With the avalanche of cards getting graded, I suspect PSA realized they needed to do something to protect the PSA premium value. If the market was flooded all of a sudden with PSA 9s and 10s they start to lose their premium, which is PSA ‘s calling card. So the toughen their standards to keep the supply down.
@rexvos no kidding. I am not stomping my feet and saying PSA is correct and how dare you!!! I am offering my opinion in effort to help this guy. I have gotten my share of bad grades but a 2 is way off and whenever they have been wayoff i.e. a 4 when I thought it was a 10, I get it back and it had a wrinkle that likely wasnt there or a spider wrinkle that I missed or paper loss that I missed. Considering the original scan looks like it was scanned with a toaster I am doing the best I can to offer help. ( no offense to the OP about the toaster ref) my toaster does not even scan so you are doing better than me.
The one thing that comes to mind regarding the plethora of 6s and 7s (i.e., stricter grading) now being dolled out is this... Is it possible that back centering is now weighted the same as the front? In the past, centering on the back didn't matter as much (although it did matter). This was my experience anyway with my cards.
@ringer said:
With the avalanche of cards getting graded, I suspect PSA realized they needed to do something to protect the PSA premium value. If the market was flooded all of a sudden with PSA 9s and 10s they start to lose their premium, which is PSA ‘s calling card. So the toughen their standards to keep the supply down.
This could very well be true but it is not ethical. Grading standards should not change to protect the brand or profit margin. The standards should be the same no matter the circumstances. They have doubled the prices,, extended turnaround times decidedly, limited services offered to nothing, and are now seemingly punishing loyal customers with stricter grading standards? Why would anyone continue to submit?
edit to add: Aside from highly valuable cards, that is?
@OAKESY25 said: @rexvos no kidding. I am not stomping my feet and saying PSA is correct and how dare you!!! I am offering my opinion in effort to help this guy. I have gotten my share of bad grades but a 2 is way off and whenever they have been wayoff i.e. a 4 when I thought it was a 10, I get it back and it had a wrinkle that likely wasnt there or a spider wrinkle that I missed or paper loss that I missed. Considering the original scan looks like it was scanned with a toaster I am doing the best I can to offer help. ( no offense to the OP about the toaster ref) my toaster does not even scan so you are doing better than me.
None taken. I thought it was funny and you're right. My scanner is horrible. I am going to get a new one.
@bobbybakeriv I would crack that out and get a good look at it in hand. hold it up to the light at different angles.
See if you see any issues, The card doesn't obviously have much value at all in a 2, and I doubt many collectors are looking for a 1 to 10 run on the 76 Vida Blue although you never can tell. Very curious as to what you determine. Also did you sub these with no qualifiers? The Nettles and Carew might be 8 pd's or something, snow is real common on the 76's I have a few in for grading myself right now.
Absolutely no way that Blue is a 2!!! I went with a 7 on the nettles because I see a few print dots and the Carew is off center so that’s why I said 6. That Blue is close to being the best looking of the 3 cards (the nettles would be without the print dots). I recently bought a 1954 Eddie Mathews that was graded a 3 and it is nowhere close to as good of quality as that vida blue! Yes that grader should be sent to the shipping department and then, only be allowed to pack the slabs in the boxes. I wouldn’t trust that person to put a shipping label on the box because clearly their eyes aren’t very good! That is total BS and you need to be getting in touch with someone about that. Whoever graded that, and the person who reviewed it in QA1, needs to be removed from the grading department. Sorry you got disappointing grades on all of these but hopefully you can get that one overturned.
I have had my share of foolish grades returned recently, crackouts that drop 2-3 grades when they looked high end as an example but this thread shows one thing , if you want to pick at a card you can always find something.
Many of the comments in this thread I think signify what is going on in the grading room. You get an inexperienced grader staring at 2019 production quality cards all day long then they go and get a sub of 70's topps cards. What we have thought was a nice 8/9 card in the past , they see as poor quality and it must be a 5 or 6 if all the new cards they have looked at all day are 9's and 10's
@bobbybakeriv said:
This post has turned into a pseudo-social psych experiment. There are likely only two reasons that I would post these scans: 1) I am proud of my grades and wanted to share, or 2) I am highly disappointed with my grades and wanted to share. You all nailed that it is the latter (especially given the current "stricter" grading standards environment we seem to be operating within). I have 4 subs in waiting right now and I REALLY wish I didn't. Getting stricter is one thing (I personally feel it is BS) but being inaccurate is another. Neither the Carew nor the Nettles are 6s. That is ridiculous. But, whomever graded the Blue in particular needs their grading license revoked. That is an **absolute **joke. There are no creases, holes, paper loss, etc. on this card and even if there was the smallest surface wrinkle that I somehow missed (and am still missing), this card is NOT a 2. Unreal. I have submitted, purchased, and sold PSA cards for almost 18 years now. Those days are over. FWIW - I did get six 8s (including a nice 76 Reggie Jax) back with this submission and a few more 6s to join Nettles and Carew.
My very first sub to PSA brought me two 10s (76 Carew, 77 Brett), two 9s, and two 8s. Nearly 100 subs later, I have gotten decidedly worse in my ability to evaluate cards apparently. The Blue has me dumbfounded. When I saw the grade online for the first time, I was sure it had to have gotten damaged somehow. Nope, just strict grading. LOL
I believe the grades are very accurate. They are the foremost experts in the world at card grading and all cards go to at least 2 graders a reviewer and 2 QAs. That Vida Blue has to be the lowest end card I have ever viewed. I mean it's 51-49 centered and that is terrible centering for vintage. If it was in to PWCC it would be a PSA 2 LE not HE. I also want to say thank you for showing this as I will be sitting on the sidelines for awhile. WOW. In all honesty....sorry as you spent money for this and it is flat out wrong.
Thanks again friends. It is bizarre but I honestly think I am going to keep it as a reminder of the times. And a nice conversation piece with me and some of my pals. Heck, on a fun poker night I might break it out for a few side wagers. LOL Good luck with your grades all! I hope things swing back around to normal soon. Bobby
Ouch. I read the PSA grading standards for a PSA 2...that's a head scratcher. I recommend having another set of eyes look it over. Had similar experience last year when my childhood collection 1970 Ernie Banks came back a PSA 3. I thought it would merit a 6 or 7. Months later, a friend found a very light crease/wrinkle on the back, that could only be seen if the light hit it a certain way.
@bobbybakeriv said:
This post has turned into a pseudo-social psych experiment. There are likely only two reasons that I would post these scans: 1) I am proud of my grades and wanted to share, or 2) I am highly disappointed with my grades and wanted to share. You all nailed that it is the latter (especially given the current "stricter" grading standards environment we seem to be operating within). I have 4 subs in waiting right now and I REALLY wish I didn't. Getting stricter is one thing (I personally feel it is BS) but being inaccurate is another. Neither the Carew nor the Nettles are 6s. That is ridiculous. But, whomever graded the Blue in particular needs their grading license revoked. That is an **absolute **joke. There are no creases, holes, paper loss, etc. on this card and even if there was the smallest surface wrinkle that I somehow missed (and am still missing), this card is NOT a 2. Unreal. I have submitted, purchased, and sold PSA cards for almost 18 years now. Those days are over. FWIW - I did get six 8s (including a nice 76 Reggie Jax) back with this submission and a few more 6s to join Nettles and Carew.
My very first sub to PSA brought me two 10s (76 Carew, 77 Brett), two 9s, and two 8s. Nearly 100 subs later, I have gotten decidedly worse in my ability to evaluate cards apparently. The Blue has me dumbfounded. When I saw the grade online for the first time, I was sure it had to have gotten damaged somehow. Nope, just strict grading. LOL
wow. a 2 is an insult on that card. Definitely be interested to see if you find anything upon closer examination that you missed. Regardless I cant see how even if it had the dreaded spider wrinkles it would be less than a 5. Definitely scratching my head on that one.
>
Jeff
I wonder if they are using a robot or seeing eye dog to grade them cards.
@ringer said:
With the avalanche of cards getting graded, I suspect PSA realized they needed to do something to protect the PSA premium value. If the market was flooded all of a sudden with PSA 9s and 10s they start to lose their premium, which is PSA ‘s calling card. So the toughen their standards to keep the supply down.
This doesn't make sense to me. Grading a bunch of cards high affects the secondary card market (dilution of supply) but it doesn't diminish the PSA brand in any way as long as it is accurate. You know what does damage a brand though? Grading cards lower than they should be to help the bell curve. PSA has to know this.
Put it this way: Do you think that whichever grading company has a lower population of 9's and 10's is going to be the stronger brand? I don't. In fact, I would bet that there are many cards out there have a lower population under BGS or SGC than PSA just due to PSA's popularity. Having that lower population does not help those brands become king of the grading hill.
Put it this way: Do you think that whichever grading company has a lower population of 9's and 10's is going to be the stronger brand? I don't.
This is exactly how PSA became #1. Because their cards were perceived to be more strictly graded a PSA card with the same grade as another TPG will generally sell for more.
If you then add in the fact that many of us send the same card back in to be regraded hoping for a "bump", it becomes even more obvious that stricter grades are smart.
ASA quickly went out of business, I think they were the first grading company. I bought a ASA 8 that was about 3 grades too high, refused to buy from them again.
Finally, too many 10's certainly could effect demand. On the newer cards, 9's, (even though they are mint) are worth 10-25% of what a 10 is worth. If PSA is getting 100,000 cards a day, it's not good for anyone if they start giving out too many 10's.
Except of course if it's on our sub. ;-)
Regarding the OP, I am a bit surprised at all the comments on grades when scans are of this quality. I am betting that there is something wrong with the Vida Blue card. I have had "vastly undergraded" cards come back and upon cracking out found a defect.
If two graders looked at it and saw something that caused them to give it a 2, it probably has a major (though not easy to spot) flaw.
Of course it could just be a mistake on PSA's part too.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Just a wild guess: I wonder if the grader fat-fingered and meant to type "5" in the system instead of 2. With a grade like this, further explanation is needed as to why it graded as such. Judging from the scan, it wouldn't look out of place in a 6 holder like the other 2 cards.
Put it this way: Do you think that whichever grading company has a lower population of 9's and 10's is going to be the stronger brand? I don't.
This is exactly how PSA became #1. Because their cards were perceived to be more strictly graded a PSA card with the same grade as another TPG will generally sell for more.
If you then add in the fact that many of us send the same card back in to be regraded hoping for a "bump", it becomes even more obvious that stricter grades are smart.
ASA quickly went out of business, I think they were the first grading company. I bought a ASA 8 that was about 3 grades too high, refused to buy from them again.
Finally, too many 10's certainly could effect demand. On the newer cards, 9's, (even though they are mint) are worth 10-25% of what a 10 is worth. If PSA is getting 100,000 cards a day, it's not good for anyone if they start giving out too many 10's.
Except of course if it's on our sub. ;-)
Regarding the OP, I am a bit surprised at all the comments on grades when scans are of this quality. I am betting that there is something wrong with the Vida Blue card. I have had "vastly undergraded" cards come back and upon cracking out found a defect.
If two graders looked at it and saw something that caused them to give it a 2, it probably has a major (though not easy to spot) flaw.
Of course it could just be a mistake on PSA's part too.
Yeah, the scans suck, no doubt. I agree that I could have missed something. Heck, I have before. But, in those cases (e.g., small surface wrinkle, print imperfection), I have never received lower than a 5. I get that part. There is NO way this is a 2. Notta chance. However, I am going to keep it as is so that I can confidently state that I own one of the finest PSA 2s on the planet! It's not worth anything as a 5 either. LOL
Put it this way: Do you think that whichever grading company has a lower population of 9's and 10's is going to be the stronger brand? I don't.
This is exactly how PSA became #1. Because their cards were perceived to be more strictly graded a PSA card with the same grade as another TPG will generally sell for more.
If you then add in the fact that many of us send the same card back in to be regraded hoping for a "bump", it becomes even more obvious that stricter grades are smart.
ASA quickly went out of business, I think they were the first grading company. I bought a ASA 8 that was about 3 grades too high, refused to buy from them again.
Finally, too many 10's certainly could effect demand. On the newer cards, 9's, (even though they are mint) are worth 10-25% of what a 10 is worth. If PSA is getting 100,000 cards a day, it's not good for anyone if they start giving out too many 10's.
Except of course if it's on our sub. ;-)
Regarding the OP, I am a bit surprised at all the comments on grades when scans are of this quality. I am betting that there is something wrong with the Vida Blue card. I have had "vastly undergraded" cards come back and upon cracking out found a defect.
If two graders looked at it and saw something that caused them to give it a 2, it probably has a major (though not easy to spot) flaw.
Of course it could just be a mistake on PSA's part too.
Yeah, the scans suck, no doubt. I agree that I could have missed something. Heck, I have before. But, in those cases (e.g., small surface wrinkle, print imperfection), I have never received lower than a 5. I get that part. There is NO way this is a 2. Notta chance. However, I am going to keep it as is so that I can confidently state that I own one of the finest PSA 2s on the planet! It's not worth anything as a 5 either. LOL
I sent in a Venezuelan once certain it would grade a 6. Came back a 2, I was furious, cracked it out and after looking at it in direct sunlight, I could see that it appeared to have been glued into a binder at one time. The "gloss" on the back was (nearly) imperceivably duller on part of the card. Sent it back in and it's now a 4.
I agree that the 2 on your card is baffling!
I have a buddy that looks at my cards before I send them in and even though I am pretty good, he usually finds a couple of rejects. The same on when I look at his cards.
Buy a scanner they are worth the investment!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Regarding the OP, I am a bit surprised at all the comments on grades when scans are of this quality. I am betting that there is something wrong with the Vida Blue card. I have had "vastly undergraded" cards come back and upon cracking out found a defect.
If two graders looked at it and saw something that caused them to give it a 2, it probably has a major (though not easy to spot) flaw.
Of course it could just be a mistake on PSA's part too.
I guess I take the OP's word that there is nothing wrong with the surface, and it is easy to see that the corners and centering are easily better than a 2.
Regarding the OP, I am a bit surprised at all the comments on grades when scans are of this quality. I am betting that there is something wrong with the Vida Blue card. I have had "vastly undergraded" cards come back and upon cracking out found a defect.
If two graders looked at it and saw something that caused them to give it a 2, it probably has a major (though not easy to spot) flaw.
Of course it could just be a mistake on PSA's part too.
I guess I take the OP's word that there is nothing wrong with the surface, and it is easy to see that the corners and centering are easily better than a 2.
People, including myself, often miss defects. It's obvious the card appears to be "easily better than a 2". As I stated in my post regarding a Venezuelan I subbed, you might miss (for example) glue residue.
I don't want to pick on the OP, but you simply must provide good scans when you post complaints on grading. The cards looked like 8's or better to me when I first saw them, but I didn't "guess the grade" because of the low resolution.
PSA also makes mistakes, it could simply be a typo. Just one reason it would be nice if PSA supplied the reason a card like this gets hammered.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Regarding the OP, I am a bit surprised at all the comments on grades when scans are of this quality. I am betting that there is something wrong with the Vida Blue card. I have had "vastly undergraded" cards come back and upon cracking out found a defect.
If two graders looked at it and saw something that caused them to give it a 2, it probably has a major (though not easy to spot) flaw.
Of course it could just be a mistake on PSA's part too.
I guess I take the OP's word that there is nothing wrong with the surface, and it is easy to see that the corners and centering are easily better than a 2.
As I have mentioned, I have certainly missed things before. Small indentations or a surface wrinkle, etc. In these cases I've received a 5 and moved right along my merry way. I could live with that for this card too. I guess the bottom line is that I just can't see this card being a 2. It is dumbfounding. It just shows me that PSA grading (right now) is a mixed bag and I am not going to be submitting anything anytime in the near future (even though that isn't even an option currently). I have four subs in right now of about 100 cards and I REALLY wish I didn't. The grading seems to be all over the place and standards aren't clear to me presently. Thanks for all the feedback. BTW - I am still wondering if centering on the backs of cards is now graded as strictly as the fronts? This hadn't been the case before. Bobby
Comments
With the avalanche of cards getting graded, I suspect PSA realized they needed to do something to protect the PSA premium value. If the market was flooded all of a sudden with PSA 9s and 10s they start to lose their premium, which is PSA ‘s calling card. So the toughen their standards to keep the supply down.
@rexvos no kidding. I am not stomping my feet and saying PSA is correct and how dare you!!! I am offering my opinion in effort to help this guy. I have gotten my share of bad grades but a 2 is way off and whenever they have been wayoff i.e. a 4 when I thought it was a 10, I get it back and it had a wrinkle that likely wasnt there or a spider wrinkle that I missed or paper loss that I missed. Considering the original scan looks like it was scanned with a toaster I am doing the best I can to offer help. ( no offense to the OP about the toaster ref) my toaster does not even scan so you are doing better than me.
The one thing that comes to mind regarding the plethora of 6s and 7s (i.e., stricter grading) now being dolled out is this... Is it possible that back centering is now weighted the same as the front? In the past, centering on the back didn't matter as much (although it did matter). This was my experience anyway with my cards.
This could very well be true but it is not ethical. Grading standards should not change to protect the brand or profit margin. The standards should be the same no matter the circumstances. They have doubled the prices,, extended turnaround times decidedly, limited services offered to nothing, and are now seemingly punishing loyal customers with stricter grading standards? Why would anyone continue to submit?
edit to add: Aside from highly valuable cards, that is?
None taken. I thought it was funny and you're right. My scanner is horrible. I am going to get a new one.
@bobbybakeriv I would crack that out and get a good look at it in hand. hold it up to the light at different angles.
See if you see any issues, The card doesn't obviously have much value at all in a 2, and I doubt many collectors are looking for a 1 to 10 run on the 76 Vida Blue although you never can tell. Very curious as to what you determine. Also did you sub these with no qualifiers? The Nettles and Carew might be 8 pd's or something, snow is real common on the 76's I have a few in for grading myself right now.
Absolutely no way that Blue is a 2!!! I went with a 7 on the nettles because I see a few print dots and the Carew is off center so that’s why I said 6. That Blue is close to being the best looking of the 3 cards (the nettles would be without the print dots). I recently bought a 1954 Eddie Mathews that was graded a 3 and it is nowhere close to as good of quality as that vida blue! Yes that grader should be sent to the shipping department and then, only be allowed to pack the slabs in the boxes. I wouldn’t trust that person to put a shipping label on the box because clearly their eyes aren’t very good! That is total BS and you need to be getting in touch with someone about that. Whoever graded that, and the person who reviewed it in QA1, needs to be removed from the grading department. Sorry you got disappointing grades on all of these but hopefully you can get that one overturned.
I have had my share of foolish grades returned recently, crackouts that drop 2-3 grades when they looked high end as an example but this thread shows one thing , if you want to pick at a card you can always find something.
Many of the comments in this thread I think signify what is going on in the grading room. You get an inexperienced grader staring at 2019 production quality cards all day long then they go and get a sub of 70's topps cards. What we have thought was a nice 8/9 card in the past , they see as poor quality and it must be a 5 or 6 if all the new cards they have looked at all day are 9's and 10's
I don't understand. . .
I believe the grades are very accurate. They are the foremost experts in the world at card grading and all cards go to at least 2 graders a reviewer and 2 QAs. That Vida Blue has to be the lowest end card I have ever viewed. I mean it's 51-49 centered and that is terrible centering for vintage. If it was in to PWCC it would be a PSA 2 LE not HE. I also want to say thank you for showing this as I will be sitting on the sidelines for awhile. WOW. In all honesty....sorry as you spent money for this and it is flat out wrong.
Thanks again friends. It is bizarre but I honestly think I am going to keep it as a reminder of the times. And a nice conversation piece with me and some of my pals. Heck, on a fun poker night I might break it out for a few side wagers. LOL Good luck with your grades all! I hope things swing back around to normal soon. Bobby
Ouch. I read the PSA grading standards for a PSA 2...that's a head scratcher. I recommend having another set of eyes look it over. Had similar experience last year when my childhood collection 1970 Ernie Banks came back a PSA 3. I thought it would merit a 6 or 7. Months later, a friend found a very light crease/wrinkle on the back, that could only be seen if the light hit it a certain way.
Agree.
>
I wonder if they are using a robot or seeing eye dog to grade them cards.
This doesn't make sense to me. Grading a bunch of cards high affects the secondary card market (dilution of supply) but it doesn't diminish the PSA brand in any way as long as it is accurate. You know what does damage a brand though? Grading cards lower than they should be to help the bell curve. PSA has to know this.
Put it this way: Do you think that whichever grading company has a lower population of 9's and 10's is going to be the stronger brand? I don't. In fact, I would bet that there are many cards out there have a lower population under BGS or SGC than PSA just due to PSA's popularity. Having that lower population does not help those brands become king of the grading hill.
This is exactly how PSA became #1. Because their cards were perceived to be more strictly graded a PSA card with the same grade as another TPG will generally sell for more.
If you then add in the fact that many of us send the same card back in to be regraded hoping for a "bump", it becomes even more obvious that stricter grades are smart.
ASA quickly went out of business, I think they were the first grading company. I bought a ASA 8 that was about 3 grades too high, refused to buy from them again.
Finally, too many 10's certainly could effect demand. On the newer cards, 9's, (even though they are mint) are worth 10-25% of what a 10 is worth. If PSA is getting 100,000 cards a day, it's not good for anyone if they start giving out too many 10's.
Except of course if it's on our sub. ;-)
Regarding the OP, I am a bit surprised at all the comments on grades when scans are of this quality. I am betting that there is something wrong with the Vida Blue card. I have had "vastly undergraded" cards come back and upon cracking out found a defect.
If two graders looked at it and saw something that caused them to give it a 2, it probably has a major (though not easy to spot) flaw.
Of course it could just be a mistake on PSA's part too.
Just a wild guess: I wonder if the grader fat-fingered and meant to type "5" in the system instead of 2. With a grade like this, further explanation is needed as to why it graded as such. Judging from the scan, it wouldn't look out of place in a 6 holder like the other 2 cards.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
Yeah, the scans suck, no doubt. I agree that I could have missed something. Heck, I have before. But, in those cases (e.g., small surface wrinkle, print imperfection), I have never received lower than a 5. I get that part. There is NO way this is a 2. Notta chance. However, I am going to keep it as is so that I can confidently state that I own one of the finest PSA 2s on the planet! It's not worth anything as a 5 either. LOL
I sent in a Venezuelan once certain it would grade a 6. Came back a 2, I was furious, cracked it out and after looking at it in direct sunlight, I could see that it appeared to have been glued into a binder at one time. The "gloss" on the back was (nearly) imperceivably duller on part of the card. Sent it back in and it's now a 4.
I agree that the 2 on your card is baffling!
I have a buddy that looks at my cards before I send them in and even though I am pretty good, he usually finds a couple of rejects. The same on when I look at his cards.
Buy a scanner they are worth the investment!!!!
I guess I take the OP's word that there is nothing wrong with the surface, and it is easy to see that the corners and centering are easily better than a 2.
People, including myself, often miss defects. It's obvious the card appears to be "easily better than a 2". As I stated in my post regarding a Venezuelan I subbed, you might miss (for example) glue residue.
I don't want to pick on the OP, but you simply must provide good scans when you post complaints on grading. The cards looked like 8's or better to me when I first saw them, but I didn't "guess the grade" because of the low resolution.
PSA also makes mistakes, it could simply be a typo. Just one reason it would be nice if PSA supplied the reason a card like this gets hammered.
Just to give some insight and a comparison. The card below is a 3 and you can easily see why. I bought this 3 weeks ago from Sirius’s auction.
That Vida Blue looks WAY better than my 3
As I have mentioned, I have certainly missed things before. Small indentations or a surface wrinkle, etc. In these cases I've received a 5 and moved right along my merry way. I could live with that for this card too. I guess the bottom line is that I just can't see this card being a 2. It is dumbfounding. It just shows me that PSA grading (right now) is a mixed bag and I am not going to be submitting anything anytime in the near future (even though that isn't even an option currently). I have four subs in right now of about 100 cards and I REALLY wish I didn't. The grading seems to be all over the place and standards aren't clear to me presently. Thanks for all the feedback. BTW - I am still wondering if centering on the backs of cards is now graded as strictly as the fronts? This hadn't been the case before. Bobby