Options
A long wait and some great results!
JoeBanzai
Posts: 11,225 ✭✭✭✭✭
Sent in a tall boy submission that was logged in on 12/6/13 waited and waited. Nothing was happening. Finally emailed and complained a few days ago. Not sure if that helped, but grades popped today.
Three items I submitted are upgrades and all three are the highest graded! 1968 Action All-Star sticker with the small Killebrew, 1960 Don Wingfield P.C. and 1961 Universal matchbook.
The matchbook was a crackout that had received an "authentic" grade, I am assuming by mistake, as it got a "5" this time.
Of course got blown out of the water on a couple of complete Milk Duds boxes that looked NM/MT and came back as "5"'s Very frustrating, with PSA you have to take the good with the bad.
This time I got some GOOD!
Three items I submitted are upgrades and all three are the highest graded! 1968 Action All-Star sticker with the small Killebrew, 1960 Don Wingfield P.C. and 1961 Universal matchbook.
The matchbook was a crackout that had received an "authentic" grade, I am assuming by mistake, as it got a "5" this time.
Of course got blown out of the water on a couple of complete Milk Duds boxes that looked NM/MT and came back as "5"'s Very frustrating, with PSA you have to take the good with the bad.
This time I got some GOOD!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
0
Comments
The byproduct of the grading process is the gross lack of valid data contained in the POP report for many cards. As cards get cracked and recracked, those cards inflate the POP report with untold numbers of "graded cards" that don't exist.
I once cracked an SGC84 and it came back a PSA 8.5! I was shocked to see such a jump. The card was a 1955 Topps card that then became a 1 of 1, none higher. Original cost was $34.00 sold it for $985.00. A stroke of pure luck.
In today's world, wouldn't it be great if PSA had a scanner created with all the parameters programmed in...then every card would be on a level playing field. Graders with their subjective eye would no longer make the call.
My new attitude with sending cards in for grading is like playing the lottery, you are hoping for some grades you agree with and maybe a happy surprise, but there are also going to be results that make you crazy.
The matchbook was a perfect example; sent two different ones in at different times, both similar condition, one gets "authentic" the other a "5". Obviously the two different graders were not on the same page as to how these items should be graded.
The only thing you can do is resubmit and hope to get a better grade....................again like playing the lottery.
PSA is simply the only choice for having my cards graded. I collect, buy and sell cards from the mid-fifties to the mid-seventies. The value of having cards in a PSA holder is worth any problems I have had.
To be clear I will continue to use their service, there is no one doing it better.
In today's world, wouldn't it be great if PSA had a scanner created with all the parameters programmed in...then every card would be on a level playing field. Graders with their subjective eye would no longer make the call. >>
I totally agree, create a computer program with all the variables from each set...scan the card and get a grade. Problem is eventually the patent on the program runs out and anyone could buy/build the program, put it on an application for your phone and the graders would be out of business!
<< <i>I agree. The Milk Duds boxes I sent in looked like they were unused, I mean they are pristine! I imagine the grader found some "crease" on a fold line and it's automatically a 5.
My new attitude with sending cards in for grading is like playing the lottery, you are hoping for some grades you agree with and maybe a happy surprise, but there are also going to be results that make you crazy.
The matchbook was a perfect example; sent two different ones in at different times, both similar condition, one gets "authentic" the other a "5". Obviously the two different graders were not on the same page as to how these items should be graded.
The only thing you can do is resubmit and hope to get a better grade....................again like playing the lottery.
PSA is simply the only choice for having my cards graded. I collect, buy and sell cards from the mid-fifties to the mid-seventies. The value of having cards in a PSA holder is worth any problems I have had.
To be clear I will continue to use their service, there is no one doing it better. >>
I agree it's almost a lottery...I'm still new to submitting but it is often almost too frustrating for me with even new cards. Out of 10 Frank Thomas Topps rookies, I selected two that were perfectly centered and with sharp corners....I went through with a magnifying glass, they were identical to me and I figured 9 or 10. Got one 9 and one 5...I still don't see the difference. I simply purchased one vs submitting anymore. When I get it I'll have to take a look at them all side by side. I mean a nine I get, I could have touched the corner as I put it in the holder...but the 5? Thankfully when I fall short on 10's it is a 9 mostly...but that one baffles me. Perhaps after a long night of drinking my grader saw the card as blurry.
Remember to hold the card up away from you under bright light so that the card is almost on a horizontal plane with your eyes, you will then get a good look at the surface for microscopic creases.
Amazing what you are able to see when you get the "tilt" right!
I have heard that this is the first thing the graders look for on cards, if a "crease" is found card that is otherwise "perfect" will grade no higher than a "5". Apparently there is no "wiggle room" if there is a crease/wrinkle no matter what the item.
Which is one of the reasons I am increasingly switching back to raw. How can a card that is pristine, but has some minor wrinkle that someone can only see with a magnifying glass be worse that a card that has enough flaws to make it a 5.5? I just don't get it, and never will.
<< <i>I have heard that this is the first thing the graders look for on cards, if a "crease" is found card that is otherwise "perfect" will grade no higher than a "5". Apparently there is no "wiggle room" if there is a crease/wrinkle no matter what the item.
Which is one of the reasons I am increasingly switching back to raw. How can a card that is pristine, but has some minor wrinkle that someone can only see with a magnifying glass be worse that a card that has enough flaws to make it a 5.5? I just don't get it, and never will. >>
I couldn't agree with you more a heavy crease should affect a cards grade more than a microscopic wrinkle that was present when the card was produced.
This would of course cause more work and more subjectivity in the grading process.