a mold were supposedly on the order of $100k. I would think that re-doing the wax pack holder would not be cheap, and just to cover the costs would require grading of several thousand packs before they could even start making a profit on it.
Dave
<< <i>What I would be interested to know is if you get a pack back as an "N9" are you "out" the fees you paid for the grading
work? Is it like the pack came back as "bad" or is it like MINSIZ where you get a voucher for future credit?
There is no fee for wax packs not graded due to mobile gum. They will just subtract the amount from your sub fee before charging your card. >>
Now that is a bit of a pleasant surprise. I would have expected they would collect the fee and then send a voucher good for a year like they
do with MINSIZ cards.
Good to know.
BTW - Any idea what they would do on a re-slab request for an already-slabbed pack with loose gum?
Dave
<< <i>
<< <i>What I would be interested to know is if you get a pack back as an "N9" are you "out" the fees you paid for the grading
work? Is it like the pack came back as "bad" or is it like MINSIZ where you get a voucher for future credit?
There is no fee for wax packs not graded due to mobile gum. They will just subtract the amount from your sub fee before charging your card. >>
Now that is a bit of a pleasant surprise. I would have expected they would collect the fee and then send a voucher good for a year like they
do with MINSIZ cards.
Good to know.
BTW - Any idea what they would do on a re-slab request for an already-slabbed pack with loose gum? >>
Dave,
PSA doesn't send vouchers any more, even for cards. They don't bill your CC until grades are in and then just adjust the amount to be billed to your card accordingly.
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.
This is really unfortunate. I would like that if they simply designed a new holder and a rack holder, they would pay for themselves over time. The GAI Holders for packs were lighter, and used less substrate than the PSA ones, but the GAI Racks holders were bigger than I thought they needed to be. At least it was an option.
As an unopened collector, I really hope PSA figures out a solution. If I had the potential to corner the market on grading packs, I'd come up with something.
<< <i>If I had the potential to corner the market on grading packs, I'd come up with something. >>
Is the market really that big? Price vs value is a problem. It's over $15 to grade a pack after shipping. So imo a pack needs to be at least $25 in value to even consider grading. If we look to the 80s, you'll find packs that aren't even close to being gradable in that regard. Think of '83 Topps baseball. It just made a major surge in value and the packs need to quadruple where they are now in order to consider grading them. So you'd have to be nuts to grade something like 82 opc or similar 80s packs. If you really want it just for the registry, the sets have few packs and won't create demand like card registries. . Then, most importantly, most people aren't going to grade anything beyond 93. I know some graded packs are out there, but it makes no sense to grade a foil pack that clearly isn't resealed.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am following this thread with interest. I appreciate all the comments.
More than a few of you suggested a new holder. To me, that makes the most sense and I hope PSA is considering this angle. I would prefer an "ugly holder" to no option at all. There has to be a way to immobilize the gum in a safe manner. I personally feel solving this problem would be wise by PSA as this remains a growing collector focus. >>
Unfortunately this is unlikely. When approached about developing a holder for rack packs they declined because the die costs to build such a mold were supposedly on the order of $100k. I would think that re-doing the wax pack holder would not be cheap, and just to cover the costs would require grading of several thousand packs before they could even start making a profit on it. >>
Interesting. I would still think if such a capital investment is in fact required, more money in the long run would be left on the table by not improving the holder.
Someone above also suggested an insert of sorts; it seems that could be explored along with perhaps some inner wrapping. Regardless, whether the gum moves or not should not be a determinative factor for grading. I think in the long run PSA will realize that.
197X Topps Wax Pack - Gum Fused To Top Card!!!! (PSA???)