@Harnessracing said:
Joe never did anything but see where an order was and maybe help get it completed.
As for 200 a month, it’s more like 500-600 every 3 months. Not all at $19, a lot are at the $40, $75, and $150 levels
I did have an Account Rep for about 6 months before Covid, heard from him twice and never again. His number no longer works
These last 11 orders are for 468 cards, these are all at the $19 level. I’m not sending anymore until grading gets straightened out even though** I have about 800 50’s and 60’s ready to go including the best cards from a 64 and 65 Topps sets that haven’t barely seen the light of day since the mid 70’s**
I don't blame you! Sending them in at current time and for foreseeable future and you'll have 800 cards that are 4's,5's and a few 6's
zen and the art of motorcycle census median maintenance
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
While I will agree that PSA has become increasingly harder to work with and their grading of cards more strict, the examples of the Mantle cards shown above could be correctly graded. The 1968 Topps Mantle is a very nice looking PSA 1, but the corners are really damaged. The 1960 Topps Mantle has the best eye appeal of all the four cards. I can't see a crease, but there is damage to the right border. It almost looks like a roller mark perhaps which might be the reason for the lower technical grade.
Back 20 years ago this message board used to mock Sportcards 707 for the way they priced their cards. Some PSA 2's were priced higher than a PSA 4 on his site. And all the same graded cards all had different pricing. I think Levi was the smart one out of all the dealers. The old saying, "Buy the card and not the holder" still rings true.
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
I also think that now that PSA has gone down the rabbit hole of being so strict on their grading. The company needs to start buying back the old, incorrect graded cards that they put out into the market. The example of the PSA 4 (I think it was a 1959 Gibson) on the other thread where the corner is missing in the top right should be the first card they buy back.
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
@1954 said:
I also think that now that PSA has gone down the rabbit hole of being so strict on their grading. The company needs to start buying back the old, incorrect graded cards that they put out into the market. The example of the PSA 4 (I think it was a 1959 Gibson) on the other thread where the corner is missing in the top right should be the first card they buy back.
I get where you're coming from on that, but it honestly can't work. In order for a grading company to keep their market place they have to be consistent. By buying back older graded cards to regrade implicitly communicates that your grading standards have changed and weren't correct in the past. That means no one should have any confidence buying your service because who is to say they won't do the same thing 10/20 years from now?
Who's to say they won't buy the ones they're grading now in 10 years to up-grade because what they're doing now is inconsistent?
By changing grading standards in any direction communicates they were doing it incorrectly before. No matter if it gets tougher or easier. That's what they've done and for me that's what is so concerning. How do I trust the thousands of dollars invested if they don't even know what their standards are? It makes me VERY nervous.
I am excited for the 50s special (not to grade). I will be scouring Ebay in about 6 months when the grades pop for 6s and 7s that look like 8s and 9s to me. Will be a great time to add to my collection.
I can’t recall making any statement that PSA “got the grades wrong” on my cards but rather the results made me “sad” and that I thought they could have graded higher. Posting them here made me feel considerably better because most people felt they were outstanding examples for the grade assigned, just as I did, and said as much.
If each and every card in the order was bumped up by just one grade, I think I’d have been perfectly happy. So as I said from the jump, this wasn’t some egregious event. They’re very pretty though flawed cards.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
To be in the dealer program these days, you need to spend $100k per year just to reach the lowest level. At that level, you get a discount that doesn't even bring the fee down to the monthly grading special level. PSA is overflowing with business. While that's happening, they can name their price and deliver whatever level of service (phone support, grading accuracy, etc) they choose to without much impact to their bottom line.
The economy is slowing down and I'm not so sure business will continue to be this brisk over the next few years. How many of us will return when they need us?
@Seaverfan said:
These were higher/high end specimens from my summer submissions which is why I sent these particular PSA crackouts into SGC. The next set of crackouts will be interesting I'm sure. Included will be a PSA Ryan rookie and a rare 1967 Seaver Mets Postcard among others. But I'll leave that for the future.
I agree surface issues have taken on greater impact on grading at PSA. I also think PSA has been using AI which may be problematic for collectors. Perhaps this changes the grading protocol and possibly final grades (when compared to the past grading) .
i have noticed that back centering now matters much more than it used to...I wish they would update their standards to indicate as much...I have seen cards come back with 80-20 back centering that are getting marked down to PSA 7 even tho all else is okay
The PSA grades for these three are nutso. That ‘72 Seaver is one of the nicest I’ve ever seen. The average PSA 8 of that card you see on eBay looks like hot garbage.
The only one I think PSA had right is the other ‘73 Seaver. The upper left corner is too noticeable for a 9 IMO.
BEAUTIFUL Seavers! 👏
we aren't seeing the backs tho, so who really knows
@mintonlypls said:
I have only had good experiences w/PSA. When I had a fake mini cello pack PSA-9 w/George Brett RC on top…I was alerted by PSA of that fact and was told to send it back. After a short time later…PSA called to confirm that it was indeed a fake and refunded what I had paid for it.
As far as grading…my grades have been fair and the last review submission included sticky notes as to the point of contention for the assigned grade.
So Steve Hart authenticated at as being a real pack, not fake?
@mintonlypls said:
I have only had good experiences w/PSA. When I had a fake mini cello pack PSA-9 w/George Brett RC on top…I was alerted by PSA of that fact and was told to send it back. After a short time later…PSA called to confirm that it was indeed a fake and refunded what I had paid for it.
As far as grading…my grades have been fair and the last review submission included sticky notes as to the point of contention for the assigned grade.
Monte,
You get better treatment, better service and better results than just about anyone on these boards. You must be a heckuva customer and a heckuva guy. I’m very happy for you but 99% of us could only wish for that kind of treatment. You get accurate grades, nines bumped into ten holders and get post it notes explaining results to you, the rest of us are getting cards like these back:
I tell you what, I could sure have used some post it notes on this order to explain the grades, you know? Since most people that have seen these cards have asked me if I’m maybe on some type of ‘list’ at PSA to be getting grades like that…
just looking at the '68 Mantle, there is some serious paper loss to the lower left and upper right corners...I don't think the grade is too aggregious
@mintonlypls said:
I have only had good experiences w/PSA. When I had a fake mini cello pack PSA-9 w/George Brett RC on top…I was alerted by PSA of that fact and was told to send it back. After a short time later…PSA called to confirm that it was indeed a fake and refunded what I had paid for it.
As far as grading…my grades have been fair and the last review submission included sticky notes as to the point of contention for the assigned grade.
Monte,
You get better treatment, better service and better results than just about anyone on these boards. You must be a heckuva customer and a heckuva guy. I’m very happy for you but 99% of us could only wish for that kind of treatment. You get accurate grades, nines bumped into ten holders and get post it notes explaining results to you, the rest of us are getting cards like these back:
I tell you what, I could sure have used some post it notes on this order to explain the grades, you know? Since most people that have seen these cards have asked me if I’m maybe on some type of ‘list’ at PSA to be getting grades like that…
just looking at the '68 Mantle, there is some serious paper loss to the lower left and upper right corners...I don't think the grade is too aggregious
There’s the backs; I couldn’t tell if you were referencing mine.
Again, I look at these cards, the ones ‘out there’ and the PSA standards and just feel they all could have been a little higher; if you see that as a POOR card, so be it. Not going to argue about it, you know? They’re definitely not mint, just didn’t think they were poor, either.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@mintonlypls said:
I have only had good experiences w/PSA. When I had a fake mini cello pack PSA-9 w/George Brett RC on top…I was alerted by PSA of that fact and was told to send it back. After a short time later…PSA called to confirm that it was indeed a fake and refunded what I had paid for it.
As far as grading…my grades have been fair and the last review submission included sticky notes as to the point of contention for the assigned grade.
So Steve Hart authenticated at as being a real pack, not fake?
@mintonlypls said:
I have only had good experiences w/PSA. When I had a fake mini cello pack PSA-9 w/George Brett RC on top…I was alerted by PSA of that fact and was told to send it back. After a short time later…PSA called to confirm that it was indeed a fake and refunded what I had paid for it.
As far as grading…my grades have been fair and the last review submission included sticky notes as to the point of contention for the assigned grade.
So Steve Hart authenticated at as being a real pack, not fake?
@mintonlypls said:
I have only had good experiences w/PSA. When I had a fake mini cello pack PSA-9 w/George Brett RC on top…I was alerted by PSA of that fact and was told to send it back. After a short time later…PSA called to confirm that it was indeed a fake and refunded what I had paid for it.
As far as grading…my grades have been fair and the last review submission included sticky notes as to the point of contention for the assigned grade.
So Steve Hart authenticated at as being a real pack, not fake?
Yes…everyone is human; therefore, we make mistakes. PSA made it right, though.
In my opinion, these Mantles are correctly graded. The eye appeal is so nice on all of them, BUT there are issues that totally makes sense. The 1960 Mantle has the stronger corners out of all four examples. While the corners pass the test for a higher grade, I can't tell if there is damage to the card on the right side.
And putting up other cards that PSA has in a 1 or 2 holder to compare to your cards is not the point. Yes, that Mays looks like crap and your cards are much nicer, but not all cards are the same quality.
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
Your opinion, I’m not saying they’re much higher but they are not graded correctly. I’m sure there are dozens on this board that can show pictures of the horrible results of recent submissions. If you haven’t had issues, that’s great but a lot of us have. In fact I’ve cracked out several resubmitted and had 2 grade jumps. PSA is NOT following their published standards for grading
@1954 said:
In my opinion, these Mantles are correctly graded. The eye appeal is so nice on all of them, BUT there are issues that totally makes sense. The 1960 Mantle has the stronger corners out of all four examples. While the corners pass the test for a higher grade, I can't tell if there is damage to the card on the right side.
And putting up other cards that PSA has in a 1 or 2 holder to compare to your cards is not the point. Yes, that Mays looks like crap and your cards are much nicer, but not all cards are the same quality.
Again, that’s totally cool if you think they’re graded properly.
By the way, I didn’t post the Mays card.
And I’ll quickly reiterate that I thought these cards were off by about 1, not 6 grades. Still, I did not believe the cards would be coming back in the Poor, Fair and Good holders, respectively. Below is the written and visual standard of POOR and I just don’t see that as correct…
…but I do fully understand that it’s an opinion.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I posted the Mays because there seems to be a WIDE range of condition in the individual lower grades because the grading seems so tough on the higher 2 or 3. That will breed inconsistency and confusion for the collectors.
@1954 said:
In my opinion, these Mantles are correctly graded. The eye appeal is so nice on all of them, BUT there are issues that totally makes sense. The 1960 Mantle has the stronger corners out of all four examples. While the corners pass the test for a higher grade, I can't tell if there is damage to the card on the right side.
And putting up other cards that PSA has in a 1 or 2 holder to compare to your cards is not the point. Yes, that Mays looks like crap and your cards are much nicer, but not all cards are the same quality.
I get it, you are a strict grader, and you are entitled to your opinion. It seems grading standards are stricter and this seems to have been proven time and time again over the last 2 years. You can take 10 random players on ebay and compare the old flips to the new if you need more proof.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@Harnessracing said:
Your opinion, I’m not saying they’re much higher but they are not graded correctly. I’m sure there are dozens on this board that can show pictures of the horrible results of recent submissions. If you haven’t had issues, that’s great but a lot of us have. In fact I’ve cracked out several resubmitted and had 2 grade jumps. PSA is NOT following their published standards for grading
@1954 said:
In my opinion, these Mantles are correctly graded. The eye appeal is so nice on all of them, BUT there are issues that totally makes sense. The 1960 Mantle has the stronger corners out of all four examples. While the corners pass the test for a higher grade, I can't tell if there is damage to the card on the right side.
And putting up other cards that PSA has in a 1 or 2 holder to compare to your cards is not the point. Yes, that Mays looks like crap and your cards are much nicer, but not all cards are the same quality.
I get it, you are a strict grader, and you are entitled to your opinion. It seems grading standards are stricter and this seems to have been proven time and time again over the last 2 years. You can take 10 random players on ebay and compare the old flips to the new if you need more proof.
I believe all of us are correct in our assessment with PSA. They are really tough right now, their service is not the same as before and other examples of PSA 1's don't look like this. If you look at it this way, a PSA 9 and a PSA 10 should be graded where you can't understand why the PSA 9 is not a PSA 10. From the naked eye both cards look perfect. However, a PSA 8 there should be a way in which you see a small flaw that kept it from a higher grade. The lower graded cards from that point is where subjectivity really sets in. I have many PSA 7's that were recently graded that look very similar to many of my PSA 8's. We know that a wrinkle in the card should not get higher than a PSA 5. A CREASE is not a wrinkle and so a crease should not get higher than a 4. In the example of the 1966 Mantle, which is really a nice card, it has scratches on the surface, corners that are heavily rounded and a heavy crease in the top left. I believe the highest it could obtain was a PSA 3 according to their standards, but the other things mentioned above dropped it two more grades.
I think the problem that we have as collectors is when we compare our cards to the eye appeal of PSA's example on their website, we automatically say my card is better than that PSA 1 1952 Mantle that they show us. Thus, we expect a higher grade- and rightfully so.
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
This thread may be off topic, but I have heard/read collectors/investors say they can not tell the difference between a PSA-9 and a PSA-10.
I believe what pushes the needle on a PSA-9 to a PSA-10 is the color appeal and registration. Given a card has the centering and corners for a PSA-9…if the color aligns perfectly and the color is eye popping or stunning, then it will/should reside in a PSA-10 holder.
The PSA-9 Jordan RC, which I won in a Heritage Auction February 2022, is a great example. It is centered 50/50 side-to-side and 51/49 top-to-bottom measured using a 1/100 inch scale. The colors aligned perfectly. When the colors are off on the Jordan mainstream RC, there is a magenta hue on the cords of the basketball net as well as a magenta hue on his arms when zoomed in. Corners were pointy sharp. Also, placing the card next to another Jordan RC on my computer monitor…the color on this Jordan RC stood out. The colors popped or were bold.
@mintonlypls said:
This thread may be off topic, but I have heard/read collectors/investors say they can not tell the difference between a PSA-9 and a PSA-10.
I believe what pushes the needle on a PSA-9 to a PSA-10 is the color appeal and registration. Given a card has the centering and corners for a PSA-9…if the color aligns perfectly and the color is eye popping or stunning, then it will/should reside in a PSA-10 holder.
The PSA-9 Jordan RC, which I won in a Heritage Auction February 2022, is a great example. It is centered 50/50 side-to-side and 51/49 top-to-bottom measured using a 1/100 inch scale. The colors aligned perfectly. When the colors are off on the Jordan mainstream RC, there is a magenta hue on the cords of the basketball net as well as a magenta hue on his arms when zoomed in. Corners were pointy sharp. Also, placing the card next to another Jordan RC on my computer monitor…the color on this Jordan RC stood out. The colors popped or were bold.
I mean it sincerely when I say that I always value your input, Monte.
Always
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I am by no means a big spender at PSA but have spent $1000's over the years. But Joe always would respond to my emails like I spent $100,000 a month. I do not submit anymore.
@1954 said:
In the example of the 1966 Mantle, which is really a nice card, it has scratches on the surface, corners that are heavily rounded and a heavy crease in the top left. I believe the highest it could obtain was a PSA 3 according to their standards, but the other things mentioned above dropped it two more grades.
But each flaw isn't a -1 in grade, let alone -2 grades.
If a card has a crease and the highest it could obtain is a PSA3, then having rounded corners doesn't drop the grade. It's still a 3. If there are also light scratches, again, you don't drop it a grade. It's still a 3. If the centering is 90/10, yup, still a 3.
@1954 said:
I think the problem that we have as collectors is when we compare our cards to the eye appeal of PSA's example on their website, we automatically say my card is better than that PSA 1 1952 Mantle that they show us. Thus, we expect a higher grade- and rightfully so.
And in your other post you said "putting up other cards that PSA has in a 1 or 2 holder to compare to your cards is not the point." So is there "no point", or should we "rightfully expect a higher grade" by comparing?
The point being consistency and using the defined standards of grading.
In your other post you said the Mantles' eye appeal is "so nice on all of them".
One attribute of a Poor grade is that the eye appeal has "nearly vanished in its entirety".
You say the Mantles are graded correctly, then in a following post you say the forum's assessment that PSA is currently grading tough and not equal to grading of past years.
@Harnessracing said:
I have a pretty decent eye myself and has paid PSA over $47000 in grading fees this year alone and unfortunately have 11 more orders in and I can barely get a call back let alone anyone of any authority to call me. Damn I miss the days I could call Joe direct
Yeah, I feel it because I spent over 100k last year and believe me, I didn't get any preferential treatment by any means. I wasn't even looking for any frankly but could I at least get some effort to resolve issues when they arise? I would have to fight to get them to lift a finger...no matter how obvious and easy I would make it for them. There were plenty of problems too...none manufactured by yours truly. I didn't realize how much babysitting would be involved after they demand you to jump through as many hoops as they do with the threat of a 5% service charge if you so much as submit an order with the cards not in order. I could go on and on but it is what it is
@Mickey71 said:
Obviously AI is not set properly. The surfaces of cards are simply being graded too harshly. I hope they correct this soon.
Is AI being used i.e via the acquisition of gemint technology company??...seems AI be better suited for modern cards and not vintage unless someone knows how to program the "Artificial Eyes"...I like my crabmeat, sugar etc to be real and not artificial
I'd say the key word there is available...and they just know that we'll pay for it just as it is extra for subgrades at bgs. I'm surprised it took em this long but it would open up a whole new avenue of scrutiny and that only means one thing...that it'll cost ya
@Seaverfan said:
Apparently, grading notes will be available from PSA on cards in 2024...
Wow, could they be listening..
Yep...look back at my posts and see where I suggested this like for comic books where grader notes are qualitative like soft corner, centering, chipped borders. surface wrinkle etc...grader notes for 8 and 9 cards likely will be optional for the graders but 8 and below notes will be required...
Even if PSA provides subgrades, it'll be what we already know.
They'll look like this and we'll still question the why:
Corners 10
Edges 10
Centering 9
Surface 4
This is a great thread. The crossover grades by SGC appear to be consistent with the quality of the card as observed in the scans, while the PSA grades do not. I can understand and appreciate that the person who provided the scans of the Mantles is unhappy with the grades he received. However, these are still low grade cards and are not great examples for this thread.
And that Jordan should have been a 10 first time around. Hardly a vote of confidence for grading that the same card is a 30k, 9 on Monday and a 300k, 10 by Friday.
Good on you for playing the game and winning, seriously I respect you for rolling the dice on that card. But the system is ridiculous.
@mintonlypls said:
This thread may be off topic, but I have heard/read collectors/investors say they can not tell the difference between a PSA-9 and a PSA-10.
I believe what pushes the needle on a PSA-9 to a PSA-10 is the color appeal and registration. Given a card has the centering and corners for a PSA-9…if the color aligns perfectly and the color is eye popping or stunning, then it will/should reside in a PSA-10 holder.
The PSA-9 Jordan RC, which I won in a Heritage Auction February 2022, is a great example. It is centered 50/50 side-to-side and 51/49 top-to-bottom measured using a 1/100 inch scale. The colors aligned perfectly. When the colors are off on the Jordan mainstream RC, there is a magenta hue on the cords of the basketball net as well as a magenta hue on his arms when zoomed in. Corners were pointy sharp. Also, placing the card next to another Jordan RC on my computer monitor…the color on this Jordan RC stood out. The colors popped or were bold.
@Seaverfan said:
They will keep certain grading information proprietary as does BGS. So yes you'll get some information describing your grade but not too specific.
Notes to submitter - "Your cards suck and the PSA 9 populations are too high anyway."
It is pretty sad when you have a knowledgeable customer base that has become accustomed to certain guidelines and then the guidelines/standards are not applied as in the past. Do they really care? PSA is the gold standard of third- party grading and that's not changing. IMO, SGC is value grading.... lower cost based on declared value, quick turn around and the min size, miss cut and off center will be slabbed.
@Seaverfan said:
They will keep certain grading information proprietary as does BGS. So yes you'll get some information describing your grade but not too specific.
Notes to submitter - "Your cards suck and the PSA 9 populations are too high anyway."
Or worse, "Your cards are amazing, but we just can't"
So, the way things are going these days that '74 Seaver currently in auction would be graded a 4 if it was sent in today? It's definitely not as nice as the one you sent that got a 5.
Maybe PSA is grading on a curve now and Surface is 10X more important than Corners, Edges or Centering. That's the only way to explain it.
I know folks who will not buy any PSA card unless is slabbed 2022 or later. Myself I will no longer pay FMV for older slabs only for newer. Except this to become the new normal that majority of collectors will practice in the near future.
If not already then soon, sellers will notice lower realized prices for pre 2022 slabs. Those folks have PSA to thank.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
@82FootballWaxMemorys said:
I know folks who will not buy any PSA card unless is slabbed 2022 or later. Myself I will no longer pay FMV for older slabs only for newer. Except this to become the new normal that majority of collectors will practice in the near future.
If not already then soon, sellers will notice lower realized prices for pre 2022 slabs. Those folks have PSA to thank.
100% agree. I’m glad I sold all of my collection during the craze. I had some stunners too. You can’t really buy FMV unless it’s in person and your buying the card not the holder
Comments
I don't blame you! Sending them in at current time and for foreseeable future and you'll have 800 cards that are 4's,5's and a few 6's
zen and the art of motorcycle census median maintenance
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
While I will agree that PSA has become increasingly harder to work with and their grading of cards more strict, the examples of the Mantle cards shown above could be correctly graded. The 1968 Topps Mantle is a very nice looking PSA 1, but the corners are really damaged. The 1960 Topps Mantle has the best eye appeal of all the four cards. I can't see a crease, but there is damage to the right border. It almost looks like a roller mark perhaps which might be the reason for the lower technical grade.
Back 20 years ago this message board used to mock Sportcards 707 for the way they priced their cards. Some PSA 2's were priced higher than a PSA 4 on his site. And all the same graded cards all had different pricing. I think Levi was the smart one out of all the dealers. The old saying, "Buy the card and not the holder" still rings true.
I also think that now that PSA has gone down the rabbit hole of being so strict on their grading. The company needs to start buying back the old, incorrect graded cards that they put out into the market. The example of the PSA 4 (I think it was a 1959 Gibson) on the other thread where the corner is missing in the top right should be the first card they buy back.
I get where you're coming from on that, but it honestly can't work. In order for a grading company to keep their market place they have to be consistent. By buying back older graded cards to regrade implicitly communicates that your grading standards have changed and weren't correct in the past. That means no one should have any confidence buying your service because who is to say they won't do the same thing 10/20 years from now?
Who's to say they won't buy the ones they're grading now in 10 years to up-grade because what they're doing now is inconsistent?
By changing grading standards in any direction communicates they were doing it incorrectly before. No matter if it gets tougher or easier. That's what they've done and for me that's what is so concerning. How do I trust the thousands of dollars invested if they don't even know what their standards are? It makes me VERY nervous.
I am excited for the 50s special (not to grade). I will be scouring Ebay in about 6 months when the grades pop for 6s and 7s that look like 8s and 9s to me. Will be a great time to add to my collection.
These are the published visual and descriptive standards:
https://www.psacard.com/resources/gradingstandards#:~:text=A Poor card may be,either the front or back.
I can’t recall making any statement that PSA “got the grades wrong” on my cards but rather the results made me “sad” and that I thought they could have graded higher. Posting them here made me feel considerably better because most people felt they were outstanding examples for the grade assigned, just as I did, and said as much.
If each and every card in the order was bumped up by just one grade, I think I’d have been perfectly happy. So as I said from the jump, this wasn’t some egregious event. They’re very pretty though flawed cards.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
BBB you are 100% correct. Plus it would bankrupt them to buy back cards. It would be 100’s of millions of dollars.
To be in the dealer program these days, you need to spend $100k per year just to reach the lowest level. At that level, you get a discount that doesn't even bring the fee down to the monthly grading special level. PSA is overflowing with business. While that's happening, they can name their price and deliver whatever level of service (phone support, grading accuracy, etc) they choose to without much impact to their bottom line.
The economy is slowing down and I'm not so sure business will continue to be this brisk over the next few years. How many of us will return when they need us?
Here's another recently graded 1 on PWCC right now. I'd buy any of the Mantles above before touching this.
i have noticed that back centering now matters much more than it used to...I wish they would update their standards to indicate as much...I have seen cards come back with 80-20 back centering that are getting marked down to PSA 7 even tho all else is okay
we aren't seeing the backs tho, so who really knows
So Steve Hart authenticated at as being a real pack, not fake?
just looking at the '68 Mantle, there is some serious paper loss to the lower left and upper right corners...I don't think the grade is too aggregious
There’s the backs; I couldn’t tell if you were referencing mine.
Again, I look at these cards, the ones ‘out there’ and the PSA standards and just feel they all could have been a little higher; if you see that as a POOR card, so be it. Not going to argue about it, you know? They’re definitely not mint, just didn’t think they were poor, either.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yes…everyone is human; therefore, we make mistakes. PSA made it right, though.
Here you go, front and backs...
Congrats!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
None of those back are the reason for PSAs low grade.
In my opinion, these Mantles are correctly graded. The eye appeal is so nice on all of them, BUT there are issues that totally makes sense. The 1960 Mantle has the stronger corners out of all four examples. While the corners pass the test for a higher grade, I can't tell if there is damage to the card on the right side.
And putting up other cards that PSA has in a 1 or 2 holder to compare to your cards is not the point. Yes, that Mays looks like crap and your cards are much nicer, but not all cards are the same quality.
Your opinion, I’m not saying they’re much higher but they are not graded correctly. I’m sure there are dozens on this board that can show pictures of the horrible results of recent submissions. If you haven’t had issues, that’s great but a lot of us have. In fact I’ve cracked out several resubmitted and had 2 grade jumps. PSA is NOT following their published standards for grading
I think some of the Mantles were graded correctly some are low, but none of the 70s cards were correct.
Again, that’s totally cool if you think they’re graded properly.
By the way, I didn’t post the Mays card.
And I’ll quickly reiterate that I thought these cards were off by about 1, not 6 grades. Still, I did not believe the cards would be coming back in the Poor, Fair and Good holders, respectively. Below is the written and visual standard of POOR and I just don’t see that as correct…
…but I do fully understand that it’s an opinion.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Your Mantle cards are much nicer than the definition of poor.
@1954
I mean only to have a dialog with you in posting my response. You are more than entitled to your opinion and I really do appreciate your feedback.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I posted the Mays because there seems to be a WIDE range of condition in the individual lower grades because the grading seems so tough on the higher 2 or 3. That will breed inconsistency and confusion for the collectors.
I get it, you are a strict grader, and you are entitled to your opinion. It seems grading standards are stricter and this seems to have been proven time and time again over the last 2 years. You can take 10 random players on ebay and compare the old flips to the new if you need more proof.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I believe all of us are correct in our assessment with PSA. They are really tough right now, their service is not the same as before and other examples of PSA 1's don't look like this. If you look at it this way, a PSA 9 and a PSA 10 should be graded where you can't understand why the PSA 9 is not a PSA 10. From the naked eye both cards look perfect. However, a PSA 8 there should be a way in which you see a small flaw that kept it from a higher grade. The lower graded cards from that point is where subjectivity really sets in. I have many PSA 7's that were recently graded that look very similar to many of my PSA 8's. We know that a wrinkle in the card should not get higher than a PSA 5. A CREASE is not a wrinkle and so a crease should not get higher than a 4. In the example of the 1966 Mantle, which is really a nice card, it has scratches on the surface, corners that are heavily rounded and a heavy crease in the top left. I believe the highest it could obtain was a PSA 3 according to their standards, but the other things mentioned above dropped it two more grades.
I think the problem that we have as collectors is when we compare our cards to the eye appeal of PSA's example on their website, we automatically say my card is better than that PSA 1 1952 Mantle that they show us. Thus, we expect a higher grade- and rightfully so.
This thread may be off topic, but I have heard/read collectors/investors say they can not tell the difference between a PSA-9 and a PSA-10.
I believe what pushes the needle on a PSA-9 to a PSA-10 is the color appeal and registration. Given a card has the centering and corners for a PSA-9…if the color aligns perfectly and the color is eye popping or stunning, then it will/should reside in a PSA-10 holder.
The PSA-9 Jordan RC, which I won in a Heritage Auction February 2022, is a great example. It is centered 50/50 side-to-side and 51/49 top-to-bottom measured using a 1/100 inch scale. The colors aligned perfectly. When the colors are off on the Jordan mainstream RC, there is a magenta hue on the cords of the basketball net as well as a magenta hue on his arms when zoomed in. Corners were pointy sharp. Also, placing the card next to another Jordan RC on my computer monitor…the color on this Jordan RC stood out. The colors popped or were bold.
I mean it sincerely when I say that I always value your input, Monte.
Always
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I am by no means a big spender at PSA but have spent $1000's over the years. But Joe always would respond to my emails like I spent $100,000 a month. I do not submit anymore.
But each flaw isn't a -1 in grade, let alone -2 grades.
If a card has a crease and the highest it could obtain is a PSA3, then having rounded corners doesn't drop the grade. It's still a 3. If there are also light scratches, again, you don't drop it a grade. It's still a 3. If the centering is 90/10, yup, still a 3.
And in your other post you said "putting up other cards that PSA has in a 1 or 2 holder to compare to your cards is not the point." So is there "no point", or should we "rightfully expect a higher grade" by comparing?
The point being consistency and using the defined standards of grading.
In your other post you said the Mantles' eye appeal is "so nice on all of them".
One attribute of a Poor grade is that the eye appeal has "nearly vanished in its entirety".
You say the Mantles are graded correctly, then in a following post you say the forum's assessment that PSA is currently grading tough and not equal to grading of past years.
I really don't understand your position.
Obviously AI is not set properly. The surfaces of cards are simply being graded too harshly. I hope they correct this soon.
Yeah, I feel it because I spent over 100k last year and believe me, I didn't get any preferential treatment by any means. I wasn't even looking for any frankly but could I at least get some effort to resolve issues when they arise? I would have to fight to get them to lift a finger...no matter how obvious and easy I would make it for them. There were plenty of problems too...none manufactured by yours truly. I didn't realize how much babysitting would be involved after they demand you to jump through as many hoops as they do with the threat of a 5% service charge if you so much as submit an order with the cards not in order. I could go on and on but it is what it is
Is AI being used i.e via the acquisition of gemint technology company??...seems AI be better suited for modern cards and not vintage unless someone knows how to program the "Artificial Eyes"...I like my crabmeat, sugar etc to be real and not artificial
Apparently, grading notes will be available from PSA on cards in 2024...
Wow, could they be listening..
I'd say the key word there is available...and they just know that we'll pay for it just as it is extra for subgrades at bgs. I'm surprised it took em this long but it would open up a whole new avenue of scrutiny and that only means one thing...that it'll cost ya
Yep...look back at my posts and see where I suggested this like for comic books where grader notes are qualitative like soft corner, centering, chipped borders. surface wrinkle etc...grader notes for 8 and 9 cards likely will be optional for the graders but 8 and below notes will be required...
Even if PSA provides subgrades, it'll be what we already know.
They'll look like this and we'll still question the why:
Corners 10
Edges 10
Centering 9
Surface 4
They will keep certain grading information proprietary as does BGS. So yes you'll get some information describing your grade but not too specific.
This is a great thread. The crossover grades by SGC appear to be consistent with the quality of the card as observed in the scans, while the PSA grades do not. I can understand and appreciate that the person who provided the scans of the Mantles is unhappy with the grades he received. However, these are still low grade cards and are not great examples for this thread.
And that Jordan should have been a 10 first time around. Hardly a vote of confidence for grading that the same card is a 30k, 9 on Monday and a 300k, 10 by Friday.
Good on you for playing the game and winning, seriously I respect you for rolling the dice on that card. But the system is ridiculous.
Notes to submitter - "Your cards suck and the PSA 9 populations are too high anyway."
It is pretty sad when you have a knowledgeable customer base that has become accustomed to certain guidelines and then the guidelines/standards are not applied as in the past. Do they really care? PSA is the gold standard of third- party grading and that's not changing. IMO, SGC is value grading.... lower cost based on declared value, quick turn around and the min size, miss cut and off center will be slabbed.
I must say wow! But I really think some of those Seaver cards are over graded by SGC, and the PSA grades were clearly too low.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Here are some screen shots from current ebay auctions for 1973 topps #350 Seaver and 1975 topps #80 Seaver PSA 9's
Or worse, "Your cards are amazing, but we just can't"
So, the way things are going these days that '74 Seaver currently in auction would be graded a 4 if it was sent in today? It's definitely not as nice as the one you sent that got a 5.
Maybe PSA is grading on a curve now and Surface is 10X more important than Corners, Edges or Centering. That's the only way to explain it.
I know folks who will not buy any PSA card unless is slabbed 2022 or later. Myself I will no longer pay FMV for older slabs only for newer. Except this to become the new normal that majority of collectors will practice in the near future.
If not already then soon, sellers will notice lower realized prices for pre 2022 slabs. Those folks have PSA to thank.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
100% who is repsonsible.
100% agree. I’m glad I sold all of my collection during the craze. I had some stunners too. You can’t really buy FMV unless it’s in person and your buying the card not the holder