i got a 9 on a vince coleman and the mattingly and boggs were just as good. but the coleman 9 is worth $25 and the boggs and mattingly would be $175 ++.
the value matters. when i got 3 1997 atomic ref griffey psa 10's in one order, i had paid $25 total for all 3. so at the time giving me 3 psa 10's wasn't worth much. there is absolutely no chance of anyone but maybe 2 or 3 people who could do that now because the cards sell for $1250 apiece.
now psa gives 7 or 8 on 1997 refractors. sgc was fantastic until psa bought them. now they are very tough. but maybe slightly nicer.
@olb31 said:
just got a third one back.
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.
Not surprised. More proof that the margin on returns is slim and if you actually just purchased the cards vs already having them it may even be a bust. Oh, the days of hitting one out of 50 and the order paid for itself++.......gone.
@mintonlypls said:
It sound like SGC is coming in line with PSA grading.
Yikes, I hope not. For what its worth, my recent 8-card SGC order (vintage ranging from 1950-1975), came back with no "head scratchers". 6 were spot on what I thought they would get. 2 were slightly lower because I missed some surface issues and wrinkles. Bottom line, I felt all were accurately graded.
@mintonlypls said:
It sound like SGC is coming in line with PSA grading.
Yikes, I hope not. For what its worth, my recent 8-card SGC order (vintage ranging from 1950-1975), came back with no "head scratchers". 6 were spot on what I thought they would get. 2 were slightly lower because I missed some surface issues and wrinkles. Bottom line, I felt all were accurately graded.
Yeah order 1 out of 3 came back a B+. I guessed at just about all of them. The second was off c-, the third was a B. The Boggs and mattingly should be 9's at least. I looked at ebay for 2 hours and over 500 boggs rookies to find one that centered. The corners were sharp. Should be a 9. I will post all of them next week on EBAY
I'll add my 2 cents. I've been submitting (mostly vintage) since 1999. I used to be in the dealer program and would submit thousands of cards per year. We did have issues with consistency and "the Grader of Death" throughout the years but I do feel PSA has generally gotten more strict since the pandemic. This is based on my own submissions and feedback from other long time submitters and even feedback from PSA insiders. I also think the consistency has gotten worse. I chalk it up to the hiring of so many new graders as they expanded.
In the past when I was regularly submitting bulk orders, I was pretty consistently getting 15% +/-3% PSA 9's. I had a few orders that dropped to 5% and a few that exceeded 20%. Since the prices skyrocketed and the dealer program threshold far exceeded what I was willing to spend, I've dropped down my submission activity substantially. From my perspective, crossovers and reviews are a complete waste of money. I used to get 50% to cross and 20-25% to bump. The orders since the pandemic would only get 1-2 cards to convert per order. I don't see myself submitting another crossover or review order until/unless I start seeing positive examples from other submitters confirming the process has improved. I also have poor experience with colored border cards like '62T baseball and football and 1971T baseball. So I'm being very picky on what I send in for those years with zero hope of getting 9s on any of them. They really have to appear like a mint card to have a decent shot at an 8 these days. I submitted a dozen or so 1962 Topps football that all had been cracked out of PSA 8 holders by the previous owner. None regraded 8. Below are a few recent examples of what PSA thinks is a PSA 7 on those cards.
Regarding worse consistency from order-to-order, I recently had one of my best submissions ever. I think if you get an experienced vintage grader, you'll get grades more in-line with expectation. I think it was one of my best results ever because I've gotten much more strict in what I submit for grading due to the generally harsher grading. Here are some results from that great recent submission that shows you can still get good grades depending on the grader you get.
I also got some tough commons
Even on this great submission, I didn't do very well on the color bordered years.
If that Billy Williams is a 9 then that Oliva should be too!
Those are some nice grades. LOVE that Stargell.
I agree on the bordered ones and that the vintage grading can still be very inconsistent. I've gotten into the habit of sending more orders with fewer cards to try to better my odds. I won't send anymore to PSA until the vintage grading is more accurate.
I have had decent success on reviews over the years…but don’t submit for review in another TPGs holder. I had a 1963 Maris in a BVG-9 with sub grades 9s …that came back an 8.5. I waited a few years…and submitted in a PSA-8.5 in September 2023…and rightfully now the ‘63 Maris is in a PSA-9 holder. Other review successes:
1986 Fleer Jordan #57 PSA-9>>>PSA-10
1955 Topps Berra PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
1959 Maris PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
I like the next one because it came from 4SC
1965 Joe Morgan RC PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
1968 Ryan RC PSA-8>>>PSA-8.5
1969 Reggie RC PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
@gemint said:
I'll add my 2 cents. I've been submitting (mostly vintage) since 1999. I used to be in the dealer program and would submit thousands of cards per year. We did have issues with consistency and "the Grader of Death" throughout the years but I do feel PSA has generally gotten more strict since the pandemic. This is based on my own submissions and feedback from other long time submitters and even feedback from PSA insiders. I also think the consistency has gotten worse. I chalk it up to the hiring of so many new graders as they expanded.
In the past when I was regularly submitting bulk orders, I was pretty consistently getting 15% +/-3% PSA 9's. I had a few orders that dropped to 5% and a few that exceeded 20%. Since the prices skyrocketed and the dealer program threshold far exceeded what I was willing to spend, I've dropped down my submission activity substantially. From my perspective, crossovers and reviews are a complete waste of money. I used to get 50% to cross and 20-25% to bump. The orders since the pandemic would only get 1-2 cards to convert per order. I don't see myself submitting another crossover or review order until/unless I start seeing positive examples from other submitters confirming the process has improved. I also have poor experience with colored border cards like '62T baseball and football and 1971T baseball. So I'm being very picky on what I send in for those years with zero hope of getting 9s on any of them. They really have to appear like a mint card to have a decent shot at an 8 these days. I submitted a dozen or so 1962 Topps football that all had been cracked out of PSA 8 holders by the previous owner. None regraded 8. Below are a few recent examples of what PSA thinks is a PSA 7 on those cards.
Regarding worse consistency from order-to-order, I recently had one of my best submissions ever. I think if you get an experienced vintage grader, you'll get grades more in-line with expectation. I think it was one of my best results ever because I've gotten much more strict in what I submit for grading due to the generally harsher grading. Here are some results from that great recent submission that shows you can still get good grades depending on the grader you get.
I also got some tough commons
Even on this great submission, I didn't do very well on the color bordered years.
Maybe it is just me, but I think the 6s and 7s you got are fairly accurate...almost all of them have 3 corner touches on the front (sans 1971 #195)...add in any other issue and to me 7s are accurate...SGC tends to overlook corner touches, which I don't agree with...multiple corner touches to me means an 8 at best...
@detroitfan2 said:
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.
Just because we may not be aware the the exact endgame does not mean their actions lack logic.
but yeah I dont get it either.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972) Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
I have had decent success on reviews over the years…but don’t submit for review in another TPGs holder. I had a 1963 Maris in a BVG-9 with sub grades 9s …that came back an 8.5. I waited a few years…and submitted in a PSA-8.5 in September 2023…and rightfully now the ‘63 Maris is in a PSA-9 holder. Other review successes:
1986 Fleer Jordan #57 PSA-9>>>PSA-10
1955 Topps Berra PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
1959 Maris PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
I like the next one because it came from 4SC
1965 Joe Morgan RC PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
1968 Ryan RC PSA-8>>>PSA-8.5
1969 Reggie RC PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
I think you look at the first batch of 7s and yeah they are very nice and think its fair to say undergraded but even back in the day the black border grading was extremely harsh on 71 Topps baseball and 1962 Topps football. 15 years ago it felt like on 62 Topps FB if it was not bold black throughout it was not an 8. Any speck or sliver of white showing meant 7 or worse. The playoff 71 looks fantastic in that sense of missing the wear but maybe they are just harsh on the set in general and look at the print bubble fish eye and dock it two grades. The Oliva is great but may same logic. Its just a little faded so bring out the hammer because its 71 Topps baseball.
You look at your 9s and they do look over the top phenomenal. White borders which makes it easier to win and they have brilliant color. Probably also some sets where the card stock is stronger and wears less. The 68 Topps wicker chair design is not white border but they just have not seemed to be too tough on those. Think they dont wear down as bad as some sets.
Maybe the wood paneling on the 62 Topps gets lumped in with those non-white border strictly graded sets.
The good news is you have some fantastic cards. The 7s are still very nice 7s and great cards. Then the 9s are just incredible.
“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?”
Yes that was me! I literally went to the auction house to look at the 1969 topps football cards, they were seemingly opened and put right back into the box they came in, crisp clean with that original smell “almost” the whole set. Topps did not make vending for football in ‘69. I received 4 Joe Namath cards .. absolutely beautiful.. came back 6/7! I compared them with an 8 I had…. My 8 wasn’t even close to 3 of them. Two 7’s and a 6 .. the other 6 I received was closest to the already graded 8. It’s disgusting what has happened to this place. Actually pathetic.. I’m 67.. going to be 68 in a couple of months. I basically have been grading with PSA from the start! In a time were you could talk to Joe about submitting sets and getting a break cost per card.. those days are over now.. I get that! But that doesn’t mean the service is better it’s way worse!
“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?”
Yes that was me! I literally went to the auction house to look at the 1969 topps football cards, they were seemingly opened and put right back into the box they came in, crisp clean with that original smell “almost” the whole set. Topps did not make vending for football in ‘69. I received 4 Joe Namath cards .. absolutely beautiful.. came back 6/7! I compared them with an 8 I had…. My 8 wasn’t even close to 3 of them. Two 7’s and a 6 .. the other 6 I received was closest to the already graded 8. It’s disgusting what has happened to this place. Actually pathetic.. I’m 67.. going to be 68 in a couple of months. I basically have been grading with PSA from the start! In a time were you could talk to Joe about submitting sets and getting a break cost per card.. those days are over now.. I get that! But that doesn’t mean the service is better it’s way worse!
Yowza...That first thought process paragraph was written be yours truely maybe 1-2 years ago...It is a VERY telling indication of vintage grading...for the non-believers just look back at the discussions and then just believe ,,as always ROCK ON!
Some of the 1969 Topps Football cards are notorious for being somewhat blurry and out of focus. No matter the origin, even if the cards are crisp, like new out of the box, PSA might be downgrading them for surface issues and/or focus flaws with the image. The centering on 1st Series, colored cards without borders, can also be a pain in the a$$. Some photos of the above described PSA 6s or 7s would at least give us a clue as to why they were graded that way.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
Some of the 1969 Topps Football cards are notorious for being somewhat blurry and out of focus. No matter the origin, even if the cards are crisp, like new out of the box, PSA might be downgrading them for surface issues and/or focus flaws with the image. The centering on 1st Series, colored cards without borders, can also be a pain in the a$$. Some photos of the above described PSA 6s or 7s would at least give us a clue as to why they were graded that way.
OKAAAYYY I told you the WHY this is happening several months ago so shall I give you another minute of my time explaining this???... Lets say we take 10 1970's or 1980's PSA 10 of all the same card or even lets say different cards from those eras as long as they are all PSA 10's. Now crack those 10 PSA 10's out and resend them in all at once to get graded. What do you and anyone else reading this post think will happen? Looking for some thoughtful discussions here...
Comments
i got a 9 on a vince coleman and the mattingly and boggs were just as good. but the coleman 9 is worth $25 and the boggs and mattingly would be $175 ++.
the value matters. when i got 3 1997 atomic ref griffey psa 10's in one order, i had paid $25 total for all 3. so at the time giving me 3 psa 10's wasn't worth much. there is absolutely no chance of anyone but maybe 2 or 3 people who could do that now because the cards sell for $1250 apiece.
now psa gives 7 or 8 on 1997 refractors. sgc was fantastic until psa bought them. now they are very tough. but maybe slightly nicer.
Not surprised. More proof that the margin on returns is slim and if you actually just purchased the cards vs already having them it may even be a bust. Oh, the days of hitting one out of 50 and the order paid for itself++.......gone.
Yikes, I hope not. For what its worth, my recent 8-card SGC order (vintage ranging from 1950-1975), came back with no "head scratchers". 6 were spot on what I thought they would get. 2 were slightly lower because I missed some surface issues and wrinkles. Bottom line, I felt all were accurately graded.
Yeah order 1 out of 3 came back a B+. I guessed at just about all of them. The second was off c-, the third was a B. The Boggs and mattingly should be 9's at least. I looked at ebay for 2 hours and over 500 boggs rookies to find one that centered. The corners were sharp. Should be a 9. I will post all of them next week on EBAY
I'll add my 2 cents. I've been submitting (mostly vintage) since 1999. I used to be in the dealer program and would submit thousands of cards per year. We did have issues with consistency and "the Grader of Death" throughout the years but I do feel PSA has generally gotten more strict since the pandemic. This is based on my own submissions and feedback from other long time submitters and even feedback from PSA insiders. I also think the consistency has gotten worse. I chalk it up to the hiring of so many new graders as they expanded.
In the past when I was regularly submitting bulk orders, I was pretty consistently getting 15% +/-3% PSA 9's. I had a few orders that dropped to 5% and a few that exceeded 20%. Since the prices skyrocketed and the dealer program threshold far exceeded what I was willing to spend, I've dropped down my submission activity substantially. From my perspective, crossovers and reviews are a complete waste of money. I used to get 50% to cross and 20-25% to bump. The orders since the pandemic would only get 1-2 cards to convert per order. I don't see myself submitting another crossover or review order until/unless I start seeing positive examples from other submitters confirming the process has improved. I also have poor experience with colored border cards like '62T baseball and football and 1971T baseball. So I'm being very picky on what I send in for those years with zero hope of getting 9s on any of them. They really have to appear like a mint card to have a decent shot at an 8 these days. I submitted a dozen or so 1962 Topps football that all had been cracked out of PSA 8 holders by the previous owner. None regraded 8. Below are a few recent examples of what PSA thinks is a PSA 7 on those cards.
Regarding worse consistency from order-to-order, I recently had one of my best submissions ever. I think if you get an experienced vintage grader, you'll get grades more in-line with expectation. I think it was one of my best results ever because I've gotten much more strict in what I submit for grading due to the generally harsher grading. Here are some results from that great recent submission that shows you can still get good grades depending on the grader you get.
I also got some tough commons
Even on this great submission, I didn't do very well on the color bordered years.
If that Billy Williams is a 9 then that Oliva should be too!
Those are some nice grades. LOVE that Stargell.
I agree on the bordered ones and that the vintage grading can still be very inconsistent. I've gotten into the habit of sending more orders with fewer cards to try to better my odds. I won't send anymore to PSA until the vintage grading is more accurate.
Gemint…
Were the set of 9s raw or review and bump?
I have had decent success on reviews over the years…but don’t submit for review in another TPGs holder. I had a 1963 Maris in a BVG-9 with sub grades 9s …that came back an 8.5. I waited a few years…and submitted in a PSA-8.5 in September 2023…and rightfully now the ‘63 Maris is in a PSA-9 holder. Other review successes:
1986 Fleer Jordan #57 PSA-9>>>PSA-10
1955 Topps Berra PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
1959 Maris PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
I like the next one because it came from 4SC
1965 Joe Morgan RC PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
1968 Ryan RC PSA-8>>>PSA-8.5
1969 Reggie RC PSA-8.5>>>PSA-9
All were submitted in PSA holders for review…
I will also add if you think you are going to get better than an 8 on your Gizmo sticker forget about it.
What? Noone else has a Gizmo sticker?
Maybe it is just me, but I think the 6s and 7s you got are fairly accurate...almost all of them have 3 corner touches on the front (sans 1971 #195)...add in any other issue and to me 7s are accurate...SGC tends to overlook corner touches, which I don't agree with...multiple corner touches to me means an 8 at best...
Just because we may not be aware the the exact endgame does not mean their actions lack logic.
but yeah I dont get it either.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
The 9s all came from raw submissions.
I think you look at the first batch of 7s and yeah they are very nice and think its fair to say undergraded but even back in the day the black border grading was extremely harsh on 71 Topps baseball and 1962 Topps football. 15 years ago it felt like on 62 Topps FB if it was not bold black throughout it was not an 8. Any speck or sliver of white showing meant 7 or worse. The playoff 71 looks fantastic in that sense of missing the wear but maybe they are just harsh on the set in general and look at the print bubble fish eye and dock it two grades. The Oliva is great but may same logic. Its just a little faded so bring out the hammer because its 71 Topps baseball.
You look at your 9s and they do look over the top phenomenal. White borders which makes it easier to win and they have brilliant color. Probably also some sets where the card stock is stronger and wears less. The 68 Topps wicker chair design is not white border but they just have not seemed to be too tough on those. Think they dont wear down as bad as some sets.
Maybe the wood paneling on the 62 Topps gets lumped in with those non-white border strictly graded sets.
The good news is you have some fantastic cards. The 7s are still very nice 7s and great cards. Then the 9s are just incredible.
Yowza...That first thought process paragraph was written be yours truely maybe 1-2 years ago...It is a VERY telling indication of vintage grading...for the non-believers just look back at the discussions and then just believe ,,as always ROCK ON!
Some of the 1969 Topps Football cards are notorious for being somewhat blurry and out of focus. No matter the origin, even if the cards are crisp, like new out of the box, PSA might be downgrading them for surface issues and/or focus flaws with the image. The centering on 1st Series, colored cards without borders, can also be a pain in the a$$. Some photos of the above described PSA 6s or 7s would at least give us a clue as to why they were graded that way.
OKAAAYYY I told you the WHY this is happening several months ago so shall I give you another minute of my time explaining this???... Lets say we take 10 1970's or 1980's PSA 10 of all the same card or even lets say different cards from those eras as long as they are all PSA 10's. Now crack those 10 PSA 10's out and resend them in all at once to get graded. What do you and anyone else reading this post think will happen? Looking for some thoughtful discussions here...