@belz said:
In the end I really think we are analyzing this too much. The graders (probably quite inexperienced) have a certain quantity and quota on a daily basis in order to move things along so PSA doesn’t ever run into backlog again. Regardless of the reason, the concern for getting a numerical grade correct is not priority…this is clear as day to me. Can you imagine a young adult getting a job handling an expensive card, assigning a grade and moving on to the next card etc…nobody cares and who’s checking for accuracy? Nobody.
Like I said in the beginning, I’m glad my nice cards are slabbed but there’s zero chance I’m selling any of them while grades and price go hand in hand-there’s nothing equal about it anymore in my eyes. I’m a psychotherapist…if a patient comes in and describes a sad situation but laughs instead, I’m not believing it’s funny just bc they’re laughing.
Yep, PSA's main priority is to process as many cards as possible per day, with Grading Accuracy and Quality Control being low down on their list of priorities. The "Research & ID" and "QA" stages are just for show - if they actually performed these stages we would not see so many mis-graded and mis-labeled / mis-identified cards in PSA holders.
Submitters have no recourse against PSA for receiving grading results that don't make sense. The graded examples in this thread are clearly not graded accurately, but there is nothing the submitter can do about it - other than pay for a review or crack it out and pay to resubmit it.
It is a brilliant business model that PSA has - get paid to perform services that are all based on "opinion" and no one really knows whose "opinion" you're going to get. We don't really even know how many graders they currently have or what the grader's backgrounds are within the hobby. Will your 1987 Donruss factory set cards end up with the guy who actually knows what factory set cards are supposed to look like, or will they end up with the guy who jumped into the hobby during the pandemic and only knows ultra-modern really well. I think the ultra-modern grader got the 1987 Donruss cards in this thread.
Belz,
Good to see you posting again and I am sorry how the grading results turned. I know from prior experience they grade 1975 cards really tough and about 8 years ago, I did a sub of 58 cards from a really nice 1975 raw set that I bought. I went through the set with a fine tooth comb and sent in the best cards of the 660 cards (including most stars even if I anticipated a 7 grade). My results were as follows:
1 10
14 9's
24 8's
19 7's
I would bet with a reasonable amount of certainty,I would not receive the same results today. It would be an interesting case study to see what these cards would grade today. I wouldn't have the balls nor the cards anymore to do such a task.
I've adopted the policy that I am no longer going to send in cards, mostly because of wait times and becoming most likely disappointed in the results after waiting forever and would rather purchase cards in my focus that are strong for the grade, in my opinion.
I think we all evaluate great eye appeal differently. For example, my #1 thing that I look for is centering, #2 is corners, and #3 fisheyes/or print defects on the front of the card. If a card passes all three tests, I deem it high end for the grade and I bid strong, even though there probably may be surface issues, card back issues that I am ignoring because I may not see that in a scan or I really don't care. Those are the types of cards that I look for and with my 1956 Topps registry set in PSA7/7.5/8, I believe all my cards that I've acquired have to pass these tests to some degree. With doing so, I'm in year 13 of working on the set with needing 50 cards or so to finish. I definitely could have had the set done 5 years ago, but it's been a labor of love and I don't mind waiting for the right cards to come along.
I'd be interested to see some of your scans of the 75 cards when you receive them back.
@dan89 said:
Nice Bo 10 in a five holder!!! For real that is dime quality for that issue and top to bottom is always an issue and this one is dead nuts.
OMG that is insane! How the hell has this not been corrected yet?
This makes the grader of death look like a weakling.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I’m in the same boat as all of y’all. I don’t even plan on opening my latest order this month. 80s special 40+ card
0-10s
6-9s
22-8s
0-8.5s
11-7s
And 2 6s.
I sent in what I expected to be mint or better and maybe 10-11 8s not 7s that are worth negative after eBay fees. Really felt nuts 1 grade lower. I was expecting at least a min of 2-3 tens. Seems many others had the same experience with this special.
Jeremey, hi ya for sure…and I’ll write more later. I just got my other sub of late 80s and check this out…and like many of you posting pics…just silly at this point.
@Harnessracing said:
I sent in 200-1975’s a few months back.
These were top end cards. Never expect a 10 but thought a few would.
GOT
0-10
3-9’s
144-8’s
42-7’s
11-6’s
I was livid. The 3-9’s were the 3 cheapest 9’s you could get.
@waxman2745 said:
Gone are the days that you can self-sub to complete a high-grade vintage registry set. It looks like the only choice is to buy already graded,
@belz said:
Jeremey, hi ya for sure…and I’ll write more later. I just got my other sub of late 80s and check this out…and like many of you posting pics…just silly at this point.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
There are tons of issues right now and it is causing serious doubts within the community who grades cards...especially vintage. 1st off we have no idea what the process is anymore or how many graders are even working. If PSA announced that they have 100 graders we wouldn't know if that's true. If they announced that they had 15 graders and computer scanning/grading is doing the bulk of the work we wouldn't know. If PSA announced that Stevie Wonder was the new Director of Grading we wouldn't know. They could announce that there is a team of graders for each sport and year of cards and we wouldn't know. Maybe all grades are based on that initial scan and a team in Minnnesota grades 10% of the cards while only using a scan and never having the card in hand...we wouldn't know. Maybe the cards are delivered to Santa Ana and then transported to San Diego for grading...we wouldn't know. You get the idea. There is no transparency at all. All we know is what we are being told or what we read. It's obviously a mess right now. The question is, will this ever get fixed and if it does how long will this take? I will say this that I've noticed at shows that many collectors are more harsh on assigning a grade now than I have ever witnessed in the past. Most have viewed so many shiny/minty newer cards that all vintage to them is low grade. If I had to completely guess I would say that there is some sort of computer technology assisting in the grading process and it is way too harsh on surface, edges etc. A Mint 9 type card with a flaw that would normally take the card down to an 8 now takes it down to a 7 or 6. Just way too harsh. One other thing is that I remember the huge hype about the Jersey location and how this was going to be such a huge deal. I haven't heard anything about them grading cards or anything.
@dan89 said:
Received 6 6’s on 80’s including the below. Nines would have been disappointing. No surface issues, nada. I have been subbing for 25 years and have not received one 6 on 80’s, let alone 6. They are factory set and the graders are not likely educated on these, however I received two sixes on non factory set issues. Again, this is stealing.
Not sure if it's the card or the holder, but on the left side, especially upper left (and same with the Maddox card), it looks like there is a surface issue. It's noticeably lighter with loss of gloss.
@dan89 said:
Received 6 6’s on 80’s including the below. Nines would have been disappointing. No surface issues, nada. I have been subbing for 25 years and have not received one 6 on 80’s, let alone 6. They are factory set and the graders are not likely educated on these, however I received two sixes on non factory set issues. Again, this is stealing.
Not sure if it's the card or the holder, but on the left side, especially upper left (and same with the Maddox card), it looks like there is a surface issue. It's noticeably lighter with loss of gloss.
I feel like with the rise of CSG in the market, PSA is trying to show that they are the strictest grader as a way of keeping their cards the top value for the same grade.
Of course, this can spectacularly backfire if people feel like the grading is so harsh that they are throwing money out the window by paying to grade cards that will come back not being worth the value of the grade plus the cost they paid for grading.
@shawther said:
I had a 27 card sub of 80’s special. Opened 5 boxes of ‘87 and 2 boxes of ‘88 Topps football. I sent in 27 cards that should’ve been around PSA 9 quality. I was hoping for mainly 9’s with some 8’s and 10’s and a couple cards I was hoping for 8’s but could see 7’s. What I received was much lower. I got a couple 5’s, a few 7’s, mostly 8’s with a few 9’s. I was trying to upgrade my PC with this submission. I was able to upgrade one card. An absolute train wreck. The cards are probably worth half of what grading them cost. I will be taking a break from grading for a while.
@dan89 i just received a different Bo Jackson with similar results.
The grader must have felt this as flecks of print separated from the card?
Like when you pull apart 2 glossy cards that stuck together.
I have a 89 Jordan that got a 5, that I still can't see how it could be.
I'm just trying to figure out the thought process.
@Cubbies1416 said:
I feel like with the rise of CSG in the market, PSA is trying to show that they are the strictest grader as a way of keeping their cards the top value for the same grade.
Of course, this can spectacularly backfire if people feel like the grading is so harsh that they are throwing money out the window by paying to grade cards that will come back not being worth the value of the grade plus the cost they paid for grading.
This, man. Folks will start moving in from PAA if they feel things aren’t fair, accurate or consistent. Obviously things are seeming to be all 3 currently.
I’ve already stopped buying unopened and ripping and am just working through a stash. The worm is turning for sure.
Where the heck have the half point grades gone?!!! If a grader believes a card deserves a 5 or 6 for reasons other than poor centering and the centering is near perfect to perfect, how can that not at least warrant an additional half point? I've seen way too many perfectly centered 5s and 6s that did not receive the half point bump they clearly deserved.
@reelinintheyears said:
Where the heck have the half point grades gone?!!! If a grader believes a card deserves a 5 or 6 for reasons other than poor centering and the centering is near perfect to perfect, how can that not at least warrant an additional half point? I've seen way too many perfectly centered 5s and 6s that did not receive the half point bump they clearly deserved.
I think you're putting too much emphasis on centering being the sole reason for a 1/2 grade bump.
It can be a card grading on the high end of a given grade, or the totally grey area of this thing called 'eye appeal'.
You can have a perfectly centered card without great eye appeal, therefore not worthy of a 1/2 grade bump.
Besides, if the belief is PSA can misgrade by 1, 2, or even 3 grades, what meaning is the 1/2 grade?
Naturally followed by, 'buy the card, not the meaningless flip', which is then followed by, 'if the number on the flip is meaningless, why even have cards graded'. We always end up at the same place, yet we all still send in subs and wonder why our 5 didn't get a 5.5 when it should have been a 7 in the first place.
@reelinintheyears said:
Where the heck have the half point grades gone?!!! If a grader believes a card deserves a 5 or 6 for reasons other than poor centering and the centering is near perfect to perfect, how can that not at least warrant an additional half point? I've seen way too many perfectly centered 5s and 6s that did not receive the half point bump they clearly deserved.
I thought the half point grades was a good idea when it came about.
It seems many graders didn't get the memo. More work for them.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
The grader must have felt this as flecks of print separated from the card?
Like when you pull apart 2 glossy cards that stuck together.
I have a 89 Jordan that got a 5, that I still can't see how it could be.
I'm just trying to figure out the thought process.
This was from the same submission which I think is more accurately graded. I was thinking somewhere around an 8.
I hope that some day an ex PSA employee (Todd?) would write a book on card grading and behind the scenes at PSA. Would be a best seller. (Like THE CARD!)
@reelinintheyears said:
Where the heck have the half point grades gone?!!! If a grader believes a card deserves a 5 or 6 for reasons other than poor centering and the centering is near perfect to perfect, how can that not at least warrant an additional half point? I've seen way too many perfectly centered 5s and 6s that did not receive the half point bump they clearly deserved.
I thought the half point grades was a good idea when it came about.
It seems many graders didn't get the memo. More work for them.
This, to me, will always go down as the biggest farce in the grading industry. All the other stuff about over-graded and under-graded cards, missing doctored cards, re-subbing and getting 2 full grade bumps, and so on can be explained away using the "grading is subjective" and "humans are not perfect" excuse. But the complete disregard for half point grades by the majority of PSA graders is just inexplicable. And the statistics are 100% objective.
This "opinion" below took me some time to process in my brain=== so here goes one collectors thoughts hopefully expressed professionally and coherently below. I wanted to go full Jeff Dunham " Walter" ( telling it like it is) but figure I'll temper it for now until they have responses that I can relate to better
I think the vintage folks are seeing the worst of the new era " AI" due to the initial and continued knee jerk reactions to the grading scandal. I'll question some PSA grading decisions I've seen on vintage - honestly some are not even close, and others swing the other way towards too harsh.
Can't really say its bad resuLts that are irritating me. I'm just seeing the end results and its not been pretty. I'm confused at what exactly they want, but think I'm narrowing it down. I'd just like some more clarity on what PSA thinks. Frankly I think they went too harsh and some minor changes will bring it back to normal again
1) I'd like to see explanations about how its systems handle vintage vs modern printing production differences, Seems that this AI system- and the graders - don't quite understand they used to cut cards with wire in the old days, and the new days its done with laser cutting. Therefore edges and corners of a 1955 or 1971 card are not remotely going to resemble a 2020+ item. Yet the AI and these new graders seem to think it should be the same ; same goes for surface printing problems- see complaint 2 ;
2) Since when did surface considerations become THE factor in vintage card grading ? Its overall EYE APPEAL
Let me repeat that- its OVERALL EYE APPEAL. Slamming cards now because you found some deeply buried or well hidden surface flaw or edge chipping issue only seen under 100x magnification ? When did we veer of from the 10-35x loupes coins and card folks have used since time immemorial ? This isn't supposed to be NASA where only the best surfaces get considered for the highest level passing grade. Its supposed to be we punish the ones that affect eye appeal . The rest should be considered a byproduct of printing process variations ( temp /humidity etc), and they only should punish the cards if it really detracts from the cards overall aesthetic quality ;
3) Let's work on some better way of expressing when grading or process changes happen- not just having them happen and we discover them for ourselves. This is called " poor communication" and I don't expect it from a multi billion dollar conglomerate. It's happened a lot over the last year. Let's work on that part also.
I'll leave the rest to private discussions with them
It’s weird that 3 total ‘issues’ with a card gets you to a 7 but 15 gets you to a 5. None of it makes sense. The logic of the grading seems off on the vintage. Maybe it will revert to normal or maybe folks will just stop sending them to PSA. I’m not sure they’d care either way with the numbers of other types they’re seeing.
If the majority of their graders are seeing any possibility of cards, that's a problem. I would expect experience to play a role in what you are grading, vintage vs modern. I also think the Genamint technology they acquired has a lot to do with the higher standards now... they acquired that company 2.5 years ago, and from what I understand, implemented the technology shortly after.
color me very unsurprised by any of this. i can't remember the exact figure that was attached to the backlog a couple of years ago, but it was eye-popping. in order to play catch up, there was going to be some serious dilution in the grading department. flash a card and poll 10 people. now flash the same card to 100 people, a number of whom are wet behind the ears when it comes to the intricacies of cardboard. then tell me if the range of opinions expands or contracts.
eotd, this is what happens when you react instead of anticipate................you create a dumpster fire of inaccuracies. the grades assigned to the cards in this thread are a disgrace.
"A.I." and grading with digital scanning is probably a factor as well as inexperienced graders. All I know is that the examples above are ridiculous.
As someone already stated, a standard is a standard. This is almost like an inch is not an inch anymore! An inch is being changed to 1.75 centimeters (when actually is is 2.54 centimeters).
Also, if they have changed the way they grade cards (i.e. A.I. or digital scanning instead of a human being with a loupe), then that should be notating this on the flip! It is not fair to the hobby to be doing this. It is also going to hurt PSA in the long run. The goal should not be "THE MOST STRICT". The goal should be "THE MOST ACCURATE".
@galaxy27 said:
color me very unsurprised by any of this. i can't remember the exact figure that was attached to the backlog a couple of years ago, but it was eye-popping. in order to play catch up, there was going to be some serious dilution in the grading department. flash a card and poll 10 people. now flash the same card to 100 people, a number of whom are wet behind the ears when it comes to the intricacies of cardboard. then tell me if the range of opinions expands or contracts.
eotd, this is what happens when you react instead of anticipate................you create a dumpster fire of inaccuracies. the grades assigned to the cards in this thread are a disgrace.
I'd like to believe that the problems are due to inexperienced graders but that would mean that there should be nearly as many 5's in 8 holders as there are 8's in 5 holders. I would suspect inexperience would cause more under-graded examples due to graders missing flaws. What we are witnessing is no accident..
Nah... this is simply making and protecting a market pure and simple.
I guess my game plan is to go seek out some of those beautiful newly graded 5's and put them away until sanity returns.
Someone mentioned transparency. That again is the issue. There is no way AI is not being utilized. Too many consistent 6’s and 5’s based upon likely 100-1000X
review on everything. Additionally, there is no way the backlog is possible to sustain without artificial reviews.
1000X review does not capture eye appeal and AI sure can’t. Let’s stop the nonsense and be candid with the change in standard, business practice and methods and platforms to grade and spend our money. Vintage needs to be distinct as laser cutting is not engaged, factory sets are commonplace and it is comparing different galaxies vs modern.
@galaxy27 said:
color me very unsurprised by any of this. i can't remember the exact figure that was attached to the backlog a couple of years ago, but it was eye-popping. in order to play catch up, there was going to be some serious dilution in the grading department. flash a card and poll 10 people. now flash the same card to 100 people, a number of whom are wet behind the ears when it comes to the intricacies of cardboard. then tell me if the range of opinions expands or contracts.
eotd, this is what happens when you react instead of anticipate................you create a dumpster fire of inaccuracies. the grades assigned to the cards in this thread are a disgrace.
I'd like to believe that the problems are due to inexperienced graders but that would mean that there should be nearly as many 5's in 8 holders as there are 8's in 5 holders. I would suspect inexperience would cause more under-graded examples due to graders missing flaws. What we are witnessing is no accident..
Nah... this is simply making and protecting a market pure and simple.
I guess my game plan is to go seek out some of those beautiful newly graded 5's and put them away until sanity returns.
Mark
my last submission (and my final one, ever) was 20ish rare golf cards. i didn't care so much about the grades, as they were PC items and i just wanted them to present well. i went over every single one of them with a fine-tooth comb prior to firing them off, thus i had my own realistic expectations set in place. 90% of them came back two grades higher than i anticipated, and that's because the surfaces were clearly not scrutinized. and no, i wasn't jumping for joy when i got them back. instead, i chuckled and thought to myself, "whoever graded these didn't know what they were doing."
i stand by what i said............it's a crapshoot now more than ever before
@galaxy27 said:
color me very unsurprised by any of this. i can't remember the exact figure that was attached to the backlog a couple of years ago, but it was eye-popping. in order to play catch up, there was going to be some serious dilution in the grading department. flash a card and poll 10 people. now flash the same card to 100 people, a number of whom are wet behind the ears when it comes to the intricacies of cardboard. then tell me if the range of opinions expands or contracts.
eotd, this is what happens when you react instead of anticipate................you create a dumpster fire of inaccuracies. the grades assigned to the cards in this thread are a disgrace.
I'd like to believe that the problems are due to inexperienced graders but that would mean that there should be nearly as many 5's in 8 holders as there are 8's in 5 holders. I would suspect inexperience would cause more under-graded examples due to graders missing flaws. What we are witnessing is no accident..
Nah... this is simply making and protecting a market pure and simple.
I guess my game plan is to go seek out some of those beautiful newly graded 5's and put them away until sanity returns.
Mark
my last submission (and my final one, ever) was 20ish rare golf cards. i didn't care so much about the grades, as they were PC items and i just wanted them to present well. i went over every single one of them with a fine-tooth comb prior to firing them off, thus i had my own realistic expectations set in place. 90% of them came back two grades higher than i anticipated, and that's because the surfaces were clearly not scrutinized. and no, i wasn't jumping for joy when i got them back. instead, i chuckled and thought to myself, "whoever graded these didn't know what they were doing."
i stand by what i said............it's a crapshoot now more than ever before
It seems now more than ever the grades are CRAP than are a crapshoot.
I’m also seeing other companies lowering there prices to maybe take this share of the grading world.
With the numbers going through on modern and TCG I’m not sure PSA cares or considers they have a problem about all these issues with vintage.
They are WRONG and giving an inch that can easily turn into a mile. It’ll be a sad day when the vintage market no longer has PSA as the top grading service but all signs point to it coming.
Looking at SGCs current pricing setup feels kind of telling to me in terms of where the market is. They want the vintage and they want it all because they can handle more business. But they have a few perks to effectively take some vintage business from PSA. $15 a card. Cost, that is nice. Most of us like to pay less. 5-10 days turnaround. That is very exciting. Think we all love learning our grades sooner. Then its anything up to $3500 declared value at the $15 price. So cheaper per card at the lower value but a lot cheaper at the higher value. Now I dont know how the grades will turn out. Feels like their cards sell at 60 to 80% of cards in PSA holders. So the math gets interesting. Is it still better to send to PSA if the grade is the same and pay more because the difference in cost is smaller than the variance of value after slabbed? Dont know if a half grade bump is worth it on a lot of the older stuff.
I just sent a batch into SGC for the first time ever and its partly a test to see if its worth it. If it was not great value life goes on but want to see, to learn. Cool thing is you can do a crossover order and then mix raw cards in the same batch. Do like that you dont have to make them separate orders. That was always frustrating. Especially when you would think if you send an order that is Vintage only and cant mix it with modern you would you get your order going to the individual who really understood that space that the order is in. So some more perks that make it more appealing, can mix crossover and raw cards. No minimums. You could do a NM 1955 Hank Aaron, a crossover, and a Brock Purdy rookie and that is one acceptable order. So I did my recent 50s Topps epic fails as crossovers, some other vintage PSA cards I felt could potentially bump in a crossover and then had a few 80s and modern PSA 9s where I felt maybe I could get the 9.5 Mint + grade and would like that bump, then some raw 50s cards, a couple Hank Aaron 70s raw cards where I was thinking as many have said, it might not grade well with PSA because it is one of the most desirable cards in the set. It looks like a 7 and it was Wilbur Wood maybe it would be but since its Hank Aaron 5. Will share those results and excited that I am supposed to learn in 5-10 days.
So I see about 6 perks that SGC is offering to try to pull that vintage business from PSA and then maybe 7 if the grades on average are higher. Which leaves the space that maybe everybody wants most, modern and TCG. It seems to make sense everyone is targeting this because vintage is such a small piece of the puzzle and will shrink. But TCG and modern product is growing in a huge way on a weekly monthly yearly basis. Naturally they will just keep making more and people will continue to break boxes and cases and have tons of slabbable material. SGC has TCG at $9 a card over PSA's low $15. There I would say not worth it yet. In time maybe. Did just put an order for 56 TCG cards to PSA in the mail today. That feels worth it. Then SGC has an offer they extended of $9 a card for 2023 baseball Topps Chrome. Which makes me want to hurry up and buy some more. I think this the main battleground, TCG and modern, that all of the grading companies want to win most. Which I think contributes to all of this frustration with vintage and 80s. It can be written off. But think they need to be careful. Its one thing to not want it but another to accept money to do a subject matter expert review and authentication that is based on standards that are no longer being followed. These days your reputation can be destroyed in a day so you have to be careful. Maybe better to sell off the portion of the business that is not desired than continue to anger customers by not giving it proper attention.
Clearly surface evaluation has taken on a higher priority at PSA, particularly for cards that are high end (those with quality corners and centering). It appears to me that "flatness" and "squareness" of the card surface and edges is key when getting a 9/10. Micro blebs, dips, incomplete edge cracks/ chipping & inconsistent gloss will knock a 9/10 to a 7,6 or 5. In particular, in the past, surface wrinkles and creases did the same while these other micro-defects were appraised less severely in the grading process. I guess we should check our cards even more closely before sending them in.
The question for collectors/investors is will PSA continue to sell for more dollars than an SGC card in the same grade? If so…PSA will continue to be the preferred slab.
@mintonlypls said:
The question for collectors/investors is will PSA continue to sell for more dollars than an SGC card in the same grade? If so…PSA will continue to be the preferred slab.
@mintonlypls said:
The question for collectors/investors is will PSA continue to sell for more dollars than an SGC card in the same grade? If so…PSA will continue to be the preferred slab.
Yes, but for how long.
If anything, PSA should command an even greater premium for a card in the same grade as attaining that grade is tougher than it was.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@YosemiteLakes said:
Here's a "freshly graded" 😆 PSA 8 that I recently purchased. I feel like the grade is accurate and the grader was familiar with the opc rough cut.
For OPC that looks like a 10. I have seen some very bad looking OPC that were graded higher.
Comments
Yep, PSA's main priority is to process as many cards as possible per day, with Grading Accuracy and Quality Control being low down on their list of priorities. The "Research & ID" and "QA" stages are just for show - if they actually performed these stages we would not see so many mis-graded and mis-labeled / mis-identified cards in PSA holders.
Submitters have no recourse against PSA for receiving grading results that don't make sense. The graded examples in this thread are clearly not graded accurately, but there is nothing the submitter can do about it - other than pay for a review or crack it out and pay to resubmit it.
It is a brilliant business model that PSA has - get paid to perform services that are all based on "opinion" and no one really knows whose "opinion" you're going to get. We don't really even know how many graders they currently have or what the grader's backgrounds are within the hobby. Will your 1987 Donruss factory set cards end up with the guy who actually knows what factory set cards are supposed to look like, or will they end up with the guy who jumped into the hobby during the pandemic and only knows ultra-modern really well. I think the ultra-modern grader got the 1987 Donruss cards in this thread.
Belz,
Good to see you posting again and I am sorry how the grading results turned. I know from prior experience they grade 1975 cards really tough and about 8 years ago, I did a sub of 58 cards from a really nice 1975 raw set that I bought. I went through the set with a fine tooth comb and sent in the best cards of the 660 cards (including most stars even if I anticipated a 7 grade). My results were as follows:
1 10
14 9's
24 8's
19 7's
I would bet with a reasonable amount of certainty,I would not receive the same results today. It would be an interesting case study to see what these cards would grade today. I wouldn't have the balls nor the cards anymore to do such a task.
I've adopted the policy that I am no longer going to send in cards, mostly because of wait times and becoming most likely disappointed in the results after waiting forever and would rather purchase cards in my focus that are strong for the grade, in my opinion.
I think we all evaluate great eye appeal differently. For example, my #1 thing that I look for is centering, #2 is corners, and #3 fisheyes/or print defects on the front of the card. If a card passes all three tests, I deem it high end for the grade and I bid strong, even though there probably may be surface issues, card back issues that I am ignoring because I may not see that in a scan or I really don't care. Those are the types of cards that I look for and with my 1956 Topps registry set in PSA7/7.5/8, I believe all my cards that I've acquired have to pass these tests to some degree. With doing so, I'm in year 13 of working on the set with needing 50 cards or so to finish. I definitely could have had the set done 5 years ago, but it's been a labor of love and I don't mind waiting for the right cards to come along.
I'd be interested to see some of your scans of the 75 cards when you receive them back.
Thanks for posting.
Jeremy
OMG that is insane! How the hell has this not been corrected yet?
This makes the grader of death look like a weakling.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I’m in the same boat as all of y’all. I don’t even plan on opening my latest order this month. 80s special 40+ card
0-10s
6-9s
22-8s
0-8.5s
11-7s
And 2 6s.
I sent in what I expected to be mint or better and maybe 10-11 8s not 7s that are worth negative after eBay fees. Really felt nuts 1 grade lower. I was expecting at least a min of 2-3 tens. Seems many others had the same experience with this special.
Does PSA have experienced graders view vintage…and newbies grade modern? Anyone know?
Jeremey, hi ya for sure…and I’ll write more later. I just got my other sub of late 80s and check this out…and like many of you posting pics…just silly at this point.
I sent in 200-1975’s a few months back.
These were top end cards. Never expect a 10 but thought a few would.
GOT
0-10
3-9’s
144-8’s
42-7’s
11-6’s
I was livid. The 3-9’s were the 3 cheapest 9’s you could get.
Horrible
PSA 6.
chaz
Gone are the days that you can self-sub to complete a high-grade vintage registry set. It looks like the only choice is to buy already graded,
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
I guess on the bright side it’s harder for the trimmers and card alterers to reliably make money?
Spot on , very sad.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Yep…need to buy the grade you want. Don’t buy raw expecting a high end grade or another TPG slab and expect a straight crossover.
Talking about raw…how much of an impact will the tough grading standards have on unopened as well as vending prices??
There are tons of issues right now and it is causing serious doubts within the community who grades cards...especially vintage. 1st off we have no idea what the process is anymore or how many graders are even working. If PSA announced that they have 100 graders we wouldn't know if that's true. If they announced that they had 15 graders and computer scanning/grading is doing the bulk of the work we wouldn't know. If PSA announced that Stevie Wonder was the new Director of Grading we wouldn't know. They could announce that there is a team of graders for each sport and year of cards and we wouldn't know. Maybe all grades are based on that initial scan and a team in Minnnesota grades 10% of the cards while only using a scan and never having the card in hand...we wouldn't know. Maybe the cards are delivered to Santa Ana and then transported to San Diego for grading...we wouldn't know. You get the idea. There is no transparency at all. All we know is what we are being told or what we read. It's obviously a mess right now. The question is, will this ever get fixed and if it does how long will this take? I will say this that I've noticed at shows that many collectors are more harsh on assigning a grade now than I have ever witnessed in the past. Most have viewed so many shiny/minty newer cards that all vintage to them is low grade. If I had to completely guess I would say that there is some sort of computer technology assisting in the grading process and it is way too harsh on surface, edges etc. A Mint 9 type card with a flaw that would normally take the card down to an 8 now takes it down to a 7 or 6. Just way too harsh. One other thing is that I remember the huge hype about the Jersey location and how this was going to be such a huge deal. I haven't heard anything about them grading cards or anything.
Wouldn’t be so sure about that. Lots of clean edge OPC hky getting slabbed. Inexperienced graders won’t know what to look for in lots of cases.
Not sure if it's the card or the holder, but on the left side, especially upper left (and same with the Maddox card), it looks like there is a surface issue. It's noticeably lighter with loss of gloss.
Unfortunately, no. If they're paying PSA 3 prices to by a mid grade raw card and then sprucing it up, they make money even if it's a 6.
Nope, no surface issue. Must be the light.
I feel like with the rise of CSG in the market, PSA is trying to show that they are the strictest grader as a way of keeping their cards the top value for the same grade.
Of course, this can spectacularly backfire if people feel like the grading is so harsh that they are throwing money out the window by paying to grade cards that will come back not being worth the value of the grade plus the cost they paid for grading.
The grader must have felt this as flecks of print separated from the card?
Like when you pull apart 2 glossy cards that stuck together.
I have a 89 Jordan that got a 5, that I still can't see how it could be.
I'm just trying to figure out the thought process.
This, man. Folks will start moving in from PAA if they feel things aren’t fair, accurate or consistent. Obviously things are seeming to be all 3 currently.
I’ve already stopped buying unopened and ripping and am just working through a stash. The worm is turning for sure.
Where the heck have the half point grades gone?!!! If a grader believes a card deserves a 5 or 6 for reasons other than poor centering and the centering is near perfect to perfect, how can that not at least warrant an additional half point? I've seen way too many perfectly centered 5s and 6s that did not receive the half point bump they clearly deserved.
I think you're putting too much emphasis on centering being the sole reason for a 1/2 grade bump.
It can be a card grading on the high end of a given grade, or the totally grey area of this thing called 'eye appeal'.
You can have a perfectly centered card without great eye appeal, therefore not worthy of a 1/2 grade bump.
Besides, if the belief is PSA can misgrade by 1, 2, or even 3 grades, what meaning is the 1/2 grade?
Naturally followed by, 'buy the card, not the meaningless flip', which is then followed by, 'if the number on the flip is meaningless, why even have cards graded'. We always end up at the same place, yet we all still send in subs and wonder why our 5 didn't get a 5.5 when it should have been a 7 in the first place.
I thought the half point grades was a good idea when it came about.
It seems many graders didn't get the memo. More work for them.
This was from the same submission which I think is more accurately graded. I was thinking somewhere around an 8.
I hope that some day an ex PSA employee (Todd?) would write a book on card grading and behind the scenes at PSA. Would be a best seller. (Like THE CARD!)
This, to me, will always go down as the biggest farce in the grading industry. All the other stuff about over-graded and under-graded cards, missing doctored cards, re-subbing and getting 2 full grade bumps, and so on can be explained away using the "grading is subjective" and "humans are not perfect" excuse. But the complete disregard for half point grades by the majority of PSA graders is just inexplicable. And the statistics are 100% objective.
Reveal your grades 1 by 1!
This "opinion" below took me some time to process in my brain=== so here goes one collectors thoughts hopefully expressed professionally and coherently below. I wanted to go full Jeff Dunham " Walter" ( telling it like it is) but figure I'll temper it for now until they have responses that I can relate to better
I think the vintage folks are seeing the worst of the new era " AI" due to the initial and continued knee jerk reactions to the grading scandal. I'll question some PSA grading decisions I've seen on vintage - honestly some are not even close, and others swing the other way towards too harsh.
Can't really say its bad resuLts that are irritating me. I'm just seeing the end results and its not been pretty. I'm confused at what exactly they want, but think I'm narrowing it down. I'd just like some more clarity on what PSA thinks. Frankly I think they went too harsh and some minor changes will bring it back to normal again
1) I'd like to see explanations about how its systems handle vintage vs modern printing production differences, Seems that this AI system- and the graders - don't quite understand they used to cut cards with wire in the old days, and the new days its done with laser cutting. Therefore edges and corners of a 1955 or 1971 card are not remotely going to resemble a 2020+ item. Yet the AI and these new graders seem to think it should be the same ; same goes for surface printing problems- see complaint 2 ;
2) Since when did surface considerations become THE factor in vintage card grading ? Its overall EYE APPEAL
Let me repeat that- its OVERALL EYE APPEAL. Slamming cards now because you found some deeply buried or well hidden surface flaw or edge chipping issue only seen under 100x magnification ? When did we veer of from the 10-35x loupes coins and card folks have used since time immemorial ? This isn't supposed to be NASA where only the best surfaces get considered for the highest level passing grade. Its supposed to be we punish the ones that affect eye appeal . The rest should be considered a byproduct of printing process variations ( temp /humidity etc), and they only should punish the cards if it really detracts from the cards overall aesthetic quality ;
3) Let's work on some better way of expressing when grading or process changes happen- not just having them happen and we discover them for ourselves. This is called " poor communication" and I don't expect it from a multi billion dollar conglomerate. It's happened a lot over the last year. Let's work on that part also.
I'll leave the rest to private discussions with them
My " opinion" as always-
jeff
It’s weird that 3 total ‘issues’ with a card gets you to a 7 but 15 gets you to a 5. None of it makes sense. The logic of the grading seems off on the vintage. Maybe it will revert to normal or maybe folks will just stop sending them to PSA. I’m not sure they’d care either way with the numbers of other types they’re seeing.
It’s now “PSA 4”. Get with the program man!
No Chaz helped write the software.
If the majority of their graders are seeing any possibility of cards, that's a problem. I would expect experience to play a role in what you are grading, vintage vs modern. I also think the Genamint technology they acquired has a lot to do with the higher standards now... they acquired that company 2.5 years ago, and from what I understand, implemented the technology shortly after.
color me very unsurprised by any of this. i can't remember the exact figure that was attached to the backlog a couple of years ago, but it was eye-popping. in order to play catch up, there was going to be some serious dilution in the grading department. flash a card and poll 10 people. now flash the same card to 100 people, a number of whom are wet behind the ears when it comes to the intricacies of cardboard. then tell me if the range of opinions expands or contracts.
eotd, this is what happens when you react instead of anticipate................you create a dumpster fire of inaccuracies. the grades assigned to the cards in this thread are a disgrace.
"A.I." and grading with digital scanning is probably a factor as well as inexperienced graders. All I know is that the examples above are ridiculous.
As someone already stated, a standard is a standard. This is almost like an inch is not an inch anymore! An inch is being changed to 1.75 centimeters (when actually is is 2.54 centimeters).
Also, if they have changed the way they grade cards (i.e. A.I. or digital scanning instead of a human being with a loupe), then that should be notating this on the flip! It is not fair to the hobby to be doing this. It is also going to hurt PSA in the long run. The goal should not be "THE MOST STRICT". The goal should be "THE MOST ACCURATE".
Shane
Bingo
Accurate, Accurate, Accurate
I’m also seeing other companies lowering there prices to maybe take this share of the grading world.
I'd like to believe that the problems are due to inexperienced graders but that would mean that there should be nearly as many 5's in 8 holders as there are 8's in 5 holders. I would suspect inexperience would cause more under-graded examples due to graders missing flaws. What we are witnessing is no accident..
Nah... this is simply making and protecting a market pure and simple.
I guess my game plan is to go seek out some of those beautiful newly graded 5's and put them away until sanity returns.
Mark
Someone mentioned transparency. That again is the issue. There is no way AI is not being utilized. Too many consistent 6’s and 5’s based upon likely 100-1000X
review on everything. Additionally, there is no way the backlog is possible to sustain without artificial reviews.
1000X review does not capture eye appeal and AI sure can’t. Let’s stop the nonsense and be candid with the change in standard, business practice and methods and platforms to grade and spend our money. Vintage needs to be distinct as laser cutting is not engaged, factory sets are commonplace and it is comparing different galaxies vs modern.
my last submission (and my final one, ever) was 20ish rare golf cards. i didn't care so much about the grades, as they were PC items and i just wanted them to present well. i went over every single one of them with a fine-tooth comb prior to firing them off, thus i had my own realistic expectations set in place. 90% of them came back two grades higher than i anticipated, and that's because the surfaces were clearly not scrutinized. and no, i wasn't jumping for joy when i got them back. instead, i chuckled and thought to myself, "whoever graded these didn't know what they were doing."
i stand by what i said............it's a crapshoot now more than ever before
It seems now more than ever the grades are CRAP than are a crapshoot.
With the numbers going through on modern and TCG I’m not sure PSA cares or considers they have a problem about all these issues with vintage.
They are WRONG and giving an inch that can easily turn into a mile. It’ll be a sad day when the vintage market no longer has PSA as the top grading service but all signs point to it coming.
Looking at SGCs current pricing setup feels kind of telling to me in terms of where the market is. They want the vintage and they want it all because they can handle more business. But they have a few perks to effectively take some vintage business from PSA. $15 a card. Cost, that is nice. Most of us like to pay less. 5-10 days turnaround. That is very exciting. Think we all love learning our grades sooner. Then its anything up to $3500 declared value at the $15 price. So cheaper per card at the lower value but a lot cheaper at the higher value. Now I dont know how the grades will turn out. Feels like their cards sell at 60 to 80% of cards in PSA holders. So the math gets interesting. Is it still better to send to PSA if the grade is the same and pay more because the difference in cost is smaller than the variance of value after slabbed? Dont know if a half grade bump is worth it on a lot of the older stuff.
I just sent a batch into SGC for the first time ever and its partly a test to see if its worth it. If it was not great value life goes on but want to see, to learn. Cool thing is you can do a crossover order and then mix raw cards in the same batch. Do like that you dont have to make them separate orders. That was always frustrating. Especially when you would think if you send an order that is Vintage only and cant mix it with modern you would you get your order going to the individual who really understood that space that the order is in. So some more perks that make it more appealing, can mix crossover and raw cards. No minimums. You could do a NM 1955 Hank Aaron, a crossover, and a Brock Purdy rookie and that is one acceptable order. So I did my recent 50s Topps epic fails as crossovers, some other vintage PSA cards I felt could potentially bump in a crossover and then had a few 80s and modern PSA 9s where I felt maybe I could get the 9.5 Mint + grade and would like that bump, then some raw 50s cards, a couple Hank Aaron 70s raw cards where I was thinking as many have said, it might not grade well with PSA because it is one of the most desirable cards in the set. It looks like a 7 and it was Wilbur Wood maybe it would be but since its Hank Aaron 5. Will share those results and excited that I am supposed to learn in 5-10 days.
So I see about 6 perks that SGC is offering to try to pull that vintage business from PSA and then maybe 7 if the grades on average are higher. Which leaves the space that maybe everybody wants most, modern and TCG. It seems to make sense everyone is targeting this because vintage is such a small piece of the puzzle and will shrink. But TCG and modern product is growing in a huge way on a weekly monthly yearly basis. Naturally they will just keep making more and people will continue to break boxes and cases and have tons of slabbable material. SGC has TCG at $9 a card over PSA's low $15. There I would say not worth it yet. In time maybe. Did just put an order for 56 TCG cards to PSA in the mail today. That feels worth it. Then SGC has an offer they extended of $9 a card for 2023 baseball Topps Chrome. Which makes me want to hurry up and buy some more. I think this the main battleground, TCG and modern, that all of the grading companies want to win most. Which I think contributes to all of this frustration with vintage and 80s. It can be written off. But think they need to be careful. Its one thing to not want it but another to accept money to do a subject matter expert review and authentication that is based on standards that are no longer being followed. These days your reputation can be destroyed in a day so you have to be careful. Maybe better to sell off the portion of the business that is not desired than continue to anger customers by not giving it proper attention.
Clearly surface evaluation has taken on a higher priority at PSA, particularly for cards that are high end (those with quality corners and centering). It appears to me that "flatness" and "squareness" of the card surface and edges is key when getting a 9/10. Micro blebs, dips, incomplete edge cracks/ chipping & inconsistent gloss will knock a 9/10 to a 7,6 or 5. In particular, in the past, surface wrinkles and creases did the same while these other micro-defects were appraised less severely in the grading process. I guess we should check our cards even more closely before sending them in.
It comes down to this issue, “ they are not following their published standard for grading”. Without that, everything changes in my opinion
The question for collectors/investors is will PSA continue to sell for more dollars than an SGC card in the same grade? If so…PSA will continue to be the preferred slab.
Yes, but for how long.
If anything, PSA should command an even greater premium for a card in the same grade as attaining that grade is tougher than it was.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Here's a "freshly graded" 😆 PSA 8 that I recently purchased. I feel like the grade is accurate and the grader was familiar with the opc rough cut.
For OPC that looks like a 10. I have seen some very bad looking OPC that were graded higher.