Grader of death'd

Raulsmaster

1 1 23089476 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 16 Darryl Strawberry Card
1 2 23089477 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 16 Darryl Strawberry Card
1 3 23089478 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 16 Darryl Strawberry Card
1 4 23089479 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 16 Darryl Strawberry Card
2 1 23089480 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 18 Danny Tartabull Card
2 2 23089481 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 18 Danny Tartabull Card
3 1 23089482 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 17 Cal Ripken Jr. Card
3 2 23089483 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 17 Cal Ripken Jr. Card
3 3 23089484 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 17 Cal Ripken Jr. Card
4 1 23089485 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 15 Ken Griffey Jr. Card
4 2 23089486 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 15 Ken Griffey Jr. Card
4 3 23089487 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 15 Ken Griffey Jr. Card
4 4 23089488 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 15 Ken Griffey Jr. Card
5 1 23089489 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 14 Joe Carter Card
5 2 23089490 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 14 Joe Carter Card
6 1 23089491 MINT 9 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 13 Wade Boggs Card
7 1 23089492 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1992 Fleer Team Leaders 19 Jose Canseco Card
8 1 23089493 MINT 9 1979 O-Pee-Chee 157 Thurman Munson Card
9 1 23089494 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1979 O-Pee-Chee 234 Dave Concepcion Card
10 1 23089495 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Tony Gwynn Card
11 1 23089496 MINT 9 1984 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Dave Winfield Card
12 1 23089497 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Dwight Gooden Card
13 1 23089498 MINT 9 1982 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut D.Murphy/D.Parker Card
14 1 23089499 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1982 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Fernando Valenzuela Card
15 1 23089500 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1982 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Gary Carter Card
16 1 23089501 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1982 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Carlton Fisk Card
17 1 23089502 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1982 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Carl Yastrzemski Card
18 1 23089503 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1982 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Eddie Murray Card
19 1 23089504 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1982 All-Star Game Program Inserts-Hand Cut Rod Carew Card
20 1 N9: NOT GRADED No Spec Info, No Grade, No Charge Card
21 1 23089506 MINT 9 1990 Scd Baseball Pocket Price Guides-Hand Cut 12 Bo Jackson Card
22 1 N9: NOT GRADED No Spec Info, No Grade, No Charge Card
23 1 23089508 NEAR MINT 7 1992 Scd Baseball Pocket Price Guides 8 Bo Jackson Card
24 1 23089509 NEAR MINT 7 1991 Little Big Leaguers Perforated Ken Griffey Jr. Card
25 1 23089510 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 Chef Boyardee 11 Ryne Sandberg Perforated Card
26 1 23089511 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 Chef Boyardee 5 Ozzie Smith Perforated Card
27 1 23089512 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 Chef Boyardee 20 Rickey Henderson Perforated Card
28 1 23089513 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 Chef Boyardee 23 Roger Clemens Perforated Card
29 1 23089514 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 Chef Boyardee 2 Eric Davis Perforated Card
30 1 23089515 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 Chef Boyardee 10 Gary Carter Perforated Card
31 1 23089516 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1991 Scd Baseball Pocket Price Guides 45 Ken Griffey Jr. Hand Cut Card
32 1 23089517 EXCELLENT 5 1991 Scd Baseball Pocket Price Guides 38 Kirby Puckett Hand Cut Card
33 1 23089518 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1991 Scd Baseball Pocket Price Guides 26 Dale Murphy Hand Cut Card
34 1 23089519 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 8 Juan Gonzalez Card
34 2 23089520 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 8 Juan Gonzalez Card
35 1 23089521 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 2 Mark McGwire Card
35 2 23089522 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 2 Mark McGwire Card
35 3 23089523 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 2 Mark McGwire Card
35 4 23089524 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 2 Mark McGwire Card
36 1 23089525 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 1 Kirby Puckett Card
36 2 23089526 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 1 Kirby Puckett Card
36 3 23089527 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 1 Kirby Puckett Card
36 4 23089528 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 1 Kirby Puckett Card
36 5 23089529 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 1 Kirby Puckett Card
36 6 23089530 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 1 Kirby Puckett Card
36 7 23089531 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 1 Kirby Puckett Card
37 1 23089532 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 10 Ken Griffey Jr. Card
37 2 23089533 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 10 Ken Griffey Jr. Card
37 3 23089534 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 10 Ken Griffey Jr. Card
37 4 23089535 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 10 Ken Griffey Jr. Card
38 1 23089536 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 5 Frank Thomas Card
38 2 23089537 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 5 Frank Thomas Card
38 3 23089538 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 5 Frank Thomas Card
38 4 23089539 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 5 Frank Thomas Card
38 5 23089540 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 5 Frank Thomas Card
39 1 23089541 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 4 Roger Clemens Card
39 2 23089542 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 4 Roger Clemens Card
39 3 23089543 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 4 Roger Clemens Card
39 4 23089544 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 4 Roger Clemens Card
39 5 23089545 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 4 Roger Clemens Card
39 6 23089546 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 4 Roger Clemens Card
39 7 23089547 GEM MINT 10 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 4 Roger Clemens Card
40 1 23089548 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 9 Roberto Alomar Card
40 2 23089549 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 9 Roberto Alomar Card
41 1 23089550 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 7 Brady Anderson Card
42 1 23089551 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 6 Carlos Baerga Card
43 1 23089552 MINT 9 1993 Fleer Team Leaders 3 Pat Listach Card

CDsNuts

Yep.

firedawg45

Rip off for sure. Makes you not wanna sub again

halosfan

That there there is a minty sub

Gemyanks10

<< <i>Rip off for sure. Makes you not wanna sub again >>




If I had a submission that had those results, I don't think I would ever sub again...what's the difference between a 9 and a 10 from a card from 1992 or 1993? Or any year for that matter? That's a whole different topic altogether though. Very tough break indeed.

Paleoanthroman

how much did that cost you?

lawnmowerman

That blows.

I can't recall the last time I've seen a modern sub with so many 9's and only one 10.

SOM

Ouch!

Dusto

That is rough.

Boopotts

Nice hit on the '93 Fleer Clemens.


I had a sub like this back in December, but haven't had one since, which leads me to believe there's only one guy in the grading room who insists on doing this. That's the good news, I guess, though the bad news obviously is that he won't quit and go sell used cars or something.

saucywombat

Our condolences.

Fan of the 92 Team Leader set.

ldferg

Looks very similar to one of mine as of late. Chef Boy-R-Dee's are tough. All mine came back 8s as well.

Would the 2 ungraded be the 1989 SCD Price guide cards? Just curious as I've been able to submit 90 (like you) and yet the 89s are not graded....

firedawg45

i would call and ask for a review, those are worthless if you dont hit a psa 10. its almost like they know it.

LarkinCollector

Ouch, you'll probably need something stronger than this....

coachnip13

<< <i>Rip off for sure. Makes you not wanna sub again >>



Seriously. Gotta throw the guy a bone and give him some 10's on a stash like that.

gemint

Sorry for that. I got hammered as well in my last sub. Makes me not want to sub anymore. I agree that I think there is a grader or two who thinks every card submitted is crapola. I don't think I'll be doing any large subs again. Getting a PSA 8 on a '76 common isn't the end of the world but when I'm submitting 5 mint commons of the same card from vending and they all get rubber stamped as 8s, that's enough to drive me up the wall. Especially when those carbon copies yield 10s when others sub them. We're better off splitting them into different subs and getting different graders to review them.

3BoyzTrading

You chose some tough cards to get graded. Sure they are modern but the edges and perforations on all of those are tough. I'd guess the edges front and back got you on most of them.

Raulsmaster

I've been subbing for years so and I expected a 50% clip at least. The team leaders were as clean as you'll ever find. It's ridiculous. I'm done for a long time after this one

Raulsmaster

<< <i>Looks very similar to one of mine as of late. Chef Boy-R-Dee's are tough. All mine came back 8s as well.

Would the 2 ungraded be the 1989 SCD Price guide cards? Just curious as I've been able to submit 90 (like you) and yet the 89s are not graded.... >>



They were...a Sandberg and a Griffey, which I've seen both in holders on ebay of late so I don't know what the deal is there

kidsox

Since the grader of death is real, Gemint has a good point about sending 2 or 3 separate subs when you have SO many late-model cards vying for 10s. I also think that centering must be exact to expect one.

gemint

<< <i>I've been subbing for years so and I expected a 50% clip at least. The team leaders were as clean as you'll ever find. It's ridiculous. I'm done for a long time after this one >>



That's the thing. Many of us have been subbing cards for many years and pretty much know what to expect. Sure you get head scratchers from time-to-time in every sub or surprises that a card graded as high as it did. But when a whole sub is skewed in one direction or another, then it's a problem. I've had it go both ways. In the mid-2000s, PSA went through a period where they were awarding a lot of high grades for some reason after the original 'grader of death' period. I submitted a big batch of 1969 vending expecting about 60% 8s and 40% 9s with no thought than any would 10 since all showed some micro touch under 10x loupe. I ended up getting 13 10s and about 80% 9s. Now it looks like we're back to a grader of death era. I just wish things would stay consistent so we know what to expect. If these subs are indicative of the standards from here on out, then I know not to submit any card worth less than $8 in PSA 8 condition.

Raulsmaster

Who sends in a Joe Carter unless it's a sure fire 10...exactly, no one. It's just absurd and simply costs them business. I'll be cracking a lot of them out for sure

PMKAY

<< <i>Since the grader of death is real, Gemint has a good point about sending 2 or 3 separate subs when you have SO many late-model cards vying for 10s. I also think that centering must be exact to expect one. >>



The Grader Of Death must have a twin because "In all cases, at minimum, two graders are assigned to every card"

Dpeck100

<< <i>Who sends in a Joe Carter unless it's a sure fire 10...exactly, no one. It's just absurd and simply costs them business. I'll be cracking a lot of them out for sure >>




I am not sure if you have had the misfortune of trying to crack the new holder. So tough. Be careful!!!!!

halosfan

nice new avatar DPeck .. my last few subs skewed heavy 9s and 8s but I subbed a bunch of thinly graded cards ... There were 10s in the mix but buying online and hitting a 9+ or 8+ overall rating is good for my set (s) depending on which number hits what set... It's all the odd non graded reasons or less than 8s that would wind me

kidsox

The grader of death has an evil-er twin, and a triplet in the making. Not to sound too paranoic, but I think that certain, few people who find themselves in positions of power, even ones so small as card-graders, evolve into . . . what? Dick Cheney?

sportscardstop

I've never had a sub that made me shake my head. All mine were about in line with what I expected. Obviously there were a few cards here and there, but usually I overlooked something. Post some scans when you get them. Maybe someone can see something you missed. I usually look at my cards a few times before subbing. When I look at them the 2nd time, there are always cards that make me wonder what I was thinking when I put them in the "grade it" pile the first time around.

RyanAdmirer

I feel your pain....I've had similar but never that extreme. That plain sucks!

grote15

Tough sub, I feel tour pain.. The G.O.D. has been discussed here for at least the past eight years I've been on these forums, but I don't put much stock in that, personally, as it's been a fairly common refrain throughout that time.. As long as grading is being done by individuals, there is going to be some subs graded more conservatively than others. Just look what happens here in any GTG thread--you often have opinions ranging over 2-3 grades.

Cubby

JoeBanzai

Wow that stinks. A buddy of mine is negotiating for some late 80's cases, it would really suck if he bought them and got so many (worthless) 9's and so few 10's.

dtkk49a

I am a believer in the smaller sub/better grades theory. I recommend limiting the sub to 20-25 cards.
With smaller subs, you tend to scrutinize the cards more before submitting.

swartz1

Ah, yes the dreaded 230

sportscardstop

Do we know for sure that the first 3 numbers refer to the grader? Or is that just speculation?

Raulsmaster

<< <i>Do we know for sure that the first 3 numbers refer to the grader? Or is that just speculation? >>



I wondered the same thing. I can't imagine that to be true, I don't know how it would be

grote15

The cert numbers are in sequential order based on loggage date. They have no relevance to a particular grader. It has been this way for several years now. I believe the one exception is for those cards graded at the National.

dbcoin

if your business model dictates that you need to get back cards graded as perfect, then your model is wrong. Just cause you have a large submission doesn't mean you deserve the wrong grade. Graders should grade based on the merits of each card, not the size of the order.

gemint

<< <i>if your business model dictates that you need to get back cards graded as perfect, then your model is wrong. Just cause you have a large submission doesn't mean you deserve the wrong grade. Graders should grade based on the merits of each card, not the size of the order. >>



If you submit 500 cards in March and they grade 80% 8s vs submitting 500 cards in July and they grade 60% 9s, then that isn't the fault of the submitter. Basically what you are saying is nobody should be submitting modern cards since most are worthless in lower than 10 grade. I don't think this is the message PSA wants to convey to their customers. For the record, I don't submit post-1980 cards, so my model doesn't require PSA 10s.

Mickey71

How come everyone always thinks a minimum of 2 graders look at each card? If this were the case....there would never be a gigantic slip up on 10's that are 6's or very expensive vintage cards where there is writing or severe staining on the back that receive 8's.

hammered

<< <i>We're better off splitting them into different subs and getting different graders to review them. >>



That's what I started doing
And I agree that there seems to be one or two graders that downgrade the entire order.
Not worth taking the risk on a big order

gemint

<< <i>How come everyone always thinks a minimum of 2 graders look at each card? If this were the case....there would never be a gigantic slip up on 10's that are 6's or very expensive vintage cards where there is writing or severe staining on the back that receive 8's. >>



I'm skeptical as well. Unless they are mechanical errors where the admin entered the wrong grade into the computer, I don't see how there could be so many 2 or 3 grade bumps from crack-outs if there are two graders reviewing every card unless the second grader knows the grade assigned by the first grader and is pre-biased.

sportscardstop

<< <i>How come everyone always thinks a minimum of 2 graders look at each card? If this were the case....there would never be a gigantic slip up on 10's that are 6's or very expensive vintage cards where there is writing or severe staining on the back that receive 8's. >>




It says in the grading process section that a minimum of 2 graders look at it. Whether that is true or not can be argued. But that is what PSA claims.

sportscardstop

<< <i>

<< <i>if your business model dictates that you need to get back cards graded as perfect, then your model is wrong. Just cause you have a large submission doesn't mean you deserve the wrong grade. Graders should grade based on the merits of each card, not the size of the order. >>



If you submit 500 cards in March and they grade 80% 8s vs submitting 500 cards in July and they grade 60% 9s, then that isn't the fault of the submitter. Basically what you are saying is nobody should be submitting modern cards since most are worthless in lower than 10 grade. I don't think this is the message PSA wants to convey to their customers. For the record, I don't submit post-1980 cards, so my model doesn't require PSA 10s. >>



If its the same 500 cards, then there is an issue. But if its a totally different set of cards, then there is a chance mistakes are made by the submitter. I've gone through 1986 topps football cards for grading, and one day I pull out a bunch that I felt were centered. Then next time I viewed them almost all were slightly off center left to right. It was my mistake that I luckily caught with a second review before wasting $6+ per card. Some days you look at cards and for some reason they appear nicer than they really are. I'm not saying graders at PSA do not make mistakes. But it seems way too often that members here think the are not capable of making mistakes when grading and always call out the grader of death.

Raulsmaster

Here's the bottom line. I send in this same lot of cards and someone else grades them, it's a totally different result guaranteed. I have close to 15 years experience sending in submissions on a consistent basis, there were at least 20 gems in this lot...not 1.

80sOPC

The problem, as some one else has pointed out, is the difference between a 9 and a 10 on a post 80s card is very minimal. Post 90's that gap closes even more.When you then consider that they look at the card for such a short time and may have not seen that same issue/card in weeks/months, it shouldn't be any surprise that some subs get killed.

These threads give me pause about subbing for resale. I just cracked 47 boxes of '85 OPC Baseball and my brain hurts trying to decide what to sub, other than the minty Puckett's.

Mapleleaf

I always get the G.O.D. After 5 years, I have only received one PSA 10.
As a result I don't submit anything that isn't worth being in a PSA 9 holder.
For more more modern (80's cards), I generally buy from 4SC and often their 10's look worse than my 9's.
I have a big stack of 9's that I'd like to crack and resubmit but I don't want them all to come back as 9's again.

EagleEyeKid

This thread is hilarious.

lawnmowerman

Hi Bryan

rabbitpunch

There's no grader of death; only blind submitters like me.

gemint

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>if your business model dictates that you need to get back cards graded as perfect, then your model is wrong. Just cause you have a large submission doesn't mean you deserve the wrong grade. Graders should grade based on the merits of each card, not the size of the order. >>



If you submit 500 cards in March and they grade 80% 8s vs submitting 500 cards in July and they grade 60% 9s, then that isn't the fault of the submitter. Basically what you are saying is nobody should be submitting modern cards since most are worthless in lower than 10 grade. I don't think this is the message PSA wants to convey to their customers. For the record, I don't submit post-1980 cards, so my model doesn't require PSA 10s. >>



If its the same 500 cards, then there is an issue. But if its a totally different set of cards, then there is a chance mistakes are made by the submitter. I've gone through 1986 topps football cards for grading, and one day I pull out a bunch that I felt were centered. Then next time I viewed them almost all were slightly off center left to right. It was my mistake that I luckily caught with a second review before wasting $6+ per card. Some days you look at cards and for some reason they appear nicer than they really are. I'm not saying graders at PSA do not make mistakes. But it seems way too often that members here think the are not capable of making mistakes when grading and always call out the grader of death. >>



I get a lot of bumps on cards I crack out. And I mean A LOT. Problem is, most cards aren't worth enough to warrant spending $10-$20 to get them in the correct holder. Last sub, 5 previously holdered cards were rejected due to 'EVID TRIM'. How do you explain that one?

grote15

<< <i>

<< <i>How come everyone always thinks a minimum of 2 graders look at each card? If this were the case....there would never be a gigantic slip up on 10's that are 6's or very expensive vintage cards where there is writing or severe staining on the back that receive 8's. >>



I'm skeptical as well. Unless they are mechanical errors where the admin entered the wrong grade into the computer, I don't see how there could be so many 2 or 3 grade bumps from crack-outs if there are two graders reviewing every card unless the second grader knows the grade assigned by the first grader and is pre-biased. >>



But how often does a card bump 2-3 grades, really? Sure, it has happened but it is a very tiny percentage of cards that fall into that category, and when it does, it's usually due to a surface issue one of the graders missed. The vast majority of the thousands of cards I have submitted over the past five years have been accurately graded, imho, and usually when I believe a card has been undergraded, I realize why after closer inspection upon receiving the card back from PSA. We all want the grader of love when we submit, and even a one grade swing can hurt if we get the G.O.D. instead, but that is just part of the process, imo. I have had decent success submitting for review service what I felt were high end cards for the grade for those instances when I felt a bump was warranted.