Options
Reviews
smallstocks
Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭✭
Just venting a bit here. I sent in 28 meticulously scrutinized cards for potential upgrades. In past years, I have not been quite as discerning, but had a 15% - 20% hit rate. This time they upgraded a single card. Absolutely the last time I ever attempt an upgrade. Totally threw my money away. (Of note, also 0 for 2 trying to cross over SGC newly graded cards). Grrrrr.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
0
Comments
Would you mind sharing some examples with pics?
I have always considered sending in some cards for Grade Review, but have not pulled the trigger.
Once I receive them back I will. They charge $40 a card now so that in itself made it only feasible to consider high value cards. I guess they want to discourage reviews because they take much longer than raw card grading and they can crank those out.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
When they review a card in an old holder (assuming they have to crack them out to properly evaluate them)...at least you get them back in new holders, correct?...so at least you avoid the re-holdering fee....so you can kinda deduct that fee from the review cost if you need a silver lining).
The more I think about it, it’s very difficult to believe that commons and Major stars are held to the same standard when giving out PSA 10s.
If I get (as I have a bunch of times) a PSA 10 on a 1972 common, it’s worth maybe $300 instead of $30. But if I were to get a 10 on a major star from that set….even a Stargell caliber star…now the differential between a 9 and 10 is $20-40K in some cases. The financial gravity is so much more pronounced that it’s hard to believe that doesn’t factor in at all.
They review them in the current holder.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Dave, it 100% factors in and you can't tell me otherwise. I sent in an incredible 1969 Nolan Ryan PSA 8 that was centered perfectly. They didn't even bump it to an 8.5. They pointed to a corner (which I re-examined and found to be razor sharp) and claimed there were printing dots. A second Nolan Ryan I submitted was a perfectly centered 1976 Topps PSA 9. It didn't bump because they said the centering was off left to right. Uh huh . . .
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
I use to have great success with reviews about 10 years ago. My last one about 6 years was 0 for 12. And i quit doing it. Believe it or not I had 2 1988 fleer Jordans and 1 1988 fleer Drexlers go from 9's to 10's on one order of 12. And I think I got another 10 on another pretty good card with that same order.
The scam of this is the price you have to pay. If they a review a valuable card they charge you a ton of money and just send it back to you.
It’s very difficult to bump 9s to 10s. Therefore …I have only tried to review one (1) PSA-9 (1986 Fleer Michael Jordan)…and luckily it bumped to a PSA-10 in 2022.
I have had successes bumping 8.5s to 9s.
I remember at one time you could request a reholder with the review even if the card didn't bump but I'm not sure that is still an option.
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 think you can do that for another $40!
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Geez. I know a number of years ago, within last 5-6 years anyway, it was included in the price if you requested it (which I'd do).
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.
Reviews are totally not worth it.
If I’m so confident in a card I crack it and resubmit it.
I’ve had 9’s come back 8’s and 8’s come back 9’s.
But those days are over my friends.
I may be one of the few who cracked an 8 and got a 10.
Back in the day I cracked a 6. Came back a 10. True story - and ridiculous.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Back in the day I cracked a 6 and came back with crabs.
I resubmitted an N8 and got a 10. But I don’t see that as a knock on PSA , I know why my card originally got an N8 and it’s a judgment call as to whether it should be viewed as “miscut.”
I had a pretty good success rate (about 20%) at bumping higher end, lower pop 1975 mini PSA 9s to PSA 10 but haven't tried that again in several years now.
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 quit wasting money on crossovers and reviews. My last few orders I only got one to bump or cross. I have a beautiful SGC 88 1962 Hank Aaron that they didn't cross. It's not undersize either. It's nicer than every single PSA 8 I've been searching for in auctions over the past year. They just don't want to take any chances these days, especially with any card that will significantly increase in value.
I did a review as well this year. 10 of my best best and some of the cards had a smr of just 100.00. Cost 40.00 per review. Got 0 bumps.
Gorgeous cards!
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
I don’t even think they review them. They just shove them in a box and send it back and charge your card.
When Joe was there I averaged 15-25% upgrade. In the last several months I sent in 7 cards, 6 at $40 a pop and 1 at $125. 0 for 7
It's always going to be about the individual card, not the quantity you send in.
Sure but why would you even send them in if they don’t review them and instead just pocket your money??
I have to agree completely with Harnessracing here. He’s obviously correct here. They don’t even look at your card. They just shove it in a box and charge it.
It boggles my mind that after all these years, and all the stories, that people still think their card will get an unbiased review when it's in another company's holder.
It’s best to crack out b4 submitting a card graded by SGC or another third party grading company.
We are the top dog, how dare you for your thinking your ZCG 8 would be a PSA 8. LOL!!
I have had some Beckett slabs get upgrade in crossover service when I have selected Auth for min card grade. I expect when there's no bottom they crack and move to grading.
I had one where, before I learned my lesson, I sent in a Beckett 8 with min grade of 7 and it was sent back in the Beckett slab. I sent it back with min grade of Auth, and it came back a PSA 8. I emailed about that and asked why I had to pay twice to grade once and the answer was that they could not tell easily without removing the card from the slab. Which is pretty obvious I suppose, and why I set min grade as 7.
I doubt there's a big conspiracy here where the other grader grades are used as a ceiling or something. I struggle to understand how that would benefit PSA or what the motivation is there. I could see the argument that PSA is better because they grade more accurately being a better slogan than PSA is better because they grade more harshly. I also don't think PSA is sophisticated enough to do this at scale.
For all I know they could be, but how come there are not a lot of first-hand reports detailing the org. memos to "protect the pop" or "punish BVG slabs". They are keeping this secret incredibly well with a work-force that is paid about what gas station cashiers make. It doesn't add up. There's no amount of termination paperwork they can have you sign that would prevent you from legally disclosing what would amount to fraud.
Thinking of posts where someone crosses a Dual grade but doesn't set a min and ends up with a Auth card grade and number auto grade. To ensure that there is no min-size or altered issue, I'd submit at like a min of 5 so you don't get that Auth grade, and also, they may crack it out before they can really measure it, thus you force them to give you a grade even if it is short or altered if not caught in the slab.
Agreed,
Results were just posted for my last ever crossover attempt from SGC. This one was a recently graded 8.5. I asked for a minimum grade of PSA 8. No dice, of course. But they did pocket a cool $250 for the rubber stump answer.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Wouldn't a PSA 7 equal a SGC 8.5 price wise give a take? Certainly easier to sell.
No. For vintage (at least 50s and 60s HOFers) and prewar it almost always sells for more than a 7 and sometimes more than an 8. I would guess commons are different because most who buy graded commons are on the registry.
1949 Bowman Duke Snider rookie card. Definitely worth way more than a 7. That’s why I refused to accept any grade lower than 8 from PSA.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
That makes sense for old vintage. Probably no way they would be able to really cross it without cracking it out, looking at the surface to guarantee such a high grade.
Let’s see the Duke!
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Beautiful color.
Centering makes it an 8. great looking card.
Thank you. I agree but PSA refuses to do so.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Probably…a card needs to be sent in raw to realize a fair/accurate grade. When a card is sent into PSA within another third party holder…it negatively influences PSA graders.
A few years back…I tried to cross a 1963 Roger Maris BVG-9 w/ 3 9s and 1 8.5 sub grade. I felt it would cross to a PSA-9. The green nameplate was chip free including corners and dead centered. It came back a PSA-8.5. Fast forward to last year…I sent the card into PSA for review. Now…it resides in an accurate PSA-9 holder
really good looking cards -- I think the SGC 8 or 88 is accurate tho for the Aaron -- with the centering at the top of the card combined with the white on the top right and bottom right corners, I think the grade is accurate