My $50 Value just moved in to QA1 and order was entered on 5/12/22
Expecting 7.5 or higher on the Vintage. If not, it was like playing the horses and i tear up the ticket.
1939 W.A. & A.C. CHURCHMAN KINGS OF SPEED 45 JESSE OWENS
1951 BOWMAN 218 ED LOPAT
1952 BOWMAN 73 JERRY COLEMAN
1952 BOWMAN 241 MEL PARNELL
1952 TOPPS 57 ED LOPAT (BLACK BACK)
1953 TOPPS 137 JOHN RUTHERFORD
1954 BOWMAN 81 JERRY COLEMAN 1.000/.975 FIELD AVG.
1954 BOWMAN 224 WILLIAM BRUTON
1955 TOPPS 158 TOM CARROLL
1955 TOPPS 199 BERT HAMRIC
1956 TOPPS 190 CARL FURILLO
1963 TOPPS 2 AL BATTING LEADERS--Mantle
1963 TOPPS 550 DUKE SNIDER
1961 TOPPS 260 DON DRYSDALE
Expecting 9 or higher on the modern
2017 PANINI CROWN ROYALE 84 PATRICK MAHOMES II
2001 RUSSIAN ICE YOUNG LIONS 3 ALEXANDER OVECHKIN YOUNG LIONS
2001 RUSSIAN ICE DYNAMO MOSCOW HC 15 ALEXANDER OVECHKIN DYNAMO MOSCOW HC
2000 QUANTUM LEAF 343 TOM BRADY
2001 UPPER DECK GOLF 1 TIGER WOODS
2001 UPPER DECK GOLF 1 TIGER WOODS
Well I spoke to soon. I dont know how many times I got kicked in the face just now. Just had a vintage sub where I can see the grades. I have never in my life seen something so comical. Cards were 1958 Commons. All were amazing and I was thinking 8 or better on all of them. I even cracked out 7 PSA 8s that I thought would 9. I got nothing but 4-5s and like 3 7s. 60 cards total. Not a single 8.
I almost dont even want them back. So So So bad. 1958 commons in 5s!! Break even value for this issue and grading is a 7. And 8s only go for like 20-30.00. I wasnt sending them 5 quality stuff. Been grading since 1996.
Ugggggglllyyyy
That's terrible. I wouldn't even send in vintage to PSA anymore. It seems like they've either shrunk the goal posts so small that no one can get any decent grades or their new graders have no experience with older cards at all.
@MarshallFaulk28 said:
That's terrible. I wouldn't even send in vintage to PSA anymore. It seems like they've either shrunk the goal posts so small that no one can get any decent grades or their new graders have no experience with older cards at all.
@MarshallFaulk28 said:
That's terrible. I wouldn't even send in vintage to PSA anymore. It seems like they've either shrunk the goal posts so small that no one can get any decent grades or their new graders have no experience with older cards at all.
it's so inconsistent and hit or miss it's crazy. it seems like a mad rush to catch up. the new graders probably aren't supposed to get anything but ultra modern but then a vintage slips and comes down the conveyor belt and they slap crappy grades on them all because the cards aren't 9's or 10's and they don't know else to do ......... frustrating.
have heard this story many times, I honestly don't think PSA has said tighten the standards like SGC has done, I think there are just too many graders who know nothing about cards and have not been trained on anything prior to 2020.
The sad thing for PSA if the issue is with the lack of experience of the new graders is that their QA staff must also be incompetent. If they have inexperienced QA grading inexperienced graders then that is a problem. How are the graders to learn that way?
@handyman said:
Well I spoke to soon. I dont know how many times I got kicked in the face just now. Just had a vintage sub where I can see the grades. I have never in my life seen something so comical. Cards were 1958 Commons. All were amazing and I was thinking 8 or better on all of them. I even cracked out 7 PSA 8s that I thought would 9. I got nothing but 4-5s and like 3 7s. 60 cards total. Not a single 8.
I almost dont even want them back. So So So bad. 1958 commons in 5s!! Break even value for this issue and grading is a 7. And 8s only go for like 20-30.00. I wasnt sending them 5 quality stuff. Been grading since 1996.
Ugggggglllyyyy
My Swinging Sixties special cards were all like 5’s and 6’s under the old standards - just wanted them graded at such a nice price - posts like yours make me think they will all be 3’s these days.
@handyman said:
Well I spoke to soon. I dont know how many times I got kicked in the face just now. Just had a vintage sub where I can see the grades. I have never in my life seen something so comical. Cards were 1958 Commons. All were amazing and I was thinking 8 or better on all of them. I even cracked out 7 PSA 8s that I thought would 9. I got nothing but 4-5s and like 3 7s. 60 cards total. Not a single 8.
I almost dont even want them back. So So So bad. 1958 commons in 5s!! Break even value for this issue and grading is a 7. And 8s only go for like 20-30.00. I wasnt sending them 5 quality stuff. Been grading since 1996.
Ugggggglllyyyy
I feel you, man. This is why I've stopped sending cards in for grading. I only do 60s & 70s and I've gotten hammered since they re-opened. I won't send anymore until things change. I keep hearing from big-time dealers that the company knows how much grumbling is going on, but I haven't seen anything change yet. Making your customers angry seems like a bad way to stay on top.
Ugh. I have another 500 there now only 50-60s with fees around 6-7k. Pretty nervous right now. It’s a total loss with how they graded the 1st vintage batch.
I don't send in cards unless I feel they are 8s or better. I've gotten hammered lately. PSA is really pushing vintage collectors away. You shouldn't change the game midstream. It's not fair.
@bobbybakeriv said:
I don't send in cards unless I feel they are 8s or better. I've gotten hammered lately. PSA is really vintage collectors away. You shouldn't change the game midstream. It's not fair.
Agreed Bobby, you don’t change the way you grade midstream. Eventually, a psa 10 that was graded 10 years ago will be worth a LOT less then a card that was graded in 2022. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Well I spoke to soon. I dont know how many times I got kicked in the face just now. Just had a vintage sub where I can see the grades. I have never in my life seen something so comical. Cards were 1958 Commons. All were amazing and I was thinking 8 or better on all of them. I even cracked out 7 PSA 8s that I thought would 9. I got nothing but 4-5s and like 3 7s. 60 cards total. Not a single 8.
I almost dont even want them back. So So So bad. 1958 commons in 5s!! Break even value for this issue and grading is a 7. And 8s only go for like 20-30.00. I wasnt sending them 5 quality stuff. Been grading since 1996.
Ugggggglllyyyy
crazy what the grading team seems to be turning out these days...that is amazing...yet sad...if an entire order seems to be this far off, I would almost see if I could contact someone at PSA and ask if they can have an experienced grader review the entire order. You paid for an accurate service, so if you feel the entire order is undergraded, it can't hurt to see if something can be done.
@bobbybakeriv said:
I don't send in cards unless I feel they are 8s or better. I've gotten hammered lately. PSA is really vintage collectors away. You shouldn't change the game midstream. It's not fair.
Agreed Bobby, you don’t change the way you grade midstream. Eventually, a psa 10 that was graded 10 years ago will be worth a LOT less then a card that was graded in 2022. Doesn’t make sense to me.
You can see it on Ebay already. The new flips command a premium. You have been around a long time so I know you have a good grading eye. Modern cards are different. Technology has changed things. But a 1975 Topps card is not the same as a 2020 Topps Chrome..
Sorry to hear that about the '58 submission. That year is notorious for the paper's surface having 'waves'. I can see where a newbe grader used to handling refractors would think the cards are creased/wrinkled. If they know nothing about vintage, they would see those as 5s or 6s. It's really disheartening how the new graders are destroying PSA's reputation on vintage. With the economy on the heels of a recession and easy money soon to be drying up, the good times are soon to end. PSA will need our vintage submissions when speculators stop submitting high pop Zion rookies by the hundreds for grading.
@gemint said:
Sorry to hear that about the '58 submission. That year is notorious for the paper's surface having 'waves'. I can see where a newbe grader used to handling refractors would think the cards are creased/wrinkled. If they know nothing about vintage, they would see those as 5s or 6s. It's really disheartening how the new graders are destroying PSA's reputation on vintage. With the economy on the heels of a recession and easy money soon to be drying up, the good times are soon to end. PSA will need our vintage submissions when speculators stop submitting high pop Zion rookies by the hundreds for grading.
when I listen to the podcasts it doesn't seem like needing vintage is in the business plan
Value vintage (62 cards):
Shipped: 2/18/21
PSA Arrived: 2/22/21
Research & ID: 4/5/21
Grading: 10/25/21
Assembly: 5/11/22
QA 1: 6/7/22
QA 2: 6/9/22
Popped: 6/14/22
(Sorry if this is a repeat post, I don't think my first one made it through and the formatting was probably weird.)
Another midnight-ish poppage email! All baseball: 2 1951 Topps Red Back, 45 1955 Topps, 11 1963 Fleer, and a few odds and ends. Although there were a fair number of complete duds that graded way worse than I thought they would, that was more than made up for by way more great grades than expected; I'm thrilled! I expected no more than 6 8s in the 1955s, but I got 13! More tomorrow...
But what I dont understand is with these specific specials. Example swinging 60s why would it go to someone with no clue how to grade swinging 60s? But only 2022 cards. Frustrating
Looking back I wonder if it were better to send multiple submissions with fewer cards in each. For the bigger ones I sent (30+) you tend to know how things are going after seeing the first few cards and grades.
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
I have 10 orders currently from 20-120 cards in each. That is my only hope 1 might get to the right grader I guess.
I too would not want all my cards in one order with everything to consider now.
Anybody have a sense of how long Assembly phase has been taking lately for the 2021 bulk orders? Mine have been in assembly for about 5 weeks now. That seems longer than in the past, but nowadays everything is different, so you never know.
@gemint said:
Sorry to hear that about the '58 submission. That year is notorious for the paper's surface having 'waves'. I can see where a newbe grader used to handling refractors would think the cards are creased/wrinkled. If they know nothing about vintage, they would see those as 5s or 6s. It's really disheartening how the new graders are destroying PSA's reputation on vintage. With the economy on the heels of a recession and easy money soon to be drying up, the good times are soon to end. PSA will need our vintage submissions when speculators stop submitting high pop Zion rookies by the hundreds for grading.
@gemint said:
Sorry to hear that about the '58 submission. That year is notorious for the paper's surface having 'waves'. I can see where a newbe grader used to handling refractors would think the cards are creased/wrinkled. If they know nothing about vintage, they would see those as 5s or 6s. It's really disheartening how the new graders are destroying PSA's reputation on vintage. With the economy on the heels of a recession and easy money soon to be drying up, the good times are soon to end. PSA will need our vintage submissions when speculators stop submitting high pop Zion rookies by the hundreds for grading.
yes but the cards are supposed to be graded by 2 people and a third person a tie breaker, how can 2 people probably 3 get it wrong ?
@gemint said:
Sorry to hear that about the '58 submission. That year is notorious for the paper's surface having 'waves'. I can see where a newbe grader used to handling refractors would think the cards are creased/wrinkled. If they know nothing about vintage, they would see those as 5s or 6s. It's really disheartening how the new graders are destroying PSA's reputation on vintage. With the economy on the heels of a recession and easy money soon to be drying up, the good times are soon to end. PSA will need our vintage submissions when speculators stop submitting high pop Zion rookies by the hundreds for grading.
@gemint said:
Sorry to hear that about the '58 submission. That year is notorious for the paper's surface having 'waves'. I can see where a newbe grader used to handling refractors would think the cards are creased/wrinkled. If they know nothing about vintage, they would see those as 5s or 6s. It's really disheartening how the new graders are destroying PSA's reputation on vintage. With the economy on the heels of a recession and easy money soon to be drying up, the good times are soon to end. PSA will need our vintage submissions when speculators stop submitting high pop Zion rookies by the hundreds for grading.
yes but the cards are supposed to be graded by 2 people and a third person a tie breaker, how can 2 people probably 3 get it wrong ?
Happens way too often. I could crack and submit in the $6-12 days begrudgingly and usually they would get it right but now you have to wait 3 years and pay $60+ for them to get their act together
@Statman said:
Anybody have a sense of how long Assembly phase has been taking lately for the 2021 bulk orders? Mine have been in assembly for about 5 weeks now. That seems longer than in the past, but nowadays everything is different, so you never know.
Mine have been in Assembly since May 4th. Looks to be about the same as you.
Okay, now for the full story, first the grades with my predictions in bold at the end of each line:
1 1 58960786 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1951 Topps Red Back 30 Warren Spahn (7)
2 1 58960787 GOOD 2 1951 Topps Red Back 38 Duke Snider (5)
3 1 58960788 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 12 Jake Thies (7)
4 1 58960789 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 16 Roy Sievers (6)
5 1 58960790 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 22 Bill Skowron (7.5)
6 1 58960791 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 30 Vic Power (6)
7 1 58960792 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT+ 4.5 1955 Topps 43 Harvey Haddix (6)
8 1 58960793 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 44 Corky Valentine (6)
9 1 58960794 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 55 Rip Repulski (6.5)
10 1 58960795 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 56 Ray Jablonski (6)
11 1 58960796 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 69 Ed Bailey (7)
12 1 58960797 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1955 Topps 74 Bob Borkowski (7)
13 1 58960798 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1955 Topps 74 Bob Borkowski (6)
14 1 58960799 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 75 Sandy Amoros (6)
15 1 58960800 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 76 Howie Pollet (7)
16 1 58960801 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 80 Bob Grim (6)
17 1 58960802 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 87 Frank House (6)
18 1 58960803 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 88 Bob Skinner (7)
19 1 58960804 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 93 Steve Bilko (7)
20 1 58960805 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 100 Monte Irvin (6)
21 1 58960806 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 102 Wally Westlake (7)
22 1 58960807 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 104 Jack Harshman (7)
23 1 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1955 Topps 105 Chuck Diering (7.5)
24 1 58960809 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 105 Chuck Diering (7)
25 1 58960810 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 113 Harry Brecheen (7)
26 1 58960811 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 115 Ellis Kinder (7)
27 1 58960812 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 121 Bill Renna (7.5)
28 1 58960813 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 122 Carl Sawatski (6)
29 1 58960814 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 126 Dick Hall (7)
30 1 58960815 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 127 Dale Long (7.5)
31 1 58960816 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 128 Ted Lepcio (7)
32 1 58960817 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 129 Elvin Tappe (7)
33 1 58960818 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 131 Grady Hatton (8)
34 1 58960819 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 136 Bunky Stewart (7)
35 1 58960820 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 138 Ray Herbert (6)
36 1 58960821 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 144 Joe Amalfitano (7)
37 1 58960822 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 149 Ray Crone (8)
38 1 58960823 NEAR MINT+ 7.5 1955 Topps 162 Joe Coleman (6)
39 1 58960824 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 172 Frank Baumholtz (7)
40 1 58960825 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 173 Bob Kline (7)
41 1 58960826 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 174 Rudy Minarcin (6)
42 1 58960827 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 177 Jim Robertson (7)
43 1 58960828 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 179 Jim Bolger (5)
44 1 58960829 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 181 Roy McMillan (6)
45 1 58960830 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 193 Johnny Sain (7)
46 1 58960831 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1955 Topps 197 Al Smith (6)
47 1 58960832 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT+ 4.5 1955 Topps 199 Bert Hamric (6)
48 1 58960833 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1957 Topps 219 Tom Acker (8)
49 1 58960834 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 9 Ray Herbert (8)
50 1 58960835 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 13 Jerry Kindall (8)
51 1 58960836 NEAR MINT 7 1963 Fleer 15 Dick Howser (8)
52 1 58960837 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 17 Norm Siebern (8)
53 1 58960838 NEAR MINT 7 ST 1963 Fleer 25 Bobby Richardson (7)
54 1 58960839 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 32 Ron Santo (7)
55 1 58960840 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 45 Warren Spahn (7)
56 1 58960841 NEAR MINT+ 7.5 1963 Fleer 53 Don Demeter (8)
57 1 58960842 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 58 Vernon Law (8)
58 1 58960843 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1963 Fleer 59 Bill Mazeroski (7)
59 1 58960844 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 61 Bob Gibson (8)
60 1 58960845 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1963 Topps 126 Bob Uecker (5)
61 1 58960846 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1968 Topps Game 21 Frank Howard (8)
62 1 58960847 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1971 Topps 300 Brooks Robinson (6)
Nearly all of these were purchased raw online in 2020 with a few childhood cards and a few slab breaks.
The 1951 Red Backs came from an allegedly unopened 2-card "Doubles" pack. With 2 HOFers, I'm inclined to believe it. The Snider had some light creasing on the front and knew my 5 guess was very optimistic, but 2?. I was definitely hoping for an 8 on the Spahn, and apparently I was overly concerned about the centering.
My guesses were all over the place relative to PSA for the 1955 Topps, but I certainly can't complain! A lot of these come from a time when I wasn't sure if I was going for all graded cards for set, and I was generally shooting for NM condition. Even with 10 cards at PSA 5 or lower and one N1, I hit 13 8s! In my guesses, 7.5 was code for not being able to decide between 7 or 8, so there were only 6 cards that I thought could get an 8; of those only the N1 didn't. The Roy Sievers was the big financial win of the submission; $8 in an ebay auction and worth...a lot more (there are only 4 better in the pop report). But, I'm keeping almost all of the most valuable cards (the Monte Irvin being the big exception), so it's more about getting them cheaper than buying already slabbed. In the 16(!) months since I sent these in, I bought graded versions of many of these cards so a lot of these don't improve my collection, but I'm up to 80% complete and into the top 100 on the Set Registry. Slab cracks among these:
22 Bill Skowron SGC 7.5 ---> PSA 8
80 Bob Grim GAI 7.5 ---> PSA 7
127 Dale Long SGC 88/8 ---> PSA 8
149 Ray Crone SGC 88/8 ---> PSA 8
My guesses for the 1963 Fleer were a lot more in line with PSA, except for the Maz. The Gibson was especially nice because I probably paid too much originally, but certainly worth it now. A project that's on the back, back, back burner is this set in all 8s, and now I'm up to 18 out of 63, but it will be a long time before I get serious about this set again.
The 1963 Uecker and 1971 Robinson were childhood cards from the 1980s and I got them slabbed for sentimental reasons.
So, I'm obviously very happy with this one. Apparently I got a grader(s) who are familiar with the idiosyncrasies of vintage cards. Obviously, I'm not evaluating potential defects in the same way as PSA and my lack of experience shows. I have way more 1955 slabs now than when I sent these in, so I will have to see what I think about my cards when I see them soon.
Many of the results are very disappointing to read. Waiting so long for results only to get punched in the stomach. I had an order pop this morning that’s easily the worst results in my years of grading. The majority of what I grade are Topps Tiffany cards and I’ve been doing it a while. My last order popped at the end of March and I hit a 55% gem rate with 40% 9s and 5% 8 or less. That’s in-line with past results, although I’ve gotten more picky with what I submit over time. I expected a slight improvement with better card selection but that’s still a level I’m pretty happy with.
My order that popped today had 32 gems out of 132 cards spread over 85-91 Topps Tiffany for 24%. I’d be ok with that if the ones that didn’t 10 we’re still mostly 9s but there were so many 7s and 8s. But only hit 31 9s for 23%. 53% of the order was 6-8s compared to 5% last order. That part really baffles me. I try to only send cards with no noticeable damaged that I believe are solid 9s with decent shots at a 10. This was my second order after prices went from $9 to $12 and I thought these last 2 subs were my pickiest yet.
Sorry for the long rant but just wanted to share this recent experience to add to the others in a similar position.
Does the same grader handle all the cards in your order or do the get split up? The weird thing is that the 87s are usually the year I have the most trouble with. Of the 16 87s in this order I hit 14 10s 1 9 and 1 8. Much higher than my usual and totally out of line with the rest of the results. It seems weird if only one grader handled this order.
I’m hoping this was a one off harsh grader thing and not the future of grading. I had an order hit QA2 yesterday so I’ll find out before too long. I guess the good news is with the new value service only covering 1996 and later it will be awhile before I can submit my usual order again. Hopefully they can get this resolved soon.
@Teri12357 said:
My $50 Value just moved in to QA1 and order was entered on 5/12/22
Expecting 7.5 or higher on the Vintage. If not, it was like playing the horses and i tear up the ticket.
1939 W.A. & A.C. CHURCHMAN KINGS OF SPEED 45 JESSE OWENS---PSA 7
1951 BOWMAN 218 ED LOPAT
1952 BOWMAN 73 JERRY COLEMAN
1952 BOWMAN 241 MEL PARNELL
1952 TOPPS 57 ED LOPAT (BLACK BACK)
1953 TOPPS 137 JOHN RUTHERFORD
1954 BOWMAN 81 JERRY COLEMAN 1.000/.975 FIELD AVG.
1954 BOWMAN 224 WILLIAM BRUTON----PSA 7
1955 TOPPS 158 TOM CARROLL
1955 TOPPS 199 BERT HAMRIC
1956 TOPPS 190 CARL FURILLO
1963 TOPPS 2 AL BATTING LEADERS--Mantle
1963 TOPPS 550 DUKE SNIDER
1961 TOPPS 260 DON DRYSDALE---PSA7
Expecting 9 or higher on the modern
2017 PANINI CROWN ROYALE 84 PATRICK MAHOMES II----PSA 10
2001 RUSSIAN ICE YOUNG LIONS 3 ALEXANDER OVECHKIN YOUNG LIONS ---PSA 9
2001 RUSSIAN ICE DYNAMO MOSCOW HC 15 ALEXANDER OVECHKIN DYNAMO MOSCOW HC---PSA 8
2000 QUANTUM LEAF 343 TOM BRADY---PSA 8
2001 UPPER DECK GOLF 1 TIGER WOODS----PSA 10
2001 UPPER DECK GOLF 1 TIGER WOODS----PSA 9
Grades are in and the Vintage was a complete kill by PSA. Nothing above a 6 except for 3 cards.
New stuff was dead on what i expected. Hopefully SGC doesn't destroy my other order hanging out there.
Well, back to the ponies for me for awhile. True story... while at Santa Anita one day i played a 2 horse Exacta Box with the two logical favorites that should have blown away the field. My first first horse hit the side of the gate on the break dumping the jockey. My second horse broke down going around the clubhouse turn. Handicap that!!!
2 1 58960787 GOOD 2 1951 Topps Red Back 38 Duke Snider (5)
4 1 58960789 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 16 Roy Sievers (6)
6 1 58960791 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 30 Vic Power (6)
12 1 58960797 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1955 Topps 74 Bob Borkowski (7)
So, I'm obviously very happy with this one. Apparently I got a grader(s) who are familiar with the idiosyncrasies of vintage cards. Obviously, I'm not evaluating potential defects in the same way as PSA and my lack of experience shows. I have way more 1955 slabs now than when I sent these in, so I will have to see what I think about my cards when I see them soon.
I have the cards in hand now and it does seem that I was being a bit harsh on some of my guesses now that I see them again. At the very least, most of the cards that came out better than I expected were consistent with the low end of that grade among my other 1955 slabs. A few photos from notable cards; I don't have a scanner set up right now, so these aren't the best of photos. The backs on all of them look fine.
The chipping in the bottom left and the two bottom corners is presumably what led me to guess 6 on the Sievers (the lighter smudges to the left of his face are not on the card) and I'm still surprised it got an 8:
I guess I was overreacting to the centering here:
In many of the ones that were 2 or 3 grades lower than I predicted, I can see the problems. However, this may be the best looking 4 I've ever seen; presumably a surface issue that doesn't show up well in the slab:
It does occur to me that I seemed to be buying raw cards that had really good color so that may have helped. Finally, the creasing on the 1951 Red Back Snider was more extensive than I remember, so while I think a 2 is a bit low, I wouldn't think twice about a 3. Very nice to have these in hand again!
The Sievers does not look 8 worthy to me. The centering on the Powers doesn't bother me but the corners do. The centering is borderline for an 8 but not out of spec. I just hope PSA becomes more consistent as the new graders get more experience. It shouldn't be a crapshoot guessing how harshly or loosely they are going to grade an order (mostly harshly based on feedback posted over the past year).
Just got back from a friend's house where we looked over my most recent returned submission, full of what should have been 10s with a few scattered bummer PSA 9s. Most of the sub came back in PSA 7 slabs!! I've been complaining about how much more strict the grading at PSA has been during the clearing of the backlog. But in this case I was DEAD WRONG!! Upon closer inspection, PSA gave my last submission hyper-accurate grades.
Here's the kicker, though...
These flippin motards DAMAGED nearly every single card in the submission in the same exact spot - the bottom left corner. EVERY CARD was a PSA 7 or PSA 8, and every one had the exact same corner ding. My friend noticed the pattern first - it could not have been more obvious. I spend so much time going through cards and discarding the ones that won't hold up to scrutiny. I have graded many thousands with PSA and never sent in any with corners like this. It's absolutely criminal what these people are doing to our collectibles.
I'm not spending time taking pictures of junk era 7s with dinged corners from PSA. I'm not going to pursue any kind of reimbursement. What kind of service did I expect for $8-$12 per card? Better than this - but I guess maybe that's my own fault?
Until I hear that all the sloppy handlers were caught and fired and PSA has new QC processes in place, I would not send anything of value to this piss poor company. And my PC is 99% PSA.
@msubearfan said:
Many of the results are very disappointing to read. Waiting so long for results only to get punched in the stomach. I had an order pop this morning that’s easily the worst results in my years of grading. The majority of what I grade are Topps Tiffany cards and I’ve been doing it a while. My last order popped at the end of March and I hit a 55% gem rate with 40% 9s and 5% 8 or less. That’s in-line with past results, although I’ve gotten more picky with what I submit over time. I expected a slight improvement with better card selection but that’s still a level I’m pretty happy with.
My order that popped today had 32 gems out of 132 cards spread over 85-91 Topps Tiffany for 24%. I’d be ok with that if the ones that didn’t 10 we’re still mostly 9s but there were so many 7s and 8s. But only hit 31 9s for 23%. 53% of the order was 6-8s compared to 5% last order. That part really baffles me. I try to only send cards with no noticeable damaged that I believe are solid 9s with decent shots at a 10. This was my second order after prices went from $9 to $12 and I thought these last 2 subs were my pickiest yet.
Sorry for the long rant but just wanted to share this recent experience to add to the others in a similar position.
Does the same grader handle all the cards in your order or do the get split up? The weird thing is that the 87s are usually the year I have the most trouble with. Of the 16 87s in this order I hit 14 10s 1 9 and 1 8. Much higher than my usual and totally out of line with the rest of the results. It seems weird if only one grader handled this order.
I’m hoping this was a one off harsh grader thing and not the future of grading. I had an order hit QA2 yesterday so I’ll find out before too long. I guess the good news is with the new value service only covering 1996 and later it will be awhile before I can submit my usual order again. Hopefully they can get this resolved soon.
Your story is very familiar. Check your 7s. Bet you find some dings that we not there when you sent them.
@athleticsfan said:
I don't understand why my CC membership has resumed despite some service levels remaining locked. Really feeling screwed by this company.
Makes you wonder. How is it not a form of bait-and-switch? Subscribe to us for $X and you get Y-benefits for Z-amount of time. And then they completely change the arrangement mid-stream.
I really don't want to dislike this company but they make so many choices that are just undeniably anti-customer.
@StatsGuy said:
Looking back I wonder if it were better to send multiple submissions with fewer cards in each. For the bigger ones I sent (30+) you tend to know how things are going after seeing the first few cards and grades.
I did this prior to the backlog. Had very many orders in with 20-40 cards each. It should have helped to some degree. It didn't. I genuinely hope you have better luck.
@thehallmark said:
Just got back from a friend's house where we looked over my most recent returned submission, full of what should have been 10s with a few scattered bummer PSA 9s. Most of the sub came back in PSA 7 slabs!! I've been complaining about how much more strict the grading at PSA has been during the clearing of the backlog. But in this case I was DEAD WRONG!! Upon closer inspection, PSA gave my last submission hyper-accurate grades.
Here's the kicker, though...
These flippin motards DAMAGED nearly every single card in the submission in the same exact spot - the bottom left corner. EVERY CARD was a PSA 7 or PSA 8, and every one had the exact same corner ding. My friend noticed the pattern first - it could not have been more obvious. I spend so much time going through cards and discarding the ones that won't hold up to scrutiny. I have graded many thousands with PSA and never sent in any with corners like this. It's absolutely criminal what these people are doing to our collectibles.
I'm not spending time taking pictures of junk era 7s with dinged corners from PSA. I'm not going to pursue any kind of reimbursement. What kind of service did I expect for $8-$12 per card? Better than this - but I guess maybe that's my own fault?
Until I hear that all the sloppy handlers were caught and fired and PSA has new QC processes in place, I would not send anything of value to this piss poor company. And my PC is 99% PSA.
That is scary. I had an order where 15% was damaged and I was reimbursed fairly, but not on the scale you are describing. If I were you I would reach out, that type of damage needs to be highlighted so it stops occurring. Every moment the card is handled is apparently recorded on video, they should be able to see what was happening, whether they will admit to it is another matter entirely. Check your pm
@thehallmark said:
Just got back from a friend's house where we looked over my most recent returned submission, full of what should have been 10s with a few scattered bummer PSA 9s. Most of the sub came back in PSA 7 slabs!! I've been complaining about how much more strict the grading at PSA has been during the clearing of the backlog. But in this case I was DEAD WRONG!! Upon closer inspection, PSA gave my last submission hyper-accurate grades.
Here's the kicker, though...
These flippin motards DAMAGED nearly every single card in the submission in the same exact spot - the bottom left corner. EVERY CARD was a PSA 7 or PSA 8, and every one had the exact same corner ding. My friend noticed the pattern first - it could not have been more obvious. I spend so much time going through cards and discarding the ones that won't hold up to scrutiny. I have graded many thousands with PSA and never sent in any with corners like this. It's absolutely criminal what these people are doing to our collectibles.
I'm not spending time taking pictures of junk era 7s with dinged corners from PSA. I'm not going to pursue any kind of reimbursement. What kind of service did I expect for $8-$12 per card? Better than this - but I guess maybe that's my own fault?
Until I hear that all the sloppy handlers were caught and fired and PSA has new QC processes in place, I would not send anything of value to this piss poor company. And my PC is 99% PSA.
Hello. I wish you'd contact customer service. They should have to pay for damages. This seems to be happening way too often now. Good luck and sorry to hear about the damage.
2 graders...lol, regardless of their suggesting otherwise I assure you that doesn't happen. Now as far as two different graders on 1 order grading different cards on the order, that likely happens regularly but there's no chance that each card gets looked at by two different graders. Cards getting damaged during the process has only become a more frequent occurrence in recent weeks as I've run into it as well. I actually believe that breaking down orders into 20-40 card batches is beneficial for the reason of no losing your aaa because some idiot has your order land on his desk. Apparently the grader of death multiplied so it's like playing the game show press your luck and trying to dodge the whammy but even if you hit it you don't wanna have much money at risk. I sent in 10000 cards 18 or so months ago in the form of 300 orders with that objective precisely in mind....it doesn't hurt quite as bad when that degenerate ends up with your order and completely ruining it, assuming your cards werent already dropped by someone and the corners all wasted. I guess my question is how on earth with all of this rushing around and flying through processes, do things somehow slow down....shouldn''t this be the part where everything is downhill and easier than before? i know they don't care about our concerns as they've made that very clear in a numbers of ways...but seriously, how are you actually getting worse as the workload supposedly gets lighter. I'm pretty sure my jaw would be on the floor if I was able to see what goes on inside that building in a regular days work I still have around 40 orders left and I'm just hoping that they don't butcher too many of them. I don't know what their goals are or if they even have any but for the love of God can we finish up the backlog before the recession hits because the idea of it taking 18 months to complete a 25 card order is just plain ridiculous not that it isn't just that already, but 18 months takes is to a level to which many descriptives come to mind and none of them fall under the word 'Professional' as they profess themselves to be. Nothing that I just spoke of is slander, purely fact based . It's all unfortunate but as it be said...it is what it is
@MarshallFaulk28 said:
That's terrible. I wouldn't even send in vintage to PSA anymore. It seems like they've either shrunk the goal posts so small that no one can get any decent grades or their new graders have no experience with older cards at all.
I think it’s the latter. I’m still doing OK with modern.
Comments
I sent 21. I had 10 I really wanted to sub, and 11 a threw in just to get over the limit plus one.
What you gonna do.
My $50 Value just moved in to QA1 and order was entered on 5/12/22
Expecting 7.5 or higher on the Vintage. If not, it was like playing the horses and i tear up the ticket.
1939 W.A. & A.C. CHURCHMAN KINGS OF SPEED 45 JESSE OWENS
1951 BOWMAN 218 ED LOPAT
1952 BOWMAN 73 JERRY COLEMAN
1952 BOWMAN 241 MEL PARNELL
1952 TOPPS 57 ED LOPAT (BLACK BACK)
1953 TOPPS 137 JOHN RUTHERFORD
1954 BOWMAN 81 JERRY COLEMAN 1.000/.975 FIELD AVG.
1954 BOWMAN 224 WILLIAM BRUTON
1955 TOPPS 158 TOM CARROLL
1955 TOPPS 199 BERT HAMRIC
1956 TOPPS 190 CARL FURILLO
1963 TOPPS 2 AL BATTING LEADERS--Mantle
1963 TOPPS 550 DUKE SNIDER
1961 TOPPS 260 DON DRYSDALE
Expecting 9 or higher on the modern
2017 PANINI CROWN ROYALE 84 PATRICK MAHOMES II
2001 RUSSIAN ICE YOUNG LIONS 3 ALEXANDER OVECHKIN YOUNG LIONS
2001 RUSSIAN ICE DYNAMO MOSCOW HC 15 ALEXANDER OVECHKIN DYNAMO MOSCOW HC
2000 QUANTUM LEAF 343 TOM BRADY
2001 UPPER DECK GOLF 1 TIGER WOODS
2001 UPPER DECK GOLF 1 TIGER WOODS
@Teri12357 Wow!!!
Good Luck!!!!!
Live long, and prosper.
05/04/2021 PSA is very disappointing!
Finally moved to assembly! It is a value modern order that was entered 05/04/2021. 59 cards (all 70s Topps).
so how long after assembly ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
I've got a three still pending:
Value Modern - entered 4/30/21 - has been in assembly for two weeks
1960's Deal - entered 4/19/21 - grading
Value TCG - entered 4/30/21 - grading
edit: Added the year to the three entered dates - which is always a bad sign....
Bosox1976
I am thinking 3-4 weeks?
Well I spoke to soon. I dont know how many times I got kicked in the face just now. Just had a vintage sub where I can see the grades. I have never in my life seen something so comical. Cards were 1958 Commons. All were amazing and I was thinking 8 or better on all of them. I even cracked out 7 PSA 8s that I thought would 9. I got nothing but 4-5s and like 3 7s. 60 cards total. Not a single 8.
I almost dont even want them back. So So So bad. 1958 commons in 5s!! Break even value for this issue and grading is a 7. And 8s only go for like 20-30.00. I wasnt sending them 5 quality stuff. Been grading since 1996.
Ugggggglllyyyy
That's terrible. I wouldn't even send in vintage to PSA anymore. It seems like they've either shrunk the goal posts so small that no one can get any decent grades or their new graders have no experience with older cards at all.
I'll go with the latter!
it's so inconsistent and hit or miss it's crazy. it seems like a mad rush to catch up. the new graders probably aren't supposed to get anything but ultra modern but then a vintage slips and comes down the conveyor belt and they slap crappy grades on them all because the cards aren't 9's or 10's and they don't know else to do ......... frustrating.
have heard this story many times, I honestly don't think PSA has said tighten the standards like SGC has done, I think there are just too many graders who know nothing about cards and have not been trained on anything prior to 2020.
The sad thing for PSA if the issue is with the lack of experience of the new graders is that their QA staff must also be incompetent. If they have inexperienced QA grading inexperienced graders then that is a problem. How are the graders to learn that way?
My Swinging Sixties special cards were all like 5’s and 6’s under the old standards - just wanted them graded at such a nice price - posts like yours make me think they will all be 3’s these days.
Bosox1976
I don't understand why my CC membership has resumed despite some service levels remaining locked. Really feeling screwed by this company.
I feel you, man. This is why I've stopped sending cards in for grading. I only do 60s & 70s and I've gotten hammered since they re-opened. I won't send anymore until things change. I keep hearing from big-time dealers that the company knows how much grumbling is going on, but I haven't seen anything change yet. Making your customers angry seems like a bad way to stay on top.
Ugh. I have another 500 there now only 50-60s with fees around 6-7k. Pretty nervous right now. It’s a total loss with how they graded the 1st vintage batch.
I don't send in cards unless I feel they are 8s or better. I've gotten hammered lately. PSA is really pushing vintage collectors away. You shouldn't change the game midstream. It's not fair.
Agreed Bobby, you don’t change the way you grade midstream. Eventually, a psa 10 that was graded 10 years ago will be worth a LOT less then a card that was graded in 2022. Doesn’t make sense to me.
@handyman said:
crazy what the grading team seems to be turning out these days...that is amazing...yet sad...if an entire order seems to be this far off, I would almost see if I could contact someone at PSA and ask if they can have an experienced grader review the entire order. You paid for an accurate service, so if you feel the entire order is undergraded, it can't hurt to see if something can be done.
You can see it on Ebay already. The new flips command a premium. You have been around a long time so I know you have a good grading eye. Modern cards are different. Technology has changed things. But a 1975 Topps card is not the same as a 2020 Topps Chrome..
Sorry to hear that about the '58 submission. That year is notorious for the paper's surface having 'waves'. I can see where a newbe grader used to handling refractors would think the cards are creased/wrinkled. If they know nothing about vintage, they would see those as 5s or 6s. It's really disheartening how the new graders are destroying PSA's reputation on vintage. With the economy on the heels of a recession and easy money soon to be drying up, the good times are soon to end. PSA will need our vintage submissions when speculators stop submitting high pop Zion rookies by the hundreds for grading.
when I listen to the podcasts it doesn't seem like needing vintage is in the business plan
@MountainsOfSlabs said:
QA 1: 6/7/22
QA 2: 6/9/22
Popped: 6/14/22
(Sorry if this is a repeat post, I don't think my first one made it through and the formatting was probably weird.)
Another midnight-ish poppage email! All baseball: 2 1951 Topps Red Back, 45 1955 Topps, 11 1963 Fleer, and a few odds and ends. Although there were a fair number of complete duds that graded way worse than I thought they would, that was more than made up for by way more great grades than expected; I'm thrilled! I expected no more than 6 8s in the 1955s, but I got 13! More tomorrow...
But what I dont understand is with these specific specials. Example swinging 60s why would it go to someone with no clue how to grade swinging 60s? But only 2022 cards. Frustrating
Looking back I wonder if it were better to send multiple submissions with fewer cards in each. For the bigger ones I sent (30+) you tend to know how things are going after seeing the first few cards and grades.
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
I have 10 orders currently from 20-120 cards in each. That is my only hope 1 might get to the right grader I guess.
I too would not want all my cards in one order with everything to consider now.
Anybody have a sense of how long Assembly phase has been taking lately for the 2021 bulk orders? Mine have been in assembly for about 5 weeks now. That seems longer than in the past, but nowadays everything is different, so you never know.
yes but the cards are supposed to be graded by 2 people and a third person a tie breaker, how can 2 people probably 3 get it wrong ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Happens way too often. I could crack and submit in the $6-12 days begrudgingly and usually they would get it right but now you have to wait 3 years and pay $60+ for them to get their act together
Mine have been in Assembly since May 4th. Looks to be about the same as you.
@MountainsOfSlabs said:
Okay, now for the full story, first the grades with my predictions in bold at the end of each line:
1 1 58960786 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1951 Topps Red Back 30 Warren Spahn (7)
2 1 58960787 GOOD 2 1951 Topps Red Back 38 Duke Snider (5)
3 1 58960788 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 12 Jake Thies (7)
4 1 58960789 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 16 Roy Sievers (6)
5 1 58960790 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 22 Bill Skowron (7.5)
6 1 58960791 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 30 Vic Power (6)
7 1 58960792 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT+ 4.5 1955 Topps 43 Harvey Haddix (6)
8 1 58960793 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 44 Corky Valentine (6)
9 1 58960794 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 55 Rip Repulski (6.5)
10 1 58960795 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 56 Ray Jablonski (6)
11 1 58960796 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 69 Ed Bailey (7)
12 1 58960797 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1955 Topps 74 Bob Borkowski (7)
13 1 58960798 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1955 Topps 74 Bob Borkowski (6)
14 1 58960799 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 75 Sandy Amoros (6)
15 1 58960800 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 76 Howie Pollet (7)
16 1 58960801 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 80 Bob Grim (6)
17 1 58960802 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 87 Frank House (6)
18 1 58960803 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 88 Bob Skinner (7)
19 1 58960804 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 93 Steve Bilko (7)
20 1 58960805 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 100 Monte Irvin (6)
21 1 58960806 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 102 Wally Westlake (7)
22 1 58960807 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 104 Jack Harshman (7)
23 1 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1955 Topps 105 Chuck Diering (7.5)
24 1 58960809 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 105 Chuck Diering (7)
25 1 58960810 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 113 Harry Brecheen (7)
26 1 58960811 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 115 Ellis Kinder (7)
27 1 58960812 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 121 Bill Renna (7.5)
28 1 58960813 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 122 Carl Sawatski (6)
29 1 58960814 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 126 Dick Hall (7)
30 1 58960815 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 127 Dale Long (7.5)
31 1 58960816 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 128 Ted Lepcio (7)
32 1 58960817 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 129 Elvin Tappe (7)
33 1 58960818 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 131 Grady Hatton (8)
34 1 58960819 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 136 Bunky Stewart (7)
35 1 58960820 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 138 Ray Herbert (6)
36 1 58960821 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 144 Joe Amalfitano (7)
37 1 58960822 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1955 Topps 149 Ray Crone (8)
38 1 58960823 NEAR MINT+ 7.5 1955 Topps 162 Joe Coleman (6)
39 1 58960824 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 172 Frank Baumholtz (7)
40 1 58960825 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 173 Bob Kline (7)
41 1 58960826 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 174 Rudy Minarcin (6)
42 1 58960827 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 177 Jim Robertson (7)
43 1 58960828 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1955 Topps 179 Jim Bolger (5)
44 1 58960829 EXCELLENT 5 1955 Topps 181 Roy McMillan (6)
45 1 58960830 NEAR MINT 7 1955 Topps 193 Johnny Sain (7)
46 1 58960831 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1955 Topps 197 Al Smith (6)
47 1 58960832 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT+ 4.5 1955 Topps 199 Bert Hamric (6)
48 1 58960833 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1957 Topps 219 Tom Acker (8)
49 1 58960834 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 9 Ray Herbert (8)
50 1 58960835 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 13 Jerry Kindall (8)
51 1 58960836 NEAR MINT 7 1963 Fleer 15 Dick Howser (8)
52 1 58960837 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 17 Norm Siebern (8)
53 1 58960838 NEAR MINT 7 ST 1963 Fleer 25 Bobby Richardson (7)
54 1 58960839 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 32 Ron Santo (7)
55 1 58960840 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 45 Warren Spahn (7)
56 1 58960841 NEAR MINT+ 7.5 1963 Fleer 53 Don Demeter (8)
57 1 58960842 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 58 Vernon Law (8)
58 1 58960843 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1963 Fleer 59 Bill Mazeroski (7)
59 1 58960844 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1963 Fleer 61 Bob Gibson (8)
60 1 58960845 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1963 Topps 126 Bob Uecker (5)
61 1 58960846 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1968 Topps Game 21 Frank Howard (8)
62 1 58960847 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1971 Topps 300 Brooks Robinson (6)
Nearly all of these were purchased raw online in 2020 with a few childhood cards and a few slab breaks.
The 1951 Red Backs came from an allegedly unopened 2-card "Doubles" pack. With 2 HOFers, I'm inclined to believe it. The Snider had some light creasing on the front and knew my 5 guess was very optimistic, but 2?. I was definitely hoping for an 8 on the Spahn, and apparently I was overly concerned about the centering.
My guesses were all over the place relative to PSA for the 1955 Topps, but I certainly can't complain! A lot of these come from a time when I wasn't sure if I was going for all graded cards for set, and I was generally shooting for NM condition. Even with 10 cards at PSA 5 or lower and one N1, I hit 13 8s! In my guesses, 7.5 was code for not being able to decide between 7 or 8, so there were only 6 cards that I thought could get an 8; of those only the N1 didn't. The Roy Sievers was the big financial win of the submission; $8 in an ebay auction and worth...a lot more (there are only 4 better in the pop report). But, I'm keeping almost all of the most valuable cards (the Monte Irvin being the big exception), so it's more about getting them cheaper than buying already slabbed. In the 16(!) months since I sent these in, I bought graded versions of many of these cards so a lot of these don't improve my collection, but I'm up to 80% complete and into the top 100 on the Set Registry. Slab cracks among these:
22 Bill Skowron SGC 7.5 ---> PSA 8
80 Bob Grim GAI 7.5 ---> PSA 7
127 Dale Long SGC 88/8 ---> PSA 8
149 Ray Crone SGC 88/8 ---> PSA 8
My guesses for the 1963 Fleer were a lot more in line with PSA, except for the Maz. The Gibson was especially nice because I probably paid too much originally, but certainly worth it now. A project that's on the back, back, back burner is this set in all 8s, and now I'm up to 18 out of 63, but it will be a long time before I get serious about this set again.
The 1963 Uecker and 1971 Robinson were childhood cards from the 1980s and I got them slabbed for sentimental reasons.
So, I'm obviously very happy with this one. Apparently I got a grader(s) who are familiar with the idiosyncrasies of vintage cards. Obviously, I'm not evaluating potential defects in the same way as PSA and my lack of experience shows. I have way more 1955 slabs now than when I sent these in, so I will have to see what I think about my cards when I see them soon.
Many of the results are very disappointing to read. Waiting so long for results only to get punched in the stomach. I had an order pop this morning that’s easily the worst results in my years of grading. The majority of what I grade are Topps Tiffany cards and I’ve been doing it a while. My last order popped at the end of March and I hit a 55% gem rate with 40% 9s and 5% 8 or less. That’s in-line with past results, although I’ve gotten more picky with what I submit over time. I expected a slight improvement with better card selection but that’s still a level I’m pretty happy with.
My order that popped today had 32 gems out of 132 cards spread over 85-91 Topps Tiffany for 24%. I’d be ok with that if the ones that didn’t 10 we’re still mostly 9s but there were so many 7s and 8s. But only hit 31 9s for 23%. 53% of the order was 6-8s compared to 5% last order. That part really baffles me. I try to only send cards with no noticeable damaged that I believe are solid 9s with decent shots at a 10. This was my second order after prices went from $9 to $12 and I thought these last 2 subs were my pickiest yet.
Sorry for the long rant but just wanted to share this recent experience to add to the others in a similar position.
Does the same grader handle all the cards in your order or do the get split up? The weird thing is that the 87s are usually the year I have the most trouble with. Of the 16 87s in this order I hit 14 10s 1 9 and 1 8. Much higher than my usual and totally out of line with the rest of the results. It seems weird if only one grader handled this order.
I’m hoping this was a one off harsh grader thing and not the future of grading. I had an order hit QA2 yesterday so I’ll find out before too long. I guess the good news is with the new value service only covering 1996 and later it will be awhile before I can submit my usual order again. Hopefully they can get this resolved soon.
How is this for crazy.
New value modern tier submission.
Shipped 6/10/22. Arrived 6/13/22. Entered 6/14/22. Grading 6/16/22
you will be in QA 1 for 5 months lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Grades are in and the Vintage was a complete kill by PSA. Nothing above a 6 except for 3 cards.
New stuff was dead on what i expected. Hopefully SGC doesn't destroy my other order hanging out there.
Well, back to the ponies for me for awhile. True story... while at Santa Anita one day i played a 2 horse Exacta Box with the two logical favorites that should have blown away the field. My first first horse hit the side of the gate on the break dumping the jockey. My second horse broke down going around the clubhouse turn. Handicap that!!!
Just got my PSA value order delivered yesterday.
Dates below:
Value TCG order.
Delivered to PSA: 02/10/21
PSA Arrived: 04/03/21
Grading: 11/1/21
Assembly: 05/22/22
QA1: 06/07/22
QA2: 06/08/22
Shipped: 06/14/22
Order met grading expectations.
Live long, and prosper.
I have the cards in hand now and it does seem that I was being a bit harsh on some of my guesses now that I see them again. At the very least, most of the cards that came out better than I expected were consistent with the low end of that grade among my other 1955 slabs. A few photos from notable cards; I don't have a scanner set up right now, so these aren't the best of photos. The backs on all of them look fine.
The chipping in the bottom left and the two bottom corners is presumably what led me to guess 6 on the Sievers (the lighter smudges to the left of his face are not on the card) and I'm still surprised it got an 8:
I guess I was overreacting to the centering here:
In many of the ones that were 2 or 3 grades lower than I predicted, I can see the problems. However, this may be the best looking 4 I've ever seen; presumably a surface issue that doesn't show up well in the slab:
It does occur to me that I seemed to be buying raw cards that had really good color so that may have helped. Finally, the creasing on the 1951 Red Back Snider was more extensive than I remember, so while I think a 2 is a bit low, I wouldn't think twice about a 3. Very nice to have these in hand again!
The Sievers does not look 8 worthy to me. The centering on the Powers doesn't bother me but the corners do. The centering is borderline for an 8 but not out of spec. I just hope PSA becomes more consistent as the new graders get more experience. It shouldn't be a crapshoot guessing how harshly or loosely they are going to grade an order (mostly harshly based on feedback posted over the past year).
A nice PSA 9 Mint trio of 2003 Yu-Gi-Oh! 1st Edition Starter Deck Joey cards from my last TCG Value submission...
...to go with a nice PSA 9 Mint trio of 1999 Pokemon Unlimited Fossil cards in the same submission.
Live long, and prosper.
Just got back from a friend's house where we looked over my most recent returned submission, full of what should have been 10s with a few scattered bummer PSA 9s. Most of the sub came back in PSA 7 slabs!! I've been complaining about how much more strict the grading at PSA has been during the clearing of the backlog. But in this case I was DEAD WRONG!! Upon closer inspection, PSA gave my last submission hyper-accurate grades.
Here's the kicker, though...
These flippin motards DAMAGED nearly every single card in the submission in the same exact spot - the bottom left corner. EVERY CARD was a PSA 7 or PSA 8, and every one had the exact same corner ding. My friend noticed the pattern first - it could not have been more obvious. I spend so much time going through cards and discarding the ones that won't hold up to scrutiny. I have graded many thousands with PSA and never sent in any with corners like this. It's absolutely criminal what these people are doing to our collectibles.
I'm not spending time taking pictures of junk era 7s with dinged corners from PSA. I'm not going to pursue any kind of reimbursement. What kind of service did I expect for $8-$12 per card? Better than this - but I guess maybe that's my own fault?
Until I hear that all the sloppy handlers were caught and fired and PSA has new QC processes in place, I would not send anything of value to this piss poor company. And my PC is 99% PSA.
Your story is very familiar. Check your 7s. Bet you find some dings that we not there when you sent them.
Makes you wonder. How is it not a form of bait-and-switch? Subscribe to us for $X and you get Y-benefits for Z-amount of time. And then they completely change the arrangement mid-stream.
I really don't want to dislike this company but they make so many choices that are just undeniably anti-customer.
I did this prior to the backlog. Had very many orders in with 20-40 cards each. It should have helped to some degree. It didn't. I genuinely hope you have better luck.
That is scary. I had an order where 15% was damaged and I was reimbursed fairly, but not on the scale you are describing. If I were you I would reach out, that type of damage needs to be highlighted so it stops occurring. Every moment the card is handled is apparently recorded on video, they should be able to see what was happening, whether they will admit to it is another matter entirely. Check your pm
Hello. I wish you'd contact customer service. They should have to pay for damages. This seems to be happening way too often now. Good luck and sorry to hear about the damage.
2 graders...lol, regardless of their suggesting otherwise I assure you that doesn't happen. Now as far as two different graders on 1 order grading different cards on the order, that likely happens regularly but there's no chance that each card gets looked at by two different graders. Cards getting damaged during the process has only become a more frequent occurrence in recent weeks as I've run into it as well. I actually believe that breaking down orders into 20-40 card batches is beneficial for the reason of no losing your aaa because some idiot has your order land on his desk. Apparently the grader of death multiplied so it's like playing the game show press your luck and trying to dodge the whammy but even if you hit it you don't wanna have much money at risk. I sent in 10000 cards 18 or so months ago in the form of 300 orders with that objective precisely in mind....it doesn't hurt quite as bad when that degenerate ends up with your order and completely ruining it, assuming your cards werent already dropped by someone and the corners all wasted. I guess my question is how on earth with all of this rushing around and flying through processes, do things somehow slow down....shouldn''t this be the part where everything is downhill and easier than before? i know they don't care about our concerns as they've made that very clear in a numbers of ways...but seriously, how are you actually getting worse as the workload supposedly gets lighter. I'm pretty sure my jaw would be on the floor if I was able to see what goes on inside that building in a regular days work I still have around 40 orders left and I'm just hoping that they don't butcher too many of them. I don't know what their goals are or if they even have any but for the love of God can we finish up the backlog before the recession hits because the idea of it taking 18 months to complete a 25 card order is just plain ridiculous not that it isn't just that already, but 18 months takes is to a level to which many descriptives come to mind and none of them fall under the word 'Professional' as they profess themselves to be. Nothing that I just spoke of is slander, purely fact based . It's all unfortunate but as it be said...it is what it is
my oldest right now arrived at PSA on 3/11/21, was entered 6 weeks later on 4/22, and is STILL in "Grading"...I know I am not alone...
I think it’s the latter. I’m still doing OK with modern.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.