@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.
That is the real question for sure.
SGC obviously is hungrier for the business. Time will tell if collectors go to them.
@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.
Definitely for people purchasing a graded card. I get sentimental about players and cards and its an emotional thing. The holder I really have to close to no attachment to. I like the card. I like that it is protected and then I want it to have maximum value. For me the holder is 100% business. The card is the beautiful thing. I think the holder can display it well. But I don't want to lose value in a nicer looking holder. Some years look nice in different holders. I used think a T206 looked very nice in an SGC holder. An autographed 2000s card could look nicer in a BGS holder. I dont think cards look magnificent in a PSA holder. But my loyalty is to the dollar, not much more. And the experience not being a wince grit my teeth pain in the rear experience. I may be willing to lose 10 to 15% to say goodbye to that depending on how much we're talking. I feel like a 1956 Topps card could look great in an SGC holder. A Corbin Carroll #ed autographed refractor Topps Chrome card was very sharp in an SGC holder. The new Lorcana Enchanted cards looked fantastic in their holder. Just dont lose me too much money. I cant play that game. But I also cant play the game of the same card being NM in an SGC or another grader's holder and being Excellent in a PSA holder. If its a 5 in both, yes, for now PSA. If its worth it maybe try PSA first and if I dont like it try the crossover. At this point I have never fully gone through a transaction with SGC but no card grading company has earned any loyalty from me. Its purely transactional. Make me want to do business with you. Make it worth it for me to do business with you. I need to feel like I'm winning or I have no motive to play.
@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.
That card would have formerly been a PSA 10 all day and a worst case PSA 9. The problem is PSA is no longer using a logical 10 point scale. To give a dead centered, razor corner and edges card (like the 1988 Topps Bo Jackson rookie shown in another thread) a PSA 5 because of a micro surface pimple the same grade as a rounded corner, off focus card from the 1960s is a total miss of the grading scale. PSA has been grading cards for 30 years and they have moved the goal line in the past six months. It isn’t about being the most strict grader, it is about being the most consistent. I have been in this hobby for 35+ years and been using grading services for over 20 years. Many forget that BGS was by far the most strict grader when they began. BGS actually sold for a substantial premium to PSA in their first 3 years. BGS lost their way when they stopped being consistent in their sub grade standards and are now a distant number three among grading companies. PSA is well on their way to repeating the same fatal mistake of inconsistency as BGS.
Just out of curiosity I looked up the APR on two successive grades I had on vintage 1977 Rose. An 8 is about $60 but the 9 is $340. If these grades are the same criteria for PSA and SGC then I stay with PSA because of their premium on resale. If SGC is the fair grader then I can afford to sell at less than 20% and still be ahead if PSA is only one point harsher (anything more becomes absolutely pointless to stay).
This type calculation lots of vintage folks will start considering. A simple point and fairness have real consequences.
I recall early BGS (subgrades on the back) being the toughest graders. Even BVG, when it first started, was extremely tough (especially on corners and edges). Dr Beckett has acknowledged these points. Then Dr Beckett retired from BGS and their grading became erratic, subgrades were removed from BVG and trimmed edges were getting by graders. BGS needs his leadership again. This would be the best for the hobby and grading in general.
@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.
This seems more embarrassing then when a reprint got slabbed as authentic.
@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.
Except when it isn’t. As I have posted several times, there are many cards in brand new slabs getting 9s with noticeable wear at all four corners.
If grading were consistently harsher/tighter, when searching PSA 9 1973s on eBay, I should be saying “Wow, these 9s are nicer than I ever remember!” But I am not saying that at all TBH.
After reading all this I can only conclude that something fundamental has changed in the graders/grading process, and I’m not sure there is a simple rhyme or reason to it.
Maybe you’re happy with the 8 but I had 160-1982 OPC Hockey graded in the last few months and never again. Although I got several 9’s , they for the most part had no rough cut. Anything with a rough cut was graded 6 or 7.
I checked to see if this was one of my Fuhr’s I sold but it isnt
@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.
Except when it isn’t. As I have posted several times, there are many cards in brand new slabs getting 9s with noticeable wear at all four corners.
If grading were consistently harsher/tighter, when searching PSA 9 1973s on eBay, I should be saying “Wow, these 9s are nicer than I ever remember!” But I am not saying that at all TBH.
After reading all this I can only conclude that something fundamental has changed in the graders/grading process, and I’m not sure there is a simple rhyme or reason to it.
That is interesting and contradicts the overall consensus in this thread which is that PSA is markedly tougher on vintage today vs in years. So in your opinion that is not the case? Surely, the OP and other submitters should be seeing at least a couple of favorable grades even if the reality is that the grading standards are not being consistently applied. But from what I've read here (and experienced firsthand in the limited subs I have sent in), that is not the case.
I have noticed that cards with the newer flips seem to be more desirable to most collectors so at the very least the perception among collectors is that the grading standards are stricter now vs in years past.
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.
I can remember reading when I first came here to C.U that there was talk of some big dealers getting favorable grades, I have no idea of this info except what I read here years ago. If true that would explain some of the high grades for low grade cards.
I’m not disputing the experiences of others, just giving my own perspective. I have never seen so many 9s with noticeable corner wear.
Here's a 9 with corner wear (cert 4xxxxxxx). At least it's consistent. LOL
Some cards will be overgraded as well, and that's not good either.
But it does seem, currently, the majority of vintage cards are being harshly undergraded.
And SGC is not immune to the changing standards.
Here's an early SGC 8.5.
What are the chances a crossover to PSA 8.5? or 8? or even a 7?
(BTW, the card ended with 0 bids at roughly 50% of what a PSA would likely go for, so I wasn't the only one that noticed.)
@jordangretzkyfan said:
To give a dead centered, razor corner and edges card (like the 1988 Topps Bo Jackson rookie shown in another thread) a PSA 5 because of a micro surface pimple the same grade as a rounded corner, off focus card from the 1960s is a total miss of the grading scale.
I’m so tired about hearing about “the technical grade.” The whole point of grading is to measure how appealing a card is to the majority of collectors. Or if it’s not, it should be.
What about those early graded cards, cert #'s that start with a 0.
They are getting devalued. We are getting conditioned to what an 'new' 8 should look like, and the old 8s just don't make the grade.
I see it on reddit with the new/young collectors.
They think all of their own cards are 10s (LOL), but when commenting on other's cards they are harsh.
If it's not PERFECTLY centered, they'll say it's a 7 or 8, even though based on the grading standards, it falls well within the guidelines of a 9.
Also, with edges, I see comments about seeing some white on a corner or edge and right away it's hammered with an undeserving low grade. Maybe the graders share the same viewpoint as some of those redditors.
I’m so tired about hearing about “the technical grade.” The whole point of grading is to measure how appealing a card is to the majority of collectors. Or if it’s not, it should be.
Since graders rely upon magnification to find flaws that are not clearly visible to the naked eye, I don't believe that eye appeal is truly what they are evaluating. They are clearly instructed to look for any reason to downgrade rather than to focus on the card's true eye appeal, which to me constitutes technical grading. I can easily spot a surface wrinkle or indentation by looking at a card in sufficient light without magnification (or my reading glasses for that matter). I see no reason why graders should not be doing the same, with the exception being that they should wear glasses if needed. The value that third party grading should provide to consumers is catching flaws which cannot easily be detected by a prospective buyer while viewing a scan or photo of a card on a computer monitor or phone. If a card appears to be mint on your screen but has a surface wrinkle that warranted a downgrade by the third party grader, then the buyer is protected as they will know not to pay the price of a mint card when it is in fact an Ex or Ex-Mt card. But if a card is graded Ex or Ex-Mt on the basis of a flaw that the buyer is unable to detect without the use of magnification, then I believe that technical grading has gone way too far.
I’m not disputing the experiences of others, just giving my own perspective. I have never seen so many 9s with noticeable corner wear.
Here's a 9 with corner wear (cert 4xxxxxxx). At least it's consistent. LOL
Some cards will be overgraded as well, and that's not good either.
But it does seem, currently, the majority of vintage cards are being harshly undergraded.
And SGC is not immune to the changing standards.
Here's an early SGC 8.5.
What are the chances a crossover to PSA 8.5? or 8? or even a 7?
(BTW, the card ended with 0 bids at roughly 50% of what a PSA would likely go for, so I wasn't the only one that noticed.)
I’m not disputing the experiences of others, just giving my own perspective. I have never seen so many 9s with noticeable corner wear.
Here's a 9 with corner wear (cert 4xxxxxxx). At least it's consistent. LOL
Some cards will be overgraded as well, and that's not good either.
But it does seem, currently, the majority of vintage cards are being harshly undergraded.
And SGC is not immune to the changing standards.
Here's an early SGC 8.5.
What are the chances a crossover to PSA 8.5? or 8? or even a 7?
(BTW, the card ended with 0 bids at roughly 50% of what a PSA would likely go for, so I wasn't the only one that noticed.)
I’m not disputing the experiences of others, just giving my own perspective. I have never seen so many 9s with noticeable corner wear.
Here's a 9 with corner wear (cert 4xxxxxxx). At least it's consistent. LOL
Some cards will be overgraded as well, and that's not good either.
But it does seem, currently, the majority of vintage cards are being harshly undergraded.
And SGC is not immune to the changing standards.
Here's an early SGC 8.5.
What are the chances a crossover to PSA 8.5? or 8? or even a 7?
(BTW, the card ended with 0 bids at roughly 50% of what a PSA would likely go for, so I wasn't the only one that noticed.)
At least the card should be in an up-to-date SGC holder…to give it a chance for a bid (nibble).
@RonSportscards said:
What about those early graded cards, cert #'s that start with a 0.
They are getting devalued. We are getting conditioned to what an 'new' 8 should look like, and the old 8s just don't make the grade.
I see it on reddit with the new/young collectors.
They think all of their own cards are 10s (LOL), but when commenting on other's cards they are harsh.
If it's not PERFECTLY centered, they'll say it's a 7 or 8, even though based on the grading standards, it falls well within the guidelines of a 9.
Also, with edges, I see comments about seeing some white on a corner or edge and right away it's hammered with an undeserving low grade. Maybe the graders share the same viewpoint as some of those redditors.
@RonSportscards said:
What about those early graded cards, cert #'s that start with a 0.
They are getting devalued. We are getting conditioned to what an 'new' 8 should look like, and the old 8s just don't make the grade.
I see it on reddit with the new/young collectors.
They think all of their own cards are 10s (LOL), but when commenting on other's cards they are harsh.
If it's not PERFECTLY centered, they'll say it's a 7 or 8, even though based on the grading standards, it falls well within the guidelines of a 9.
Also, with edges, I see comments about seeing some white on a corner or edge and right away it's hammered with an undeserving low grade. Maybe the graders share the same viewpoint as some of those redditors.
There are early graded PSA cards (0xxxxxxx, 1xxxxxxx, 3xxxxxxx) that would make today’s cut. Don’t stereotype early graded PSA cards…there are beautiful early cards.
How do we know that the Seaver and Cey cards weren’t simply reholdered to the new label? I am probably wrong, but I thought the certification number gives no indication of when a card was graded.
There are early graded PSA cards (0xxxxxxx, 1xxxxxxx, 3xxxxxxx) that would make today’s cut. Don’t stereotype early graded PSA cards…there are beautiful early cards.
I have lots of fantastic cards in early holders. One thing early flips have going for them is that there was a lot more vending left to cherry pick from in those days, so beautiful commons were copious.
@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.
If you blow up that '89 Score Sanders and look about a third of the way down the right edge, you will notice a fairly decent issue with that edge -- I am guessing that accounted for at least 3 of the points dropped in the final grade
I’m not disputing the experiences of others, just giving my own perspective. I have never seen so many 9s with noticeable corner wear.
Here's a 9 with corner wear (cert 4xxxxxxx). At least it's consistent. LOL
Some cards will be overgraded as well, and that's not good either.
But it does seem, currently, the majority of vintage cards are being harshly undergraded.
And SGC is not immune to the changing standards.
Here's an early SGC 8.5.
What are the chances a crossover to PSA 8.5? or 8? or even a 7?
(BTW, the card ended with 0 bids at roughly 50% of what a PSA would likely go for, so I wasn't the only one that noticed.)
That is one ugly 8.5, that Cey card...just the l/r centering could get it to 8.5...add in the big ugly fish eye on his helmet, the slight paper loss from the middle of the bottom edge, slightly soft corner in lower right, some small spot about an inch up from the bottom on the left edge, plenty of splotching in the blue DODGERS letters plus some stray print dots here and there (like the one in the yellow area below the E in DODGERS), I could easily see this card in a 6 holder, no matter which company grades it today
@detroitfan2 said:
How do we know that the Seaver and Cey cards weren’t simply reholdered to the new label? I am probably wrong, but I thought the certification number gives no indication of when a card was graded.
The cert number gives every indication of when the card was graded, and when cards are reholdered, the cert numbers remains the same.
I’m not disputing the experiences of others, just giving my own perspective. I have never seen so many 9s with noticeable corner wear.
Here's a 9 with corner wear (cert 4xxxxxxx). At least it's consistent. LOL
Some cards will be overgraded as well, and that's not good either.
But it does seem, currently, the majority of vintage cards are being harshly undergraded.
And SGC is not immune to the changing standards.
Here's an early SGC 8.5.
What are the chances a crossover to PSA 8.5? or 8? or even a 7?
(BTW, the card ended with 0 bids at roughly 50% of what a PSA would likely go for, so I wasn't the only one that noticed.)
That is one ugly 8.5, that Cey card...just the l/r centering could get it to 8.5...add in the big ugly fish eye on his helmet, the slight paper loss from the middle of the bottom edge, slightly soft corner in lower right, some small spot about an inch up from the bottom on the left edge, plenty of splotching in the blue DODGERS letters plus some stray print dots here and there (like the one in the yellow area below the E in DODGERS), I could easily see this card in a 6 holder, no matter which company grades it today
Centering, while not perfect, is actually well within the parameters for a PSA 9. And while I would agree that the fisheye on the helmet is not visually appealing, I'd say equating a tiny chip with paper loss on the bottom edge is really a stretch. I also think the Dodgers is just fine (I've seen worse on PSA 9s), as well as the corner especially when compared to the 76 card.
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.
@RonSportscards said:
What about those early graded cards, cert #'s that start with a 0.
They are getting devalued. We are getting conditioned to what an 'new' 8 should look like, and the old 8s just don't make the grade.
I see it on reddit with the new/young collectors.
They think all of their own cards are 10s (LOL), but when commenting on other's cards they are harsh.
If it's not PERFECTLY centered, they'll say it's a 7 or 8, even though based on the grading standards, it falls well within the guidelines of a 9.
Also, with edges, I see comments about seeing some white on a corner or edge and right away it's hammered with an undeserving low grade. Maybe the graders share the same viewpoint as some of those redditors.
@RonSportscards said:
What about those early graded cards, cert #'s that start with a 0.
They are getting devalued. We are getting conditioned to what an 'new' 8 should look like, and the old 8s just don't make the grade.
I see it on reddit with the new/young collectors.
They think all of their own cards are 10s (LOL), but when commenting on other's cards they are harsh.
If it's not PERFECTLY centered, they'll say it's a 7 or 8, even though based on the grading standards, it falls well within the guidelines of a 9.
Also, with edges, I see comments about seeing some white on a corner or edge and right away it's hammered with an undeserving low grade. Maybe the graders share the same viewpoint as some of those redditors.
There are early graded PSA cards (0xxxxxxx, 1xxxxxxx, 3xxxxxxx) that would make today’s cut. Don’t stereotype early graded PSA cards…there are beautiful early cards.
Hmmm...I don't remember saying ALL of them.
I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the real early grades were looser than today.
I guess you disagree. That's ok.
@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.
If you blow up that '89 Score Sanders and look about a third of the way down the right edge, you will notice a fairly decent issue with that edge -- I am guessing that accounted for at least 3 of the points dropped in the final grade
I noticed that too. I blew it up from PSA scan. Giving it a 5 though, is a little harsh.
I’m not disputing the experiences of others, just giving my own perspective. I have never seen so many 9s with noticeable corner wear.
Here's a 9 with corner wear (cert 4xxxxxxx). At least it's consistent. LOL
Some cards will be overgraded as well, and that's not good either.
But it does seem, currently, the majority of vintage cards are being harshly undergraded.
And SGC is not immune to the changing standards.
Here's an early SGC 8.5.
What are the chances a crossover to PSA 8.5? or 8? or even a 7?
(BTW, the card ended with 0 bids at roughly 50% of what a PSA would likely go for, so I wasn't the only one that noticed.)
That is one ugly 8.5, that Cey card...just the l/r centering could get it to 8.5...add in the big ugly fish eye on his helmet, the slight paper loss from the middle of the bottom edge, slightly soft corner in lower right, some small spot about an inch up from the bottom on the left edge, plenty of splotching in the blue DODGERS letters plus some stray print dots here and there (like the one in the yellow area below the E in DODGERS), I could easily see this card in a 6 holder, no matter which company grades it today
Centering, while not perfect, is actually well within the parameters for a PSA 9. And while I would agree that the fisheye on the helmet is not visually appealing, I'd say equating a tiny chip with paper loss on the bottom edge is really a stretch. I also think the Dodgers is just fine (I've seen worse on PSA 9s), as well as the corner especially when compared to the 76 card.
I think the general belief is, the 1/2 grade bump is from exceptional centering and eye appeal.
The card has neither.
@detroitfan2 said:
How do we know that the Seaver and Cey cards weren’t simply reholdered to the new label? I am probably wrong, but I thought the certification number gives no indication of when a card was graded.
The cert number gives every indication of when the card was graded, and when cards are reholdered, the cert numbers remains the same.
Would you be willing to share how you know when a card was graded based on the card's cert #?
What does all this grading uncertainty say to newer collectors? If I was new to the hobby the takeaway would be one of confusion. With no definitive or in periodic changes of flux, standards, I would think twice before laying out serious funds.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@detroitfan2 said:
How do we know that the Seaver and Cey cards weren’t simply reholdered to the new label? I am probably wrong, but I thought the certification number gives no indication of when a card was graded.
The cert number gives every indication of when the card was graded, and when cards are reholdered, the cert numbers remains the same.
Would you be willing to share how you know when a card was graded based on the card's cert #?
Collectors have been publishing their popped subs for years. For around the last 20 years the cert numbers have increased sequentially. Just off the top of my head, starting with when I first submitted cards:
I stopped submitting much after this, but it keeps increasing sequentially and is currently up to around 78xxxxxxx.
May not be completely precise, but given how long you have been around here I’m surprised you don’t remember any of this. Maybe I just like numbers 🤷♂️
Wow. Yes I have been around a long time. And what I distinctly remember is that cert #'s have no meaning whatsoever. I completed my 1955 Topps PSA set registry in 2011. My cert #'s range from 02003698 to 90660453. I have cards with cert #'s beginning with 4, 6, and 9 that were graded before PSA went to the 1/2 point scale, and cards with cert #'s beginning with 1 that were graded after the 1/2 point point scale 🤷♂️.
@detroitfan2 said:
Wow. Yes I have been around a long time. And what I distinctly remember is that cert #'s have no meaning whatsoever. I completed my 1955 Topps PSA set registry in 2011. My cert #'s range from 02003698 to 90660453. I have cards with cert #'s beginning with 4, 6, and 9 that were graded before PSA went to the 1/2 point scale, and cards with cert #'s beginning with 1 that were graded after the 1/2 point point scale 🤷♂️.
They used to jump around a lot in years past. Certs beginning with 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, for example, have already been used in the past.
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.
Personal opinion being expressed here = just trying to offer my own personal grading perspective on why PSA hammered 2 items
The diamond canting that both Bo's that have been shown by 2 different people is a 2 pt grading deduction before they even assess other factors. Both cards are diamond canted. Which is considered a major eye apeal detractor.
PSA 5's / 6's I've found have some type of hidden surface flaw
Check both the Bo's for strange "surface" waves or well hidden indents / creases.
And like MANY others have shown= there are plenty of eights and nines with damaged corners or corner creases that " miracle of miracles" somehow show up AFTER the graders did their jobs. I have discovered this occurs in the slabbing process . Which is why I file CRC complaints every time I see it on my own stuff. I'd suggest going the same.
Yes, there were some different fields used early on. Those were all used around the same time, and so can be fit into the overall chronology as a group.
I believe cards submitted at shows had 90 starting numbers at least mine did back in the day. Don’t know about now as I haven’t submitted at a show in a decade
@Harnessracing said:
I believe cards submitted at shows had 90 starting numbers at least mine did back in the day. Don’t know about now as I haven’t submitted at a show in a decade
Yes, there was a time when different cert fields were used for different situations. 90 may have been for show subs, 81 for 4SC subs, etc. They must have eventually decided that was too confusing and abandoned it.
Since I'm really not planning on selling much (if anything) in the near future I'm seriously contemplating sending a few higher end 60's vintage off to SGC shortly. For a few bucks I can see where they are... for the price I can always just crack them out or try and cross them over later if I'm not happy and sanity returns. Just not having a good feeling about sending to PSA for several reasons at this point.
@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.
Except when it isn’t. As I have posted several times, there are many cards in brand new slabs getting 9s with noticeable wear at all four corners.
If grading were consistently harsher/tighter, when searching PSA 9 1973s on eBay, I should be saying “Wow, these 9s are nicer than I ever remember!” But I am not saying that at all TBH.
After reading all this I can only conclude that something fundamental has changed in the graders/grading process, and I’m not sure there is a simple rhyme or reason to it.
Or maybe it depends on the reputation/volume of the person/company who submits it?
Regardless of the reason, as I have said numerous times, a grade report would shed light on it all. Subgrades would also be great.
Take 15 minutes out of your day and flip through 50-75 cards that 4shaprcorners has on ebay right now in PSA 8, 9, or 10 holders and you will see many cards which looks worse than many of the lower graded cards others, and myself, have shown. I gave 5 or 6 cert numbers of PSA8 87 Bo Jackson future stars for people to examine. You can actually just wratchet the earliest cert number and look at the 9s and the single 10 as well and all of them look identical with the exception of one slightly off centered.
The point isn't that we want to shame anyone. We want consistent business and a more thorough explanation of each cards grade. If you are upset and still submitting cards and getting upset with the grades then you, my friend, must be insane. Insane is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. Until something changes then why would you continue to disappoint yourself? I have no knowledge of why 4sharpcorners can list cards in holders that don't seem accurate to the people on this forum who have been submitting for decades.
Scratch my back and I scratch yours...is this what's happening? If 4SC got the grades we get then wouldn't they explore other grading companies like us small fish are doing? Of course they would but they aren't. Our cards are devalued because other cards are being overvalued and likely grading inexperience or population report control.
I have hope things will change but I'm not insane, yet, and will not keep throwing my money in the garbage. The only strategy which could work that I have figured out is to get cards graded which have an extremely low population and I'm not willing to be selective just to have a PSA label when many of the cards I want graded have a high population and mine is of a great quality. Or we could all go through 4SC to have our cards graded but I don't plan to ever turn my cards over to anyone and introduce another point of risk. I'd rather keep my cards raw, looking great, and not worry about maximizing profit off the grade and flip game.
If grade reports surface and subgrades become a thing then accuracy should be intact. I don't think us small fish matter because all of us collectively aren't going to make anyone a fortune like the consigners and auction houses. "Follow the money" and you will see how the world works. If you don't have enough money to matter then you're better off not even playing the game of life because good business ethics is rare in today's society. A lifetime warranty on a product means you won't keep yourself in business long and why many companies no longer exist. I didn't think the card grading world would secumb to this but companies sell out and lose the foundation they were built on.
There will be plenty of us who submit and get what we expect but we will not get the preferential treatment.
It's been a while for me too, primarily because I felt that PSA had realized that they basically had a license to print money and they were no longer being consistent in the application of their published grading standards.
The auction houses have noticed this too as can be seen from the listings. Quite a few more SGC graded cards than prior to the pandemic. Also some Beckett slabbed vintage cards too.
I was a PSA-only collector, but between the inconsistency, long turnaround times and the issues with altered cards and homemade unopened packs getting into slabs I lost faith and moved my collection in other directions by dropping the "only" from my collecting preferences.
@Harnessracing said:
Maybe you’re happy with the 8 but I had 160-1982 OPC Hockey graded in the last few months and never again. Although I got several 9’s , they for the most part had no rough cut. Anything with a rough cut was graded 6 or 7.
I checked to see if this was one of my Fuhr’s I sold but it isnt
As a collector that no longer subs and buys the card and not the holder,I'm ecstatic. It's a great time to be alive!
@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.
What on Earth did they find so wrong with this Bo card to drive it all the way to a 5? The card looks beautiful, and the eye appeal is off the charts.
No idea on why that graded a 5 but it only reinforces to not send anything in right now. Hopefully in 2 or 3 years they will have corrected their over correction.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Comments
I should of shown the back also. I feel like the 8 was accurate.
That is the real question for sure.
SGC obviously is hungrier for the business. Time will tell if collectors go to them.
Definitely for people purchasing a graded card. I get sentimental about players and cards and its an emotional thing. The holder I really have to close to no attachment to. I like the card. I like that it is protected and then I want it to have maximum value. For me the holder is 100% business. The card is the beautiful thing. I think the holder can display it well. But I don't want to lose value in a nicer looking holder. Some years look nice in different holders. I used think a T206 looked very nice in an SGC holder. An autographed 2000s card could look nicer in a BGS holder. I dont think cards look magnificent in a PSA holder. But my loyalty is to the dollar, not much more. And the experience not being a wince grit my teeth pain in the rear experience. I may be willing to lose 10 to 15% to say goodbye to that depending on how much we're talking. I feel like a 1956 Topps card could look great in an SGC holder. A Corbin Carroll #ed autographed refractor Topps Chrome card was very sharp in an SGC holder. The new Lorcana Enchanted cards looked fantastic in their holder. Just dont lose me too much money. I cant play that game. But I also cant play the game of the same card being NM in an SGC or another grader's holder and being Excellent in a PSA holder. If its a 5 in both, yes, for now PSA. If its worth it maybe try PSA first and if I dont like it try the crossover. At this point I have never fully gone through a transaction with SGC but no card grading company has earned any loyalty from me. Its purely transactional. Make me want to do business with you. Make it worth it for me to do business with you. I need to feel like I'm winning or I have no motive to play.
Keep trying for that psa 10.
I could rip a unopened 1990 topps box and submit every card and 95% would be:
PSA 6
Chaz
lol it’s a joke.
That card would have formerly been a PSA 10 all day and a worst case PSA 9. The problem is PSA is no longer using a logical 10 point scale. To give a dead centered, razor corner and edges card (like the 1988 Topps Bo Jackson rookie shown in another thread) a PSA 5 because of a micro surface pimple the same grade as a rounded corner, off focus card from the 1960s is a total miss of the grading scale. PSA has been grading cards for 30 years and they have moved the goal line in the past six months. It isn’t about being the most strict grader, it is about being the most consistent. I have been in this hobby for 35+ years and been using grading services for over 20 years. Many forget that BGS was by far the most strict grader when they began. BGS actually sold for a substantial premium to PSA in their first 3 years. BGS lost their way when they stopped being consistent in their sub grade standards and are now a distant number three among grading companies. PSA is well on their way to repeating the same fatal mistake of inconsistency as BGS.
Just out of curiosity I looked up the APR on two successive grades I had on vintage 1977 Rose. An 8 is about $60 but the 9 is $340. If these grades are the same criteria for PSA and SGC then I stay with PSA because of their premium on resale. If SGC is the fair grader then I can afford to sell at less than 20% and still be ahead if PSA is only one point harsher (anything more becomes absolutely pointless to stay).
This type calculation lots of vintage folks will start considering. A simple point and fairness have real consequences.
I recall early BGS (subgrades on the back) being the toughest graders. Even BVG, when it first started, was extremely tough (especially on corners and edges). Dr Beckett has acknowledged these points. Then Dr Beckett retired from BGS and their grading became erratic, subgrades were removed from BVG and trimmed edges were getting by graders. BGS needs his leadership again. This would be the best for the hobby and grading in general.
And the change has NOT been for the better. It would seem no one's there who understands vintage cardstock, or how to grade it.
This seems more embarrassing then when a reprint got slabbed as authentic.
Except when it isn’t. As I have posted several times, there are many cards in brand new slabs getting 9s with noticeable wear at all four corners.
If grading were consistently harsher/tighter, when searching PSA 9 1973s on eBay, I should be saying “Wow, these 9s are nicer than I ever remember!” But I am not saying that at all TBH.
After reading all this I can only conclude that something fundamental has changed in the graders/grading process, and I’m not sure there is a simple rhyme or reason to it.
Maybe you’re happy with the 8 but I had 160-1982 OPC Hockey graded in the last few months and never again. Although I got several 9’s , they for the most part had no rough cut. Anything with a rough cut was graded 6 or 7.
I checked to see if this was one of my Fuhr’s I sold but it isnt
That is interesting and contradicts the overall consensus in this thread which is that PSA is markedly tougher on vintage today vs in years. So in your opinion that is not the case? Surely, the OP and other submitters should be seeing at least a couple of favorable grades even if the reality is that the grading standards are not being consistently applied. But from what I've read here (and experienced firsthand in the limited subs I have sent in), that is not the case.
I have noticed that cards with the newer flips seem to be more desirable to most collectors so at the very least the perception among collectors is that the grading standards are stricter now vs in years past.
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.
@grote15
I’m not disputing the experiences of others, just giving my own perspective. I have never seen so many 9s with noticeable corner wear.
I can remember reading when I first came here to C.U that there was talk of some big dealers getting favorable grades, I have no idea of this info except what I read here years ago. If true that would explain some of the high grades for low grade cards.
Here's a 9 with corner wear (cert 4xxxxxxx). At least it's consistent. LOL
Some cards will be overgraded as well, and that's not good either.
But it does seem, currently, the majority of vintage cards are being harshly undergraded.
And SGC is not immune to the changing standards.
Here's an early SGC 8.5.
What are the chances a crossover to PSA 8.5? or 8? or even a 7?
(BTW, the card ended with 0 bids at roughly 50% of what a PSA would likely go for, so I wasn't the only one that noticed.)
Here's an SGC 5. Same as the PSA 5 Bo right? LOL
@RonSportscards
I’m so tired about hearing about “the technical grade.” The whole point of grading is to measure how appealing a card is to the majority of collectors. Or if it’s not, it should be.
What about those early graded cards, cert #'s that start with a 0.
They are getting devalued. We are getting conditioned to what an 'new' 8 should look like, and the old 8s just don't make the grade.
I see it on reddit with the new/young collectors.
They think all of their own cards are 10s (LOL), but when commenting on other's cards they are harsh.
If it's not PERFECTLY centered, they'll say it's a 7 or 8, even though based on the grading standards, it falls well within the guidelines of a 9.
Also, with edges, I see comments about seeing some white on a corner or edge and right away it's hammered with an undeserving low grade. Maybe the graders share the same viewpoint as some of those redditors.
Since graders rely upon magnification to find flaws that are not clearly visible to the naked eye, I don't believe that eye appeal is truly what they are evaluating. They are clearly instructed to look for any reason to downgrade rather than to focus on the card's true eye appeal, which to me constitutes technical grading. I can easily spot a surface wrinkle or indentation by looking at a card in sufficient light without magnification (or my reading glasses for that matter). I see no reason why graders should not be doing the same, with the exception being that they should wear glasses if needed. The value that third party grading should provide to consumers is catching flaws which cannot easily be detected by a prospective buyer while viewing a scan or photo of a card on a computer monitor or phone. If a card appears to be mint on your screen but has a surface wrinkle that warranted a downgrade by the third party grader, then the buyer is protected as they will know not to pay the price of a mint card when it is in fact an Ex or Ex-Mt card. But if a card is graded Ex or Ex-Mt on the basis of a flaw that the buyer is unable to detect without the use of magnification, then I believe that technical grading has gone way too far.
At least the card should be in an up-to-date SGC holder…to give it a chance for a bid (nibble).
There are early graded PSA cards (0xxxxxxx, 1xxxxxxx, 3xxxxxxx) that would make today’s cut. Don’t stereotype early graded PSA cards…there are beautiful early cards.
How do we know that the Seaver and Cey cards weren’t simply reholdered to the new label? I am probably wrong, but I thought the certification number gives no indication of when a card was graded.
I have lots of fantastic cards in early holders. One thing early flips have going for them is that there was a lot more vending left to cherry pick from in those days, so beautiful commons were copious.
If you blow up that '89 Score Sanders and look about a third of the way down the right edge, you will notice a fairly decent issue with that edge -- I am guessing that accounted for at least 3 of the points dropped in the final grade
That is one ugly 8.5, that Cey card...just the l/r centering could get it to 8.5...add in the big ugly fish eye on his helmet, the slight paper loss from the middle of the bottom edge, slightly soft corner in lower right, some small spot about an inch up from the bottom on the left edge, plenty of splotching in the blue DODGERS letters plus some stray print dots here and there (like the one in the yellow area below the E in DODGERS), I could easily see this card in a 6 holder, no matter which company grades it today
I’d rather have that Bo Jackson as a 6 than that Cey as a 6.
The cert number gives every indication of when the card was graded, and when cards are reholdered, the cert numbers remains the same.
Centering, while not perfect, is actually well within the parameters for a PSA 9. And while I would agree that the fisheye on the helmet is not visually appealing, I'd say equating a tiny chip with paper loss on the bottom edge is really a stretch. I also think the Dodgers is just fine (I've seen worse on PSA 9s), as well as the corner especially when compared to the 76 card.
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.
Hmmm...I don't remember saying ALL of them.
I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the real early grades were looser than today.
I guess you disagree. That's ok.
I noticed that too. I blew it up from PSA scan. Giving it a 5 though, is a little harsh.
Looser grading does not necessarily equate to over graded cards. There are again early beauties worthy of the assigned grade.
I think the general belief is, the 1/2 grade bump is from exceptional centering and eye appeal.
The card has neither.
Would you be willing to share how you know when a card was graded based on the card's cert #?
What does all this grading uncertainty say to newer collectors? If I was new to the hobby the takeaway would be one of confusion. With no definitive or in periodic changes of flux, standards, I would think twice before laying out serious funds.
Collectors have been publishing their popped subs for years. For around the last 20 years the cert numbers have increased sequentially. Just off the top of my head, starting with when I first submitted cards:
20xxxxxxx 2012
21xxxxxxx 2013
22xxxxxxx
23xxxxxxx 2014
24xxxxxxx
25xxxxxxx 2015
26xxxxxxx 2016
27xxxxxxx 2017 (beginning of lighthouse flip)
28xxxxxxx
29xxxxxxx
41xxxxxxx 2018
42xxxxxxx
43xxxxxxx
44xxxxxxx 2019
I stopped submitting much after this, but it keeps increasing sequentially and is currently up to around 78xxxxxxx.
May not be completely precise, but given how long you have been around here I’m surprised you don’t remember any of this. Maybe I just like numbers 🤷♂️
Wow. Yes I have been around a long time. And what I distinctly remember is that cert #'s have no meaning whatsoever. I completed my 1955 Topps PSA set registry in 2011. My cert #'s range from 02003698 to 90660453. I have cards with cert #'s beginning with 4, 6, and 9 that were graded before PSA went to the 1/2 point scale, and cards with cert #'s beginning with 1 that were graded after the 1/2 point point scale 🤷♂️.
As a side note, I found this rather humorous:
They used to jump around a lot in years past. Certs beginning with 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, for example, have already been used in the past.
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.
Personal opinion being expressed here = just trying to offer my own personal grading perspective on why PSA hammered 2 items
The diamond canting that both Bo's that have been shown by 2 different people is a 2 pt grading deduction before they even assess other factors. Both cards are diamond canted. Which is considered a major eye apeal detractor.
PSA 5's / 6's I've found have some type of hidden surface flaw
Check both the Bo's for strange "surface" waves or well hidden indents / creases.
And like MANY others have shown= there are plenty of eights and nines with damaged corners or corner creases that " miracle of miracles" somehow show up AFTER the graders did their jobs. I have discovered this occurs in the slabbing process . Which is why I file CRC complaints every time I see it on my own stuff. I'd suggest going the same.
Yes, there were some different fields used early on. Those were all used around the same time, and so can be fit into the overall chronology as a group.
I believe cards submitted at shows had 90 starting numbers at least mine did back in the day. Don’t know about now as I haven’t submitted at a show in a decade
Yes, there was a time when different cert fields were used for different situations. 90 may have been for show subs, 81 for 4SC subs, etc. They must have eventually decided that was too confusing and abandoned it.
Since I'm really not planning on selling much (if anything) in the near future I'm seriously contemplating sending a few higher end 60's vintage off to SGC shortly. For a few bucks I can see where they are... for the price I can always just crack them out or try and cross them over later if I'm not happy and sanity returns. Just not having a good feeling about sending to PSA for several reasons at this point.
Mark
Or maybe it depends on the reputation/volume of the person/company who submits it?
Regardless of the reason, as I have said numerous times, a grade report would shed light on it all. Subgrades would also be great.
Take 15 minutes out of your day and flip through 50-75 cards that 4shaprcorners has on ebay right now in PSA 8, 9, or 10 holders and you will see many cards which looks worse than many of the lower graded cards others, and myself, have shown. I gave 5 or 6 cert numbers of PSA8 87 Bo Jackson future stars for people to examine. You can actually just wratchet the earliest cert number and look at the 9s and the single 10 as well and all of them look identical with the exception of one slightly off centered.
The point isn't that we want to shame anyone. We want consistent business and a more thorough explanation of each cards grade. If you are upset and still submitting cards and getting upset with the grades then you, my friend, must be insane. Insane is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. Until something changes then why would you continue to disappoint yourself? I have no knowledge of why 4sharpcorners can list cards in holders that don't seem accurate to the people on this forum who have been submitting for decades.
Scratch my back and I scratch yours...is this what's happening? If 4SC got the grades we get then wouldn't they explore other grading companies like us small fish are doing? Of course they would but they aren't. Our cards are devalued because other cards are being overvalued and likely grading inexperience or population report control.
I have hope things will change but I'm not insane, yet, and will not keep throwing my money in the garbage. The only strategy which could work that I have figured out is to get cards graded which have an extremely low population and I'm not willing to be selective just to have a PSA label when many of the cards I want graded have a high population and mine is of a great quality. Or we could all go through 4SC to have our cards graded but I don't plan to ever turn my cards over to anyone and introduce another point of risk. I'd rather keep my cards raw, looking great, and not worry about maximizing profit off the grade and flip game.
If grade reports surface and subgrades become a thing then accuracy should be intact. I don't think us small fish matter because all of us collectively aren't going to make anyone a fortune like the consigners and auction houses. "Follow the money" and you will see how the world works. If you don't have enough money to matter then you're better off not even playing the game of life because good business ethics is rare in today's society. A lifetime warranty on a product means you won't keep yourself in business long and why many companies no longer exist. I didn't think the card grading world would secumb to this but companies sell out and lose the foundation they were built on.
There will be plenty of us who submit and get what we expect but we will not get the preferential treatment.
It's been a while for me too, primarily because I felt that PSA had realized that they basically had a license to print money and they were no longer being consistent in the application of their published grading standards.
The auction houses have noticed this too as can be seen from the listings. Quite a few more SGC graded cards than prior to the pandemic. Also some Beckett slabbed vintage cards too.
I was a PSA-only collector, but between the inconsistency, long turnaround times and the issues with altered cards and homemade unopened packs getting into slabs I lost faith and moved my collection in other directions by dropping the "only" from my collecting preferences.
Regards to all
Dave
As a collector that no longer subs and buys the card and not the holder,I'm ecstatic. It's a great time to be alive!
What on Earth did they find so wrong with this Bo card to drive it all the way to a 5? The card looks beautiful, and the eye appeal is off the charts.
No idea on why that graded a 5 but it only reinforces to not send anything in right now. Hopefully in 2 or 3 years they will have corrected their over correction.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.