grading times
olb31
Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭✭✭
Overall Summary
— PSA graded 1.65m cards - ⬆6% vs Apr, ⬆21% YoY. Record high.
— CGC graded 570k cards - ⬆67% vs Apr, ⬆209% YoY. Record high. CGC appeared to benefit from a few large bulk orders, including nearly 100k Topps 50/50 Ohtani cards.
— SGC graded 145k cards - ⬇13% vs Apr, ⬇17% YoY.
— Beckett graded 59k cards - ⬆3% vs Apr, ⬇1% YoY.
according to sgc, they had to extend grading from 5-10 days to 15-20 days. i am currently at 24 days. according to gemrate sgc's gradings are down 17% year over year. something not making sense. anybody got any inside info?
Work hard and you will succeed!!
1
Comments
IMHO anyone who sends cards to CGC or purchases them is a Mo Ron. very loose grading standards, the slabs sometime pop open if dropped from merely 1-2 feet, worst Cust Service in the biz and that's saying something.
I am scared the reason for delays at SGC is due to staffing cuts... I do prefer SGC above all others but as I've mentioned prolly too many times I don't sell cards.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
CGC is grading over a half a million cards a month? Didnt realize they were that popular.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
Its their Omega deal , junk slabs for junk uses. Brings them in money, in short term, but long term ensures their perception remains in the cesspool.
P.S. they'll be needing those funds as the Pokeman law suits work their way through the courts. Look for that in 2026
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Yeah. Those numbers don’t make me optimistic that SGC is long for this world. I have 2orders there now that still show as received since May 11.
I’ve never sent a card to CGC but those numbers seem to indicate a lot of folks trust them and don’t want anything to do with the other companies. Competition is good and healthy for the hobby as far as I’m concerned.
.
Correct, it's nearly all due to the Omega contract.
I agree competition is good but CGC on the comic front has with malice aforethought been damaging comics for several years. CGC is NOT an entity you want to entrust with your cards!
Bananagate refers to the issue of CGC-graded comics developing a noticeable "banana effect" or curvature to the slabs (cases) over time, and potentially causing damage to the comic books inside.
Here's a breakdown:
The Problem: Many collectors reported noticing a bend or warp in the inner well of CGC slabs, causing the comic book to not lay flat. This warping can potentially lead to new damage to the comic book, such as spine stress lines or creases, especially on books that were originally in high grades.
CGC's Vile Response: According to reports, CGC has been deleting threads and comments on their forums discussing this issue, which has further frustrated collectors. This action suggests an attempt to control the narrative surrounding the problem and potentially downplay its severity.
Impact on Collectors: Collectors who invested in CGC-graded comics, particularly those with high grades, now have damaged collectibles. This issue led some to express frustration and a potential loss of trust in CGC's grading and encapsulation services. Not to mention monetary damages across the board.
In essence, Bananagate highlights a serious unaddressed defect with CGC's slab design or materials that will cause warping either from initial slabbing or over time, raising concerns among collectors about the preservation of their graded comic books"
BTW the very mention of PSA Grading Comic Books now results in permanent banning from the CGC boards. I am one of hundreds, yes hundreds, to which they have done that. **520 of us have joined a new private forum https://collectorsyndicate.com/ ** They welcome all to join who are interested in a collectors forum sans all corporate oversight.
Never heard any of that, Groo, but I don’t do comics. Used to but gave that up decades ago.
I’m just happy to see another company out there getting high grading numbers because competition is the only thing we have on that scene to keep things correct.
Viable competition is good for consumers! CGC however has taken on a trash slabbing contract that PSA would not touch. It would be a huge brand reputational hit and PSA operates in CA and NJ so they would likley not be able to turn enough of a profit. CGC operates in Florida and pays that states minimum wage, if even that...
I've 12 CGC slabs, all non-sports cards, each one is seriously over graded. I've a few CGC GEM 10's that if I was picking up raw I'd call them NM or EX/MT. Never again! It's SGC,PSA and an occasional BGS for me. I'd sooner purchase TAG over CGC.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Well, I just sent in 5 orders of different service levels, including the June special.
Assuming 4 weeks to process, holidays, and 15 weeks (75 business days estimated) to complete, I'm looking at cards popping after the MLB season and World Series. That's rough.
I have a 10 card order with SGC that has been there since 8 May. I get the feeling the days of 2 week turnaround are gone.
I have similar. I think the days of 4 week turnaround may be gone as well...
It took 26 business days to get my grades and for them to mail the cards out. I have several other orders in the pot. so we can see how those go.
I guesses right on 8 out of 12.
misses
1977 Fidrych 8 - I guessed 8.5
1975 Ryan 6 - I guessed 7
1973 yeager 8 - i thought 9 (awfully nice card)
1977 jackson 7 - i guessed 8
what were the other 8 grades?
79 BK Munson - 9
78 T munson - 9
73 T - Ryan - 6
85 TTiffany gwynn - 9
85 Leaf Rose - 9.5 (should be a 10 imo) pop 1
77 murphy 8
73 fisk 8
82 F Ripken - 8.5
The grades that you guessed, is that the grade you thought they would give you or was it the grade you truly thought they deserved.
the ones i got right where about where they should be. The 1973 Yeager was so nice and centered. I think they hosed me at least .5. The 1978 Munson is really sharp. Crisp, it could be a 9.5 or 10, IMO. But I figured they wouldn't give that to me. The 1985 Leaf Rose, same thing. I guessed 9.5 because I didn't think they would give me a 10. Card looks perfect. Overall decently fair, imo.
I will keep the fisk, the rose and maybe the fidrych and sell the rest on EBAY.
Getting that 8 on the Fidrych is a nice pull.
Congrats on that one.
I just sent a nice note to PSA customer service about their grading process. And the response I got back, was comical. Some young employee was gonna explain grading to me! I’m 67 been sending off cards since the beginning of psa., now I’m not saying I’m a scientist.. but damn I know what to send in and not to send in.. I have black light loops.. etc.. etc.. they’ve turned into a joke! They already were in part a joke.. I sent in a 1969 topps football Gayle Sayers that came back minimum measurement was short.. sent it back a second time and received an 8.5. I think there needs to be more effort on customers to complain. The company has become a joke.
^ must be nice to be in a business where when you make a mistake you make more money than by doing things correctly. Also kind of proves each card is NOT looked at by 3 graders. Still better than the dbahggery at CGC.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Until AI takes over grading (and I assume that is already in process), and humans are doing the grading, there's going to be variances. Complaining about it is pointless. The options are to adapt or stop submitting.
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'm somewhat convinced that the reason PSA grades vintage in lower grades doesn't have to due with changing the standards (standards are standards and don't change i.e. a lb is still a pound no matter who weighs it) is because the grader performance evaluations REWARD a grader for lower average grades given to cards. I.e. a grader who gives out lower grades is somehow considered a "BETTER/STRICTER" grader than someone who gives higher grades and thus the grader who ABRBITRAILY gives lower grades gets a better performance evaluation and thus higher pay or a promotion (It's a game the grading employee can play with their bosses etc.). This explains why your orders after you carefully select a batch of cards get grades 4-8 averaging like a 6...this is especially reaffirming when you selectively send in cards from the same vintage year like 20 hand selected cards from 1969 and the grades come back all over the place with NO RHYME OR REASON...It is likely a grader performance evaluation policy change may have taken place a few years ago that is resulting in this UNDERGRADING of cards. Now if PSA applies this policy to SGC you will see the SAME outcome on your cards you send in: 1-2 grades lower than the REAL grade. Anyone have any idea on how graders are evaluated for performance and hence raises and promotions???? The concept of slamming 8's and 9's into 5-7 holders is undergrading a card and IS just as bad as overgrading. Thoughts and opinions are welcomed as to the why's and how's this has happened of undergrading cards.
Nope... grading has been SYSTEMCALLY changed resulting in lower UNDERGRADING of VINTAGE cards. A possible reason for this systematic change is discussed above. I guess AI could be another reason grading has sytematically resulted in undergrading of VINTAGE cards.
Done.
They've obviously made a corporate decision to go after every modern card submitted in the world and the results clearly show that. I wish them all the success in the world but I'll never send another vintage.
That might also explain why traditional (pre 2022) old time 3-4-5-6's are still the same grade, but so too are traditional 8,9,10's.
First order I submitted in 7 years just "popped" the 4/6 mid grade cards IMHO were graded accurately the 2 that were traditional high grade came backs at 6's.
All cards had total Census populations of 3 or less. All were rare vintage non-sports. The difference between the traditional 6 and what should have been an 8/8+ are striking.
I'm done!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
The thing that would make using AI challenging is some parts can be clearly numerical and not subject to debate and others are purely subjective even if there are some words/guidelines being used to describe the grade. AI can say 53 47 left to right (if its consistent and not tilted) and 71 29 top to bottom. How the math works to blend top to bottom and left to right, not sure. Is the worst centering the criteria used or does a card with 73 27 top to bottom get lifted if left to right is 50 50. Can AI say yeah but it sure looks swell. Do graders say that?
Think it gets tougher to use AI on an older card where there is some corner fraying. How rounded are those corners? Maybe you use math to say how far it is off from being a right angle? How much paint is missing on a worn corner or a card with snow? Exactly 0.7%. But sometimes that missing paint here is uglier than over here with the same paint loss. It has a ding. How do you quantify the ding? Suppose it can be done but given the subjectivity its challenging. I feel like a true grade would be the average of 10 experts similar to a score on an Olympic event. But that aint happening. Too expensive. Unless you pay 300 a card. But you probably would have 2 experts and 8 junior employees.
Makes me think of talk of the electronic automated strike zone in baseball. Yeah, maybe that works if there was actual top of the strike zone. It used to be knees to armpits but now you look at the box on TV and the top of the box may go to the waist on this guy or maybe a little above the navel on this guy. Then the guy crouches or stands more straight up and the box does not adjust with the movement. So in my opinion that is a flawed concept as well.
^^
Yeah, but you don't have to pay AI hourly, if it screws up you can still charge for the service and if the customer hates it they'll keep sending you business. Seems like a pretty awesome situation to find yourself in as a public company!
I see plenty of overgraded cards in new holders, too. I guess the system must have just missed those, then.
Additionally, complaining about PSA being tough on vintage cards is something I've been seeing and reading here for literally decades.
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.
Perhaps the availability of high quality vintage cards has changed. It's quite obvious in the open market. The inventory has been depleted. Over the past 30+ years, millions upon millions of cards have passed through the hands of PSA graders. The majority of the best cards are already in holders. People have been keenly aware of the economic power of grading. I think it's safe to say that part of the inherent evolvement of grading is happening because the graders themselves just aren't seeing as much high quality as they used to. It's affecting perception. Much the same as it affected perception in favor of the average submitter in the early days, now the tables seem to have turned the other way.
.
Think of how much easier, and faster it is for graders to go through 100 Pokemon cards compared to 100 vintage cards...Pokemon cards have been and probably will be forever the same looking cards...same border, same backs, etc...it is no surprise companies love to get hundreds of thousands of Pokemon cards...so simple...centering is simple to ascertain, and then just look for surface stuff on the front, and blue chipping on the back...done...ez pz
OK addressing your point so if someone discovers a nice vintage find of HIGH grade quality cards and submits them then wouldn't the graders be "shocked" and give out 9's and 10's as to your point they don't see high quality cards that often anymore?... there was just recently a post about finding untouched 1969 football cards (if i can remember right) and sent them in and received alot of 5-7's and just a few 8's when cards don't get any better than untouched "vintage finds" aside from printing and centering issues...also what about the few remaining stellar submitters such as 4-5 of you on this board who been grading for years and submit and are seeing the same undergrading...now this "undergrading" issue has been significantly discussed it seems for about 2 years or so...so PSA maybe getting the message somewhat and maybe that is why some overgrading is occurring now...definitely an opportunity for someone at PSA to manage the vintage card department to better assess the "real" grade of vintage card grading where there is LESS complaints from the vintage customers wouldn't you say?
Most of what gets discussed here regarding grading is based on speculation. Personally, I gave up on submitting cards in 2013. I was frustrated then. I imagine there's been quite a bit of turnover in the grading department. I felt a level of trust for many years with the consistency of their work. But, as with most good things, they couldn't possibly last forever. I learned a lot from submitting, though. Rule Number 1: Never, ever, EVER overestimate your worth. You'll end up being gravely disappointed. You're asking, rather, PAYING for someone else's opinion. You know the playing field has been altered in favor of whomever gets the best benefit from this. It probably won't be you. But, go ahead. Keep ranting. You have plenty of support in this forum. I don't disagree with the contention that grading can often be unfair in the eyes of the beholder. We know the rules as they exist. Gotta play or wave goodbye.
.
Great observational thinking...didn't realize I was ranting but rather observing and trying to understand the situation of undergrading as I see it...guess like most things in life just got to roll with your own observations and be a REMI (Resourceful Evaluating Maximizing Individual)
...rock on!!!
I'm probably in the minority. I thought PSA was tuff 30 years ago and have just remained tuff. Getting 8's and better on 1960's and before was considered a major win for me. Nowadays, I think folks expect 8's and anything lower is perceived as under graded.
Ok ...have you submitted cards in past 6 months?
It's definitely changed. I got 3 Grffey atomic refractors grade 10 in one order and 3 shaq atomics grade 10 in another. neither has a pop of 10, even today. no chance to get a 9 nowadays on atomics.
I would routinely get 9's and 10's. 1983 and up.
Pre-COVID I hit 3 1986 Fleer Rolando Blackman PSA 10s in a row on the same order. I'd be lucky to even see a PSA 9 now on any 1986 Fleer submission.
No, would I have received them back, had I? It's been almost 2 years since my last subs (1 modern, 1 vintage). Modern was fine, vintage was underwhelming. I learned to temper expectations through the years and almost inevitably the bigger names (Mantle, Aaron, Mays) came back lower than anticipated. I totally get the frustration of "once was, now isn't". Thinking of a swan song sub just for pc cards but definitely tapping out before membership renewal.
Well about 2 years ago undergrading started to get egregious...I have been submitting since 2002 (23 years) and have never seen anything like now...of course there was an occasional "grader of death" and some not quite what I thought but now it is egregious...what i'm saying is go get yourself some unopened 1960's and 70's like vending, wax and rack packs open them then hand pick all the cards that you would think would get 8's 9's and 10's. Then send them in and result is 6-7's a few 8's and maybe a 9 or two.....Since you haven't sent anything in in 2 years you prolly don't realize the 1-2.5 grades LOWER than then the REAL grade...Remember these were your hand picked fresh from unopened 1960's and 70's...this is the current REALITY
Not disputing the frustration, changing of the standards or even the egregious activity. I'm not a rookie, been subbing since '94. Why do you think I quit subbing? It's unregulated and they can do whatever the el they want without explanation or accountability. 4SC, 700 PSA 10's in row... so what. We can choose to play by their ever-changing rules or not. BTW, I'd never purchase unopened 60's or 70's with high expectations.....uffdah's journey is eye opening.
The purchasing of of unopened was merely a hypothetical concept to get you to think! Change purchase word to given the unopened
. ..Yes uffdah's process of opening vintage and submitting is one example...Yes you still must choose whether your gonna play ball or not and try to hit a home run when the field is suddenly increased by 30% in distance. rock on mate!
i buy unopened to keep and sell later. its amazing how much they go up every 10 years.
Half of my brain says: OFF LIMITS! DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!
The other half says: RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!
.
So I just got another order of grades back for SGC. I didn't grade them my self, before hand.
1 - They are not giving out any grades higher than 8 for 1970's cards. doesn't matter if they are centered, you will not get an 8.5
2 - the 80's cards, they will give you a .5, so the best you can do is 8.5. From 1985 and back to 1979 or so.
Both 1977's where at least a grade under where they should be. The 1983 Topps Boggs was perfect. Perfect centering, no flaking, no print dots and I got an 8.5. BEcause the 9's now go for over $150. If I had graded it 6 months ago, it would probably have been a 9.5. Looks gem mint to me
The 1985 marino 8.5 was fair. the 1986 young had no chipping on the edges or corners but was about 8 in centeriing, so I got an 8. but the card looks great.
1987 Donruss the rookies must be the hardest set to grade. no matter who I send in or how many, I can't get a 9. all the cards come straight out of the box, basically untouched but the SGC graders seem to think they have been handled a ton. I got an 8 on Bo. 9 or 10 centering, untouched out of the box, gets you an 8 nowadays. SHould have been a 9 easily.
Here's the best one though a perfectly centered, sharp cornered 1984 donruss mattingly.Perfectly centered front and back, corners sharp. At a minimum an 8.5 right. Nope, no .5 on a centered one. Why because the card would sell for over $100. Essentially you will get .5 lower than you need to get a decent profit.
THE Boggs and Mattingly were easy 9's. Centered, sharp corners, should get you a 9 on these cards. A little pist off. THe grading this time around was a C-, the last batch was a B+.
I did just receive some (all 70s) back from them that were 8, 8.5 and a couple 9s (got the delivery today). I posted some on the June thread.
I will agree they're being more strict than just a few weeks ago for sure.
You are absolutely correct about the OPCs though. I had a 79 Reggie come back at a decent grade. All the rest (3 or 4 others I sent) were 4's and some of those were nicer than the Reggie. I just don't think their AI likes the rough cut edges.
I have come to believe their AI is set up for modern cut, finish and edges and you'll get (mostly) killed on vintage.
It sound like SGC is coming in line with PSA grading.
who knows, maybe
just got a third one back.
1982 henderson - 10 centering, sharp corners, --- 8 -- 1986 tiffany brett - 8 s/be a 9 or better
most of the rest were kind of on the mark. i will give them a b on this one.
out of 12 cards they made sure all 12 stayed under $100 in value. on the other order i just mentioned, they made sure 11/12 stayed under $100. so 23 out of 24 stayed under $100.
the mattingly boggs and 1982 henderson were grossly undergraded. really hard to find all of those with perfect centering and sharp corners
i stand by my opc without opening a pack like opc tom did, you will never see another 1970's opc 10 and very few 9's.
which is why it is crazy they can give out thousands of 10s to 4sc every month...the back corner dings and centering on their cards don't matter like they do for the rest of us...
Can someone help me understand how transitioning to being unfairly tough on grades helps a 3rd party grading company? Is it really because they think people will resubmit and they will make money that way? Because it seems like for every person that resubmits, ten more just quit grading altogether due to frustration.
Help me understand something. When you submit your cards at a particular level and pay X dollars to have a disappointing grade assigned at the "under $100" value, does this mean you could potentially receive an improved result by paying more for a better grade? It costs more to get your point 5 or MINT 9? I always thought grading was supposed to be subjective. The scenarios being discussed here lately make me think this whole process has become nothing more than well concealed extortion.
Disclaimer: I know the answer to my question. I'm just chiming in to restate an already popular opinion.
.