Review submission FAIL. 0 for 13
1966CUDA
Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭✭
Been saving a few cards I felt deserved upgrades. Results were ZERO upgraded! Here are scans..opinions welcome.
-Claude
1960 Kaat requested minimum PSA 8
1962 Stengel requested PSA 9
1966 Palmer requested PSA 6
1967 Brock requested PSA 7.5
1968 OPC HR Ldrs requested PSA 8
1972 OPC Fisk requested PSA 7
1976 Brett requested PSA 7.5
1980 Henderson requested PSA 8.5
1986 Tiffany Bo requested PSA 8 (figured the print dot in the "L" would cost me)
1986 Tiffany BO requested PSA 9
1987 OPC Ripken requested PSA 10
1986 Young requested PSA 8.5
1991 Favre requested PSA 10
-Claude
1960 Kaat requested minimum PSA 8
1962 Stengel requested PSA 9
1966 Palmer requested PSA 6
1967 Brock requested PSA 7.5
1968 OPC HR Ldrs requested PSA 8
1972 OPC Fisk requested PSA 7
1976 Brett requested PSA 7.5
1980 Henderson requested PSA 8.5
1986 Tiffany Bo requested PSA 8 (figured the print dot in the "L" would cost me)
1986 Tiffany BO requested PSA 9
1987 OPC Ripken requested PSA 10
1986 Young requested PSA 8.5
1991 Favre requested PSA 10
0
Comments
I guess I don't completely understand your strategy. On the PSA 6 Brock you requested a 7.5? Why didn't you simply request any bump? If they would have bumped it to a 6.5 wouldn't that have been better than it remaining a 6??
Agreed.
I felt the Brock was 7.5/8.0 quality when examining it.
That is not a solid rationale.
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
if you want cards grade to go up , your best bet is to not give the grader a basis to start from as it is much easier to confirm a grade than it is to regrade it.
and I agree there is no chance a grader is going to bump a card 1 1/2 grades on a review. crack it out and that is surely a possibility if the card is worthy.
1960 Kaat requested minimum PSA 8 - Possible if cracked and resubbed, maybe 40% chance
1962 Stengel requested PSA 9 - Unlikely to ever upgrade w/white on both upper corner tips, on a different set with white borders it's an easy 9 in that shape
1966 Palmer requested PSA 6 - See Kaat, right side corners are the biggest issue
1967 Brock requested PSA 7.5 - 6.5 or 7 likely if cracked, don't think 7.5 is possible with T/B centering, lower left corner is only thing I see that might keep it a 6
1968 OPC HR Ldrs requested PSA 8 - Won't even attempt to judge a 68 without a back scan
1972 OPC Fisk requested PSA 7 - Would take a lot of leeway on the rough cut for both top and the lower left corner to get this in a 7 holder
1976 Brett requested PSA 7.5 - No chance, T/B centering immediately jumps out.
1980 Henderson requested PSA 8.5 - I would expect this to get a 7 if resubbed today, upper right corner is the only one that looks sharp.
1986 Tiffany Bo requested PSA 8 (figured the print dot in the "L" would cost me) - Really need to see the surface to give an opinion
1986 Tiffany BO requested PSA 9 - Upper right corner too rounded for a 9
1987 OPC Ripken requested PSA 10- Lower left corner, centering is probably within spec (even with the tilt)
1986 Young requested PSA 8.5 - Looks like a good possibility, but PSA is brutal on this set
1991 Favre requested PSA 10 - Looks like a coin flip 9/10 if subbed raw
My two cents above
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
However, some of the cards do look undergraded. I agree with prior assessments, crack those out and submit. I think you'll have far better luck and very little downside since the current grades you have are about as bad as it will get.
If some of those cards grade lower, then something is going on indecipherably with the cards.
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
Yea man you need to go back to the drawing board on your strategy. You think that you found 13 of their mistakes in a row? That is how they see it initially. If you want grade bumps you take the risk and crack them. If your eye is good then you won't have issues but sending 13 psa slabbed cards back to psa indicating they made mistakes on all of them will get you nowhere. Hope this helps
Actually, there's not much wrong with this strategy, but the contents of such a submission should be regarded differently. When we prepare our orders, we are always full of hope and anticipation. Logic needs to play a key role in this process. You could send in 13 knockouts, KNOWING FULL WELL that you'd be darn lucky to get bumped on any of them, but that the possibility exists. The value aspect plays another key role. You must choose cards which toe that line so closely that of the amount submitted, at least 1 of them can't be denied. That's really all it takes. For the right card in the right scenario, that 1 card can ease the disappointment of the other 12 being returned with the notion that they have already achieved their best case assessment. Occasionally, you might even get one of those rejects to pass on another try. But, the theme, of course, is trying to get the grading department to admit that they were a bit too cautious that one time.
You've got to choose a group with a feature item, or 2, or 3, or whatever, but give them something. A card that steps forward and demands an improved opinion can't be denied.
declining smaller bumps for no reason by specifying minimum grades greater than .5 higher than the current grade is not sound strategy
moat confused
Do I expect to hit on all? No. Best I can probably hope for is 1 to 2. Considering some of these are pretty valuable in their current holders, I don't have the (censored) to crack and resubmit.
Also keep in mind it is grader dependent. Grading remains subject and subjective factors play a role. It may take a few submissions to get the bump. That, of course, begs the question as to why the bump didn't occur at the outset but, again remember subjectivity including yours as a submitter with extra hope at the high grade.
Matt