Just got an 80s special popping today. Mostly 7-8 with quite a few 5/6. I probably won't ever sub anything from the 80s to PSA again. That's it. SGC will now get all that business. Final straw for me.
Just received grades for 11 1985 Topps football cards. Straight out of an unopened box from the Fritsch vault.
three 6's
one 8
seven N1: evidence of trimming.
Grading anything before 2010 is now a joke. Seems like all the new graders hired the last few years don't know anything about older cards. I renewed my membership this year after several years of not submitting. I've never received a N1 before and there's no way I'm sending in 6's from 1985. I'm done as well.
All these comments confirm what I thought. I received all my slabs and it’s incredible how good they look in these holders other than the dismal grades. Bummer but holding as they’re not even worth the grading fees
Card grading has three objectives:
1) Verify authenticity;
2) Detect alterations and unacceptable variability; and
3) Consistent application of defined standards.
Considering that the increase in demand appears to be fueled by relatively sudden surges in Pokémon and modern, it would be unclear to me as to how long that new demand will be sustained.
Unopened pricing and supply has most likely slowed large submitters like 4SC to a fraction of what they had been submitting a few years ago.
That said, there is probably quite a bit of collector demand waiting on the sidelines due to the increase in pricing and the long turnaround times.
Now, if you throw in inconsistency, there's even less incentive for those collectors to jump back in.
My instincts are telling me that PSA will need those collectors in the next couple of years.
For the Maddux, I see a couple specks of white on the left and bottom black borders. Otherwise, I wonder if AI is hitting the corners being slightly rounded even though it's issued like that from the factory sets.
@pab1969 said:
This is the first time I have ever seen a "closed" thread re-opened. I'm glad because this is a great read.
From the beginning I assumed the only reason they left this thread open as long as they did was because they were reading this daily in the PSA lunchroom for good laughs. They probably missed that for a day or two.
Kind of like a “if you think that Bo Jackson is poorly graded, watch this!” approach.
No scratches on the jackson or Maddux. The contention is that the right borders are “curled” hence the low grades. I counter that is the factory set cut on all. Very disappointing where this is heading.
What about the white dot on the top right corner boarder of the 1987 Bo Jackson. Is that a scuff mark. Very very tiny. Also one on the bottom left middle edge of the maddux. Has one too. Not sure if its just dust though.
Well, this thread is just fantastic (sarcasm filter, activated)
I wish it would have been around a few months ago. I sent a small sub of vintage out at the end of spring and am now unfortunately not expecting too much when I get it back.
I have always wondered why PSA or anyone else would make concessions for the factory set donruss issues. I understand they came in very tight cello wrappers, but I think the same grading standards should apply. There are discounts made for gum and wax stains, even though when in a wax pack that is just how they came.
I always thought the corners just looked horrible, especially when in a 10 holder.
@PatriotTrading said:
For the Bo, it's definitely the surface. There is something on his forehead, there seems to be snow and some type of scratching (blue checkmarks)
If these sort of tiny things are what's causing this to get to a 5 then that Garvey on the previous page should probably be graded a -25.
On the 80s subs I've been getting back the past couple weeks it looks like the best grades by far have been the 84 Donruss I sent in. Those seem to be graded higher across the board than any Topps or Fleer I sent. Even a handful of 10s. Why that is I have no idea unless those just work better with the AI or are more similar to Modern.
Really AI grading a card...How in the hell does a a computer "Know" better than a human...AI doesn't even know what a sportscard is...for real...someone has to program what the computer sees...the programmers of AI have absolutely no idea on grading i'm sure...for exmple graders aren't trained in AI programming...would take an experienced grader to goto school to learn AI would't you think... have to program for almost each year of cards on what is Mint , Near mint, exmint etc...seems ridiculous...whats next robots painting
Love the idea of AI, but if this is evidence that AI is being used to find any possible surface issues then the goalposts have moved significantly. I mean what percentage of vintage cards don’t have some sort of issue? Would love to see high grade 52 mantles put through the machine.
@80sOPC said:
Love the idea of AI, but if this is evidence that AI is being used to find any possible surface issues then the goalposts have moved significantly. I mean what percentage of vintage cards don’t have some sort of issue? Would love to see high grade 52 mantles put through the machine.
That' would be so much fun as a test. I can't imagine there would be many volunteers to have their 7s turned into 4s.
@80sOPC said:
Love the idea of AI, but if this is evidence that AI is being used to find any possible surface issues then the goalposts have moved significantly. I mean what percentage of vintage cards don’t have some sort of issue? Would love to see high grade 52 mantles put through the machine.
Alot of surface stuff like wrinkles and some HEAVY print marks are really the only thing AI is good for... 1950's , 1960's 70's etc. was the best technology could do at the time era...Don't use 2023 technology to evaluate 1950's 1960's and 1970's technology....AI at best should only be used in 2020 cards and above it seems...the industry will soon see this or all pre 1990 grading of cards will likely not matter wouldn't you say eh?
If 52 mantles get the 2023 AI treatment and grades fall 1-3 points then its grading game over for vintage it seems...got to be some boundaries on AI for sure or everything implodes
@craig44 said:
is there any evidence that PSA is, in fact, using AI in the grading process?
Good question...could be just using it on modern cards and just running a pilot test on vintage which could be reason for the recent seismic shift to the downside on recent pre 1990 grades...seems PSA could have a customer moderator on the chat board to answer some internal policy questions that folks bring up...
I hope that they are training AI to grade cards. The key word being training….
I hope that the programming/training and all its associated BUGS is done BEFORE grading real customer cards...common business sense would say so...hopefully
@craig44 said:
I have always wondered why PSA or anyone else would make concessions for the factory set donruss issues. I understand they came in very tight cello wrappers, but I think the same grading standards should apply. There are discounts made for gum and wax stains, even though when in a wax pack that is just how they came.
I always thought the corners just looked horrible, especially when in a 10 holder.
Glad also the thread is reopened. I do recall the significant differences between (say '85 Donruss as that's what I opened long ago) from wax packs vs. from a factory set -- different cuts, different sizes. That super-tight shrink wrap on the factory bricks was a killer...
Maybe they are using AI for vintage. When I look at the stack of 75s and compare them against all the other vintage I’ve done there is no question things changed. I’m holding onto all of these in the rare chance they admit fault and offer to regrade orders for a certain time frame…probably never happen but clearly I can’t sell these either so there’s zero harm in holding. I can see how AI could work for ultra modern but if you’ve always graded vintage one way and completely change the method, the whole marketplace and integrity of PSA will be in question and just a matter of time when grades are less meaningful in some instances.
Still an outside chance I send to SGC but I don’t trust myself to crack out.
Certainly the biggest eyesore and enough to warrant a massive downgrade on its own.
Even if it didn't have that flaw - the fisheye below the A, the print dot in the W in TWINS and the heavily spotted background of the photo would all prevent the card from being a legitimate 10.
I agree. I'd expect a PSA 8 and hope for a PSA 9 also with bottom right corner and fisheye below A in Carew. The slight tilt is also not especially appealing to me, either.
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.
Glad this thread is back also. Thanks PSA. I did just do a submission today, 29 pre-80 where I just have to see and 4 2023 cards. I never really read the terms & conditions closely but one of the early line items was interesting. Almost feels like it could have been added in the last few days after reading this thread. 😄 Along the lines of its a professional opinion made by different people and because of that grades are subject to change and therefore they are not liable for x y and z. It occurred to me I have never been very disappointed with a modern submission. Only slightly and often pleased. So I'll see about this batch of older stuff and if its another disappointment I'll probably stop buying raw old cards with the idea of sending them to PSA for grading. I'll let someone else do that part and buy the card already in the plastic. Then still play the game with stuff like Upper Deck Young Guns and Panini Prizm and Topps Chrome.
@grote15 said:
I agree. I'd expect a PSA 8 and hope for a PSA 9 also with bottom right corner and fisheye below A in Carew. The slight tilt is also not especially appealing to me, either.
I honestly love that Carew, maybe not as a 10 of course, but the slight tilt doesn't bother me; the occasional fisheye that '75s "enjoy" either, if they're minor fisheyes such as this, etc. etc. But then, much of my partial '75 set is raw, only stars in PSA slabs and mostly old 8s. Which by current standards seem to be looking more like 6.5s, I suppose. ;-)
Certainly the biggest eyesore and enough to warrant a massive downgrade on its own.
Even if it didn't have that flaw - the fisheye below the A, the print dot in the W in TWINS and the heavily spotted background of the photo would all prevent the card from being a legitimate 10.
Let's not get too technical on terminology with the politically correct fisheye and print dot, according to ebay that is a unicorn 1 of 1 card with errors. 4k card right there. 😉
Nice card, however Stevie Wonder graded
that Carew. Lack of consistency is clearly not going away. Cards with 8+ certs appear to be when AI was engaged.
@grote15 said:
I agree. I'd expect a PSA 8 and hope for a PSA 9 also with bottom right corner and fisheye below A in Carew. The slight tilt is also not especially appealing to me, either.
I honestly love that Carew, maybe not as a 10 of course, but the slight tilt doesn't bother me; the occasional fisheye that '75s "enjoy" either, if they're minor fisheyes such as this, etc. etc. But then, much of my partial '75 set is raw, only stars in PSA slabs and mostly old 8s. Which by current standards seem to be looking more like 6.5s, I suppose. ;-)
It's a beautiful card, no doubt, just not one I'd pay PSA 10 money for.
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 said:
I agree. I'd expect a PSA 8 and hope for a PSA 9 also with bottom right corner and fisheye below A in Carew. The slight tilt is also not especially appealing to me, either.
I honestly love that Carew, maybe not as a 10 of course, but the slight tilt doesn't bother me; the occasional fisheye that '75s "enjoy" either, if they're minor fisheyes such as this, etc. etc. But then, much of my partial '75 set is raw, only stars in PSA slabs and mostly old 8s. Which by current standards seem to be looking more like 6.5s, I suppose. ;-)
It's a beautiful card, no doubt, just not one I'd pay PSA 10 money for.
What bothers me about the Carew is that I have gotten 7s - even 8 years ago - on 75s that look much nicer. Any corner like that lower right has historically precluded even a 9.
4SC has a 1977 Topps Rose in PSA 10 on EBay right now. Take a look and laugh. (Top Left)
They also have a run of PSA 10’s from several years too. Guess they are not having an issue with the grading
@Harnessracing said:
4SC has a 1977 Topps Rose in PSA 10 on EBay right now. Take a look and laugh. (Top Left)
They also have a run of PSA 10’s from several years too. Guess they are not having an issue with the grading
I have read and seen a few times on here about 4SC and the generous grades that they receive.
If I saw that Carew card raw on eBay, I'd probably pass on it. I would expect no higher than an 8. I've submitted many '75s over the years and I rarely get a 9 if there is any hint of a corner touch anywhere on the card that is visible to the naked eye.
Looks like both top corners are not 10 on the Rose at least in the lousy pictures. Recently graded, man I wish I got this guy grading my cards and the Carew. Can one request this person directly on the sub to grade your cards???
Comments
Just got an 80s special popping today. Mostly 7-8 with quite a few 5/6. I probably won't ever sub anything from the 80s to PSA again. That's it. SGC will now get all that business. Final straw for me.
There seems to be an increasing uncertainty within the grading realm. And markets do not like uncertainty. Proceed with caution.
Just received grades for 11 1985 Topps football cards. Straight out of an unopened box from the Fritsch vault.
three 6's
one 8
seven N1: evidence of trimming.
Grading anything before 2010 is now a joke. Seems like all the new graders hired the last few years don't know anything about older cards. I renewed my membership this year after several years of not submitting. I've never received a N1 before and there's no way I'm sending in 6's from 1985. I'm done as well.
All these comments confirm what I thought. I received all my slabs and it’s incredible how good they look in these holders other than the dismal grades. Bummer but holding as they’re not even worth the grading fees
I hope PSA is reading this thread.
Card grading has three objectives:
1) Verify authenticity;
2) Detect alterations and unacceptable variability; and
3) Consistent application of defined standards.
Considering that the increase in demand appears to be fueled by relatively sudden surges in Pokémon and modern, it would be unclear to me as to how long that new demand will be sustained.
Unopened pricing and supply has most likely slowed large submitters like 4SC to a fraction of what they had been submitting a few years ago.
That said, there is probably quite a bit of collector demand waiting on the sidelines due to the increase in pricing and the long turnaround times.
Now, if you throw in inconsistency, there's even less incentive for those collectors to jump back in.
My instincts are telling me that PSA will need those collectors in the next couple of years.
This is the first time I have ever seen a "closed" thread re-opened. I'm glad because this is a great read.
Been here a while, never seen it happen - a closed thread re-opened.
I’m actually impressed.
Kudos, PSA.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Are those scratches on the surface?
For the Maddux, I see a couple specks of white on the left and bottom black borders. Otherwise, I wonder if AI is hitting the corners being slightly rounded even though it's issued like that from the factory sets.
For the Bo, it's definitely the surface. There is something on his forehead, there seems to be snow and some type of scratching (blue checkmarks)
From the beginning I assumed the only reason they left this thread open as long as they did was because they were reading this daily in the PSA lunchroom for good laughs. They probably missed that for a day or two.
Kind of like a “if you think that Bo Jackson is poorly graded, watch this!” approach.
No scratches on the jackson or Maddux. The contention is that the right borders are “curled” hence the low grades. I counter that is the factory set cut on all. Very disappointing where this is heading.
What about the white dot on the top right corner boarder of the 1987 Bo Jackson. Is that a scuff mark. Very very tiny. Also one on the bottom left middle edge of the maddux. Has one too. Not sure if its just dust though.
Well, this thread is just fantastic (sarcasm filter, activated)
I wish it would have been around a few months ago. I sent a small sub of vintage out at the end of spring and am now unfortunately not expecting too much when I get it back.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I have always wondered why PSA or anyone else would make concessions for the factory set donruss issues. I understand they came in very tight cello wrappers, but I think the same grading standards should apply. There are discounts made for gum and wax stains, even though when in a wax pack that is just how they came.
I always thought the corners just looked horrible, especially when in a 10 holder.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Kudos to PSA…
If these sort of tiny things are what's causing this to get to a 5 then that Garvey on the previous page should probably be graded a -25.
On the 80s subs I've been getting back the past couple weeks it looks like the best grades by far have been the 84 Donruss I sent in. Those seem to be graded higher across the board than any Topps or Fleer I sent. Even a handful of 10s. Why that is I have no idea unless those just work better with the AI or are more similar to Modern.
Really AI grading a card...How in the hell does a a computer "Know" better than a human...AI doesn't even know what a sportscard is...for real...someone has to program what the computer sees...the programmers of AI have absolutely no idea on grading i'm sure...for exmple graders aren't trained in AI programming...would take an experienced grader to goto school to learn AI would't you think... have to program for almost each year of cards on what is Mint , Near mint, exmint etc...seems ridiculous...whats next robots painting
Love the idea of AI, but if this is evidence that AI is being used to find any possible surface issues then the goalposts have moved significantly. I mean what percentage of vintage cards don’t have some sort of issue? Would love to see high grade 52 mantles put through the machine.
That' would be so much fun as a test. I can't imagine there would be many volunteers to have their 7s turned into 4s.
Alot of surface stuff like wrinkles and some HEAVY print marks are really the only thing AI is good for... 1950's , 1960's 70's etc. was the best technology could do at the time era...Don't use 2023 technology to evaluate 1950's 1960's and 1970's technology....AI at best should only be used in 2020 cards and above it seems...the industry will soon see this or all pre 1990 grading of cards will likely not matter wouldn't you say eh?
If 52 mantles get the 2023 AI treatment and grades fall 1-3 points then its grading game over for vintage it seems...got to be some boundaries on AI for sure or everything implodes
is there any evidence that PSA is, in fact, using AI in the grading process?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Good question...could be just using it on modern cards and just running a pilot test on vintage which could be reason for the recent seismic shift to the downside on recent pre 1990 grades...seems PSA could have a customer moderator on the chat board to answer some internal policy questions that folks bring up...
A couple of thoughts.
I’m glad this thread was reopened.
I hope that they are training AI to grade cards. The key word being training….
I hope that the programming/training and all its associated BUGS is done BEFORE grading real customer cards...common business sense would say so...hopefully
"That' would be so much fun as a test. I can't imagine there would be many volunteers to have their 7s turned into 4s.
"
I think you mean all of them will get 4s. But I would wager 1 might go to a 10.
Just assuming they're using the technology they paid a lot of money for when they acquired Genamint.
Glad also the thread is reopened. I do recall the significant differences between (say '85 Donruss as that's what I opened long ago) from wax packs vs. from a factory set -- different cuts, different sizes. That super-tight shrink wrap on the factory bricks was a killer...
Is this AI process going to be able to grade the autograph at the same time as grading the card?
Maybe they are using AI for vintage. When I look at the stack of 75s and compare them against all the other vintage I’ve done there is no question things changed. I’m holding onto all of these in the rare chance they admit fault and offer to regrade orders for a certain time frame…probably never happen but clearly I can’t sell these either so there’s zero harm in holding. I can see how AI could work for ultra modern but if you’ve always graded vintage one way and completely change the method, the whole marketplace and integrity of PSA will be in question and just a matter of time when grades are less meaningful in some instances.
Still an outside chance I send to SGC but I don’t trust myself to crack out.
If I submitted this card, I think I'd be looking at an 8/8.5. A 9 would be out of the question. A 10 would be pure fantasy.
Bottom right
Certainly the biggest eyesore and enough to warrant a massive downgrade on its own.
Even if it didn't have that flaw - the fisheye below the A, the print dot in the W in TWINS and the heavily spotted background of the photo would all prevent the card from being a legitimate 10.
I agree. I'd expect a PSA 8 and hope for a PSA 9 also with bottom right corner and fisheye below A in Carew. The slight tilt is also not especially appealing to me, either.
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.
Still a very nice looking Carew card.
Yeah but someone will pay crazy money for that holder I bet
Glad this thread is back also. Thanks PSA. I did just do a submission today, 29 pre-80 where I just have to see and 4 2023 cards. I never really read the terms & conditions closely but one of the early line items was interesting. Almost feels like it could have been added in the last few days after reading this thread. 😄 Along the lines of its a professional opinion made by different people and because of that grades are subject to change and therefore they are not liable for x y and z. It occurred to me I have never been very disappointed with a modern submission. Only slightly and often pleased. So I'll see about this batch of older stuff and if its another disappointment I'll probably stop buying raw old cards with the idea of sending them to PSA for grading. I'll let someone else do that part and buy the card already in the plastic. Then still play the game with stuff like Upper Deck Young Guns and Panini Prizm and Topps Chrome.
I honestly love that Carew, maybe not as a 10 of course, but the slight tilt doesn't bother me; the occasional fisheye that '75s "enjoy" either, if they're minor fisheyes such as this, etc. etc. But then, much of my partial '75 set is raw, only stars in PSA slabs and mostly old 8s. Which by current standards seem to be looking more like 6.5s, I suppose. ;-)
Let's not get too technical on terminology with the politically correct fisheye and print dot, according to ebay that is a unicorn 1 of 1 card with errors. 4k card right there. 😉
Nice card, however Stevie Wonder graded
that Carew. Lack of consistency is clearly not going away. Cards with 8+ certs appear to be when AI was engaged.
Probably a 5 if you or any of us regular folk had.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
It's a beautiful card, no doubt, just not one I'd pay PSA 10 money for.
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.
Plus, who wants Carew in his 'mustache phase'?
What bothers me about the Carew is that I have gotten 7s - even 8 years ago - on 75s that look much nicer. Any corner like that lower right has historically precluded even a 9.
4SC has a 1977 Topps Rose in PSA 10 on EBay right now. Take a look and laugh. (Top Left)
They also have a run of PSA 10’s from several years too. Guess they are not having an issue with the grading
I have read and seen a few times on here about 4SC and the generous grades that they receive.
If I saw that Carew card raw on eBay, I'd probably pass on it. I would expect no higher than an 8. I've submitted many '75s over the years and I rarely get a 9 if there is any hint of a corner touch anywhere on the card that is visible to the naked eye.
Looks like both top corners are not 10 on the Rose at least in the lousy pictures. Recently graded, man I wish I got this guy grading my cards and the Carew. Can one request this person directly on the sub to grade your cards???
It’s possible you are seeing the side of the card in the scan.
A scanner picks up funny things sometimes based on the way the card is sitting in a holder.
Just something I’ve experienced when scanning cards; obviously without this card in hand I can’t say for certain that’s the case here.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest