<< <i>So even when I do the research for you and present the facts straight from an eBay search, you're still going to stick your fingers in your ears and claim otherwise? I guess that's one way to do it. Steve Renko and Bill Bonham say hello. >>
The problem is that nine of those you have listed are Psa 7's so you sound like a fool with all your complaining. It is not the Psa 7 commons clogging up your searches as you say
I found 1 Psa 7 common in the first 100 or so cards that came up and it actually had a couple bids so I guess someone wanted it for less than grading fees
The problem is that nine of those you have listed are Psa 7's so you sound like a fool with all your complaining. It is not the Psa 7 commons clogging up your searches as you say
I found 1 Psa 7 common in the first 100 or so cards that came up and it actually had a couple bids so I guess someone wanted it for less than grading fees >>
Make that three people who didn't understand that Lemaster PSA 7 was an example. It could easily have been 1984 Claudell Washington or 2014 Sean Rodriguez.
Let's get back to the whole point: if PSA raises their prices, maybe people will stop sending in worthless cards just hoping to get a lucky 10. Bottom line: hundreds and hundreds of $5 PSA cards go by the wayside every day on eBay with no interest. You people are somehow stuck on 1978 PSA 7, when the point is that any card that can't fetch $5 on eBay doesn't need to be graded. Maybe by raising the price per card PSA will see less junk coming through.
But somehow you are going to disagree by only thinking about Johnny LeMaster PSA 7.
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.
No one is talking about Johnny Lemaster but you. >>
Oh, there's no backpedal, Ol' Man Winter. It's not my fault that you're over there with your AOL dial-up not understanding the whole point. There is a mountain of junk graded by PSA on eBay, and it will go away when the higher price prevents people from submitting that junk. You can just go on believing that eBay sellers are only peddling stars and Hall of Famers.
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.
The problem is that nine of those you have listed are Psa 7's so you sound like a fool with all your complaining. It is not the Psa 7 commons clogging up your searches as you say
I found 1 Psa 7 common in the first 100 or so cards that came up and it actually had a couple bids so I guess someone wanted it for less than grading fees >>
Make that three people who didn't understand that Lemaster PSA 7 was an example. It could easily have been 1984 Claudell Washington or 2014 Sean Rodriguez.
Let's get back to the whole point: if PSA raises their prices, maybe people will stop sending in worthless cards just hoping to get a lucky 10. Bottom line: hundreds and hundreds of $5 PSA cards go by the wayside every day on eBay with no interest. You people are somehow stuck on 1978 PSA 7, when the point is that any card that can't fetch $5 on eBay doesn't need to be graded. Maybe by raising the price per card PSA will see less junk coming through.
But somehow you are going to disagree by only thinking about Johnny LeMaster PSA 7. >>
I only see six PSA examples of 1984 Claudell Washington cards on ebay right now and only one of those is Topps. I don't see how that cards would be clogging up your searches.
I only see six PSA examples of 1984 Claudell Washington cards on ebay right now and only one of those is Topps. I don't see how that cards would be clogging up your searches. >>
Wait, are you trying to make a generalized case by citing a specific example and implying that the reader ought utilize inductive reasoning to come to a broader conclusion?
if that is the case then you have gone from being a collector, after all we are talking about COLLECTOR's CLUB specials , to being a dealer. then call up psa and ask them for a bulk dealer rate.
or even in that scenario , if you get a dozen 9's and a dozen 10's , I am sure the 10's will offset the 8's and you will be profitable
why, because you can't make a profit? If a buck is your profit margin then I suggest finding something else to support your hobby.
PSA's goal has and always will be is to maximize profit. They do not have an obligation to make their rates low enough for the members on this board to make a profit, that is not their goal. Simple supply and demand, if demand is high enough that you can't keep up with the work, raise the rates to where there is an equilibrium >>
Well, the real issue is as the spread gets larger, it discourages the common collectors and small dealers from submitting. If 4SC is still cranking out thousands of cards at $3.50 or $4 each with a minimum grade threshold arrangement, it allows them to sell cards far below what the common collector can obtain them elsewhere for. I'm not faulting them for that. They have the volume to get these favored arrangements and it's the right of both PSA and mass submitters to make their profits. However, I don't think it's good in the long run for the graded portion of the hobby to be sourced from a few large submitters while smaller collectors and dealers keep their cards raw because they can't grade out their own cards for the cost of buying them on the open market. It's even worse when you buy 9s from the mass submitters and they have gross flaws on them. There are more than a few collectors who gave up the graded card hobby because of this factor.
<< <i> Well, the real issue is as the spread gets larger, it discourages the common collectors and small dealers from submitting. If 4SC is still cranking out thousands of cards at $3.50 or $4 each with a minimum grade threshold arrangement, it allows them to sell cards far below what the common collector can obtain them elsewhere for. I'm not faulting them for that. They have the volume to get these favored arrangements and it's the right of both PSA and mass submitters to make their profits. However, I don't think it's good in the long run for the graded portion of the hobby to be sourced from a few large submitters while smaller collectors and dealers keep their cards raw because they can't grade out their own cards for the cost of buying them on the open market. It's even worse when you buy 9s from the mass submitters and they have gross flaws on them. There are more than a few collectors who gave up the graded card hobby because of this factor. >>
Exactly. 4sc = Walmart for Graded Cards. Some love'um, some hate'um. IMO, not good in the long run, but they seem to have the inventory to keep it going.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
<< <i>There is a mountain of junk graded by PSA on eBay, and it will go away when the higher price prevents people from submitting that junk. >>
no it won't. not when eBay continually invites sellers to list stuff redundantly for free. when they quit inviting free listings of the mountains of junk you so despise, there should be a detectable difference, as it was before they invited all this junk into our lives. it used to be much easier to wade through the PSA cards as well as the additional hordes of crap.
but, i regress. i'm just as guilty as anyone for listing that crap. somehow, people still seem to be filling their pockets with their nickels and dimes by selling it. so it goes.
Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7?
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150.
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>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
The question is what card would you submit at $4.50 but not at $5...at $5 but not at $6...and $6 but not at $7.
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I have a stack of 200 cards here that meet your qualification. These are cards I am into for pennies each so have no money tied up in them, so why not wait till I can save 200 bucks?
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
As the price goes up I just get more focused and look at other options 4sc for one to fill out sets. I am not the best at raw to graded so do not mind paying a little more verses having to grade more than one card to get what I want. I think we forget if I grade a card 3 times to get what I want that is 18 or 21 not 6 or 7.
<< <i> At ^$6 price levels, I'm not sure I'll ever sub another card again. I'm buying vintage 8s and even 9s on eBay all day long at or below the cost to grade it myself...and that's not even factoring the cost to acquire the card to be submitted. >>
does it really matter if the cost is $6 or $7 a card. if you submit 100 card the difference is 100 bucks. I have never looked at a submission on a card by card basis if it is worth it. I always look at the submission as a whole. some cards will end up not being worth the grading fee and others will be worth much more and in the end I will be ahead of the game vs. buying the cards already graded. if you pull one random 10 or even a 9 on the right card it will usually cover any additional expenses and then some
and the most important part is that it is FUN to submit cards. if I go buy 50 psa 8's , I know what I am getting. if I submit 50 cards, there is entertainment in the unknown >>
I used to find the grading fun...but I am not the best at picking raw. So find it less fun than just building sets I want. I do agree it is a numbers game and normally will work out in your favor. We'll said above.
I have to say for the most part I like subbing myself but there are certain issues that I would not want to take the risk of subbing a card for it to come back an 8 or 9 (or worse).
BUYING Frank Gotch T229 Kopec Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
if I go buy 50 psa 8's , I know what I am getting. if I submit 50 cards, there is entertainment in the unknown
I do agree with this point by Duncan~from a collector's standpoint, the entertainment factor is a noteworthy one. In a similar vein, why do people continue to open packs? It's almost always a losing proposition yet collectors enjoy doing it regardless. Not all endeavors are measured by ROI. Though I also do agree I am more selective in what I will submit at this price point.
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>if I go buy 50 psa 8's , I know what I am getting. if I submit 50 cards, there is entertainment in the unknown
I do agree with this point by Duncan~from a collector's standpoint, the entertainment factor is a noteworthy one. In a similar vein, why do people continue to open packs? It's almost always a losing proposition yet collectors enjoy doing it regardless. Not all endeavors are measured by ROI. Though I also do agree I am more selective in what I will submit at this price point. >>
It all depends on what you are opening. I know quite a few guys who do well opening modern products. They open cases upon cases of stuff rather than a box of this or that. I've done quite well opening and grading some lower end modern hockey products.
<< <i>if I go buy 50 psa 8's , I know what I am getting. if I submit 50 cards, there is entertainment in the unknown
I do agree with this point by Duncan~from a collector's standpoint, the entertainment factor is a noteworthy one. In a similar vein, why do people continue to open packs? It's almost always a losing proposition yet collectors enjoy doing it regardless. Not all endeavors are measured by ROI. Though I also do agree I am more selective in what I will submit at this price point. >>
It all depends on what you are opening. I know quite a few guys who do well opening modern products. They open cases upon cases of stuff rather than a box of this or that. I've done quite well opening and grading some lower end modern hockey products. >>
Admittedly, I have zero knowledge about modern product, but for 1970s and early 1980s Topps product, the odds are heavily stacked against you in most cases.
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>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway.
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway. >>
Explain to me why my submitting habits need to change? I would rather pay $6 than $7. It's hard to argue that logic other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again and that by waiting I end up having to pay more than $7 in the future.
other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again
I'm virtually certain you can bank on that being the case, so you may as well have to make a decision then.
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>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway. >>
Explain to me why my submitting habits need to change? I would rather pay $6 than $7. It's hard to argue that logic other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again and that by waiting I end up having to pay more than $7 in the future. >>
Because ff you are sending in cards that were worth grading for $6, and not for $7, then you're chasing ridiculously thin margins in a hobby that still offers many, much larger margins to exploit.
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway. >>
Explain to me why my submitting habits need to change? I would rather pay $6 than $7. It's hard to argue that logic other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again and that by waiting I end up having to pay more than $7 in the future. >>
Because ff you are sending in cards that were worth grading for $6, and not for $7, then you're chasing ridiculously thin margins in a hobby that still offers many, much larger margins to exploit. >>
At no point did I say I was selling these for just a few dollars above grading fees. While I rarely get triple digits for my graded cards, I routinely get 45 plus per card. There are always some misses that I break even on or even sell at a loss. I would still make money paying $7, $8 or even more per card. I just prefer to pay $6. Edited to say that my cost per card on these subs is usually the grading fee plus $2, which includes what I paid for the card, shipping to and from etc.
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway. >>
Explain to me why my submitting habits need to change? I would rather pay $6 than $7. It's hard to argue that logic other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again and that by waiting I end up having to pay more than $7 in the future. >>
Because ff you are sending in cards that were worth grading for $6, and not for $7, then you're chasing ridiculously thin margins in a hobby that still offers many, much larger margins to exploit. >>
At no point did I say I was selling these for just a few dollars above grading fees. While I rarely get triple digits for my graded cards, I routinely get 45 plus per card. There are always some misses that I break even on or even sell at a loss. I would still make money paying $7, $8 or even more per card. I just prefer to pay $6. Edited to say that my cost per card on these subs is usually the grading fee plus $2, which includes what I paid for the card, shipping to and from etc. >>
If you would still make money paying $7, $8 or more per card then my comments didn't apply to you.
For a number of years now, work has been proceeding in order to bring perfection to the crudely conceived idea of a transmission that would not only supply inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters. Such an instrument is the turbo-encabulator. Now basically the only new principle involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it's produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive diractance. The original machine had a base plate of pre-famulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in a direct line with the panametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots of the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdle spring on the "up" end of the grammeters. The turbo-encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and it’s being successfully used in the operation of novertrunnions. Moreover, whenever a forescent skor motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration. It's not cheap, but I'm sure the government will buy it.
<< <i>For a number of years now, work has been proceeding in order to bring perfection to the crudely conceived idea of a transmission that would not only supply inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters. Such an instrument is the turbo-encabulator. Now basically the only new principle involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it's produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive diractance. The original machine had a base plate of pre-famulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in a direct line with the panametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots of the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdle spring on the "up" end of the grammeters. The turbo-encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and it’s being successfully used in the operation of novertrunnions. Moreover, whenever a forescent skor motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration. It's not cheap, but I'm sure the government will buy it. >>
Because ff you are sending in cards that were worth grading for $6, and not for $7, then you're chasing ridiculously thin margins in a hobby that still offers many, much larger margins to exploit. >>
I can't say I agree with you. That may have been the case 10 years ago but the supply of high grade raw high dollar cards is dwindling. You can see it in the populations. Once the large gold nuggets have been panned out of the river, that leaves prospectors having to dig deeper to find smaller specs. For cards with a $10 resale price (the bulk of cards in reality), that $1 increase in grading fees is a 10% increase in cost. So do the math. Even if we consider the card was obtained for free, the cost to grade with shipping both ways would be about $8, even when submitted in bulk. That leaves a 20% profit margin. However, we know eBay and Paypal will take about 15% of that in fees. So that leaves a 5% profit on any card with a market price less than $10 sold on eBay assuming the seller obtained the card for free. What that means is you either need to hope for 10s or only submit cards that have market prices well above $12 to make it worthwhile.
For me, I'm not in it for the money. I like to build my collection through my own submissions as I then know that the cards will have the eye appeal I demand from PSA 8 or better cards. However, I'm also not eager to lose money on submissions. So I won't be building out my 70s sets any further through my own submissions until the bulk discount costs decrease to under $6. I also highly doubt that these prices are here to stay forever. The next economic downturn will make subs dry up pretty quickly. Unless PSA prunes graders to match demand, we can expect that aggressive specials will return at some point. I'll either wait for that time or I'll just not submit. I'm good with either.
Comments
<< <i>So even when I do the research for you and present the facts straight from an eBay search, you're still going to stick your fingers in your ears and claim otherwise? I guess that's one way to do it. Steve Renko and Bill Bonham say hello.
>>
The problem is that nine of those you have listed are Psa 7's so you sound like a fool with all your complaining. It is not the Psa 7 commons clogging up your searches as you say
I found 1 Psa 7 common in the first 100 or so cards that came up and it actually had a couple bids so I guess someone wanted it for less than grading fees
<< <i>
The problem is that nine of those you have listed are Psa 7's so you sound like a fool with all your complaining. It is not the Psa 7 commons clogging up your searches as you say
I found 1 Psa 7 common in the first 100 or so cards that came up and it actually had a couple bids so I guess someone wanted it for less than grading fees >>
Make that three people who didn't understand that Lemaster PSA 7 was an example. It could easily have been 1984 Claudell Washington or 2014 Sean Rodriguez.
Let's get back to the whole point: if PSA raises their prices, maybe people will stop sending in worthless cards just hoping to get a lucky 10. Bottom line: hundreds and hundreds of $5 PSA cards go by the wayside every day on eBay with no interest. You people are somehow stuck on 1978 PSA 7, when the point is that any card that can't fetch $5 on eBay doesn't need to be graded. Maybe by raising the price per card PSA will see less junk coming through.
But somehow you are going to disagree by only thinking about Johnny LeMaster PSA 7.
No one is talking about Johnny Lemaster but you.
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>Nice backpedal, coach..
No one is talking about Johnny Lemaster but you. >>
Oh, there's no backpedal, Ol' Man Winter. It's not my fault that you're over there with your AOL dial-up not understanding the whole point. There is a mountain of junk graded by PSA on eBay, and it will go away when the higher price prevents people from submitting that junk. You can just go on believing that eBay sellers are only peddling stars and Hall of Famers.
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>
The problem is that nine of those you have listed are Psa 7's so you sound like a fool with all your complaining. It is not the Psa 7 commons clogging up your searches as you say
I found 1 Psa 7 common in the first 100 or so cards that came up and it actually had a couple bids so I guess someone wanted it for less than grading fees >>
Make that three people who didn't understand that Lemaster PSA 7 was an example. It could easily have been 1984 Claudell Washington or 2014 Sean Rodriguez.
Let's get back to the whole point: if PSA raises their prices, maybe people will stop sending in worthless cards just hoping to get a lucky 10. Bottom line: hundreds and hundreds of $5 PSA cards go by the wayside every day on eBay with no interest. You people are somehow stuck on 1978 PSA 7, when the point is that any card that can't fetch $5 on eBay doesn't need to be graded. Maybe by raising the price per card PSA will see less junk coming through.
But somehow you are going to disagree by only thinking about Johnny LeMaster PSA 7. >>
I only see six PSA examples of 1984 Claudell Washington cards on ebay right now and only one of those is Topps. I don't see how that cards would be clogging up your searches.
<< <i>
I only see six PSA examples of 1984 Claudell Washington cards on ebay right now and only one of those is Topps. I don't see how that cards would be clogging up your searches. >>
Don't quit your day job, Eddie Murphy.
<< <i>Don't quit your day job, Eddie Murphy. >>
Wait, are you trying to make a generalized case by citing a specific example and implying that the reader ought utilize inductive reasoning to come to a broader conclusion?
<< <i>
if that is the case then you have gone from being a collector, after all we are talking about COLLECTOR's CLUB specials , to being a dealer. then call up psa and ask them for a bulk dealer rate.
or even in that scenario , if you get a dozen 9's and a dozen 10's , I am sure the 10's will offset the 8's and you will be profitable
why, because you can't make a profit? If a buck is your profit margin then I suggest finding something else to support your hobby.
PSA's goal has and always will be is to maximize profit. They do not have an obligation to make their rates low enough for the members on this board to make a profit, that is not their goal. Simple supply and demand, if demand is high enough that you can't keep up with the work, raise the rates to where there is an equilibrium >>
Well, the real issue is as the spread gets larger, it discourages the common collectors and small dealers from submitting. If 4SC is still cranking out thousands of cards at $3.50 or $4 each with a minimum grade threshold arrangement, it allows them to sell cards far below what the common collector can obtain them elsewhere for. I'm not faulting them for that. They have the volume to get these favored arrangements and it's the right of both PSA and mass submitters to make their profits. However, I don't think it's good in the long run for the graded portion of the hobby to be sourced from a few large submitters while smaller collectors and dealers keep their cards raw because they can't grade out their own cards for the cost of buying them on the open market. It's even worse when you buy 9s from the mass submitters and they have gross flaws on them. There are more than a few collectors who gave up the graded card hobby because of this factor.
<< <i>
Well, the real issue is as the spread gets larger, it discourages the common collectors and small dealers from submitting. If 4SC is still cranking out thousands of cards at $3.50 or $4 each with a minimum grade threshold arrangement, it allows them to sell cards far below what the common collector can obtain them elsewhere for. I'm not faulting them for that. They have the volume to get these favored arrangements and it's the right of both PSA and mass submitters to make their profits. However, I don't think it's good in the long run for the graded portion of the hobby to be sourced from a few large submitters while smaller collectors and dealers keep their cards raw because they can't grade out their own cards for the cost of buying them on the open market. It's even worse when you buy 9s from the mass submitters and they have gross flaws on them. There are more than a few collectors who gave up the graded card hobby because of this factor. >>
Exactly. 4sc = Walmart for Graded Cards. Some love'um, some hate'um. IMO, not good in the long run, but they seem to have the inventory to keep it going.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
<< <i>There is a mountain of junk graded by PSA on eBay, and it will go away when the higher price prevents people from submitting that junk. >>
no it won't. not when eBay continually invites sellers to list stuff redundantly for free. when they quit inviting free listings of the mountains of junk you so despise, there should be a detectable difference, as it was before they invited all this junk into our lives. it used to be much easier to wade through the PSA cards as well as the additional hordes of crap.
but, i regress. i'm just as guilty as anyone for listing that crap. somehow, people still seem to be filling their pockets with their nickels and dimes by selling it. so it goes.
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150.
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>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
The question is what card would you submit at $4.50 but not at $5...at $5 but not at $6...and $6 but not at $7.
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I have a stack of 200 cards here that meet your qualification. These are cards I am into for pennies each so have no money tied up in them, so why not wait till I can save 200 bucks?
<< <i>
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
As the price goes up I just get more focused and look at other options 4sc for one to fill out sets. I am not the best at raw to graded so do not mind paying a little more verses having to grade more than one card to get what I want. I think we forget if I grade a card 3 times to get what I want that is 18 or 21 not 6 or 7.
<< <i>
I think we forget if I grade a card 3 times to get what I want that is 18 or 21 not 6 or 7. >>
Bingo
<< <i>
<< <i>
At ^$6 price levels, I'm not sure I'll ever sub another card again. I'm buying vintage 8s and even 9s on eBay all day long at or below the cost to grade it myself...and that's not even factoring the cost to acquire the card to be submitted. >>
does it really matter if the cost is $6 or $7 a card. if you submit 100 card the difference is 100 bucks. I have never looked at a submission on a card by card basis if it is worth it. I always look at the submission as a whole. some cards will end up not being worth the grading fee and others will be worth much more and in the end I will be ahead of the game vs. buying the cards already graded. if you pull one random 10 or even a 9 on the right card it will usually cover any additional expenses and then some
and the most important part is that it is FUN to submit cards. if I go buy 50 psa 8's , I know what I am getting. if I submit 50 cards, there is entertainment in the unknown >>
I used to find the grading fun...but I am not the best at picking raw. So find it less fun than just building sets I want. I do agree it is a numbers game and normally will work out in your favor. We'll said above.
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
I do agree with this point by Duncan~from a collector's standpoint, the entertainment factor is a noteworthy one. In a similar vein, why do people continue to open packs? It's almost always a losing proposition yet collectors enjoy doing it regardless. Not all endeavors are measured by ROI. Though I also do agree I am more selective in what I will submit at this price point.
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>if I go buy 50 psa 8's , I know what I am getting. if I submit 50 cards, there is entertainment in the unknown
I do agree with this point by Duncan~from a collector's standpoint, the entertainment factor is a noteworthy one. In a similar vein, why do people continue to open packs? It's almost always a losing proposition yet collectors enjoy doing it regardless. Not all endeavors are measured by ROI. Though I also do agree I am more selective in what I will submit at this price point. >>
It all depends on what you are opening. I know quite a few guys who do well opening modern products. They open cases upon cases of stuff rather than a box of this or that. I've done quite well opening and grading some lower end modern hockey products.
<< <i>
<< <i>if I go buy 50 psa 8's , I know what I am getting. if I submit 50 cards, there is entertainment in the unknown
I do agree with this point by Duncan~from a collector's standpoint, the entertainment factor is a noteworthy one. In a similar vein, why do people continue to open packs? It's almost always a losing proposition yet collectors enjoy doing it regardless. Not all endeavors are measured by ROI. Though I also do agree I am more selective in what I will submit at this price point. >>
It all depends on what you are opening. I know quite a few guys who do well opening modern products. They open cases upon cases of stuff rather than a box of this or that. I've done quite well opening and grading some lower end modern hockey products. >>
Admittedly, I have zero knowledge about modern product, but for 1970s and early 1980s Topps product, the odds are heavily stacked against you in most cases.
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>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway. >>
Explain to me why my submitting habits need to change? I would rather pay $6 than $7. It's hard to argue that logic other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again and that by waiting I end up having to pay more than $7 in the future.
I'm virtually certain you can bank on that being the case, so you may as well have to make a decision then.
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>
<< <i>
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway. >>
Explain to me why my submitting habits need to change? I would rather pay $6 than $7. It's hard to argue that logic other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again and that by waiting I end up having to pay more than $7 in the future. >>
Because ff you are sending in cards that were worth grading for $6, and not for $7, then you're chasing ridiculously thin margins in a hobby that still offers many, much larger margins to exploit.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway. >>
Explain to me why my submitting habits need to change? I would rather pay $6 than $7. It's hard to argue that logic other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again and that by waiting I end up having to pay more than $7 in the future. >>
Because ff you are sending in cards that were worth grading for $6, and not for $7, then you're chasing ridiculously thin margins in a hobby that still offers many, much larger margins to exploit. >>
At no point did I say I was selling these for just a few dollars above grading fees. While I rarely get triple digits for my graded cards, I routinely get 45 plus per card. There are always some misses that I break even on or even sell at a loss. I would still make money paying $7, $8 or even more per card. I just prefer to pay $6. Edited to say that my cost per card on these subs is usually the grading fee plus $2, which includes what I paid for the card, shipping to and from etc.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Out of curiosity-- can someone show me an example of a card that they would submit if the grading fee was $6, but will not sub if the grading fee is $7? >>
I don't think there's really a single card that would suit that bill, Guy, but you may not bother submitting a couple hundred 1978 Topps cards for a $200 difference, unless maybe it was for your own set. Or maybe you'd send in the best 50 instead of the best 150. >>
Oh, I'm not arguing that it won't change people's submitting habits; only that if it does change one's habits then the habits probably needed changing anyway. >>
Explain to me why my submitting habits need to change? I would rather pay $6 than $7. It's hard to argue that logic other then arguing that there is no guarantee that $6 will ever be the special price again and that by waiting I end up having to pay more than $7 in the future. >>
Because ff you are sending in cards that were worth grading for $6, and not for $7, then you're chasing ridiculously thin margins in a hobby that still offers many, much larger margins to exploit. >>
At no point did I say I was selling these for just a few dollars above grading fees. While I rarely get triple digits for my graded cards, I routinely get 45 plus per card. There are always some misses that I break even on or even sell at a loss. I would still make money paying $7, $8 or even more per card. I just prefer to pay $6. Edited to say that my cost per card on these subs is usually the grading fee plus $2, which includes what I paid for the card, shipping to and from etc. >>
If you would still make money paying $7, $8 or more per card then my comments didn't apply to you.
<< <i>For a number of years now, work has been proceeding in order to bring perfection to the crudely conceived idea of a transmission that would not only supply inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters. Such an instrument is the turbo-encabulator. Now basically the only new principle involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it's produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive diractance. The original machine had a base plate of pre-famulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in a direct line with the panametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots of the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdle spring on the "up" end of the grammeters. The turbo-encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and it’s being successfully used in the operation of novertrunnions. Moreover, whenever a forescent skor motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration. It's not cheap, but I'm sure the government will buy it. >>
Well said but you should have also mentioned that them bats is smart they use radar
<< <i>
Because ff you are sending in cards that were worth grading for $6, and not for $7, then you're chasing ridiculously thin margins in a hobby that still offers many, much larger margins to exploit. >>
I can't say I agree with you. That may have been the case 10 years ago but the supply of high grade raw high dollar cards is dwindling. You can see it in the populations. Once the large gold nuggets have been panned out of the river, that leaves prospectors having to dig deeper to find smaller specs. For cards with a $10 resale price (the bulk of cards in reality), that $1 increase in grading fees is a 10% increase in cost. So do the math. Even if we consider the card was obtained for free, the cost to grade with shipping both ways would be about $8, even when submitted in bulk. That leaves a 20% profit margin. However, we know eBay and Paypal will take about 15% of that in fees. So that leaves a 5% profit on any card with a market price less than $10 sold on eBay assuming the seller obtained the card for free. What that means is you either need to hope for 10s or only submit cards that have market prices well above $12 to make it worthwhile.
For me, I'm not in it for the money. I like to build my collection through my own submissions as I then know that the cards will have the eye appeal I demand from PSA 8 or better cards. However, I'm also not eager to lose money on submissions. So I won't be building out my 70s sets any further through my own submissions until the bulk discount costs decrease to under $6. I also highly doubt that these prices are here to stay forever. The next economic downturn will make subs dry up pretty quickly. Unless PSA prunes graders to match demand, we can expect that aggressive specials will return at some point. I'll either wait for that time or I'll just not submit. I'm good with either.