What is worse? Bad grades, longer wait or make an offer?
1954
Posts: 2,944 ✭✭✭
I normally feel like all I do is complain about PSA and, yes, I am still an idiot to face more torture. What is bothering you the most with PSA right now? Here is what is bothering me.
I send in roughly 2000 cards per year. My goal was to always spread the cards out from different years so that I would not be killed by the grader of death for one certain year. I used to send in 100-130 cards per invoice with 1960-1961-1962-1963-1964-1966-1971 cards with roughly 15 cards per year. Please let me know your strategy to avoid just getting killed. Most of the invoices take four to five months. Now I send in 40-50 cards per invoice and give them double the invoices. I really think the grading standards are way too hard over the past two years. I know what PSA is looking for and what qualifies as an 8 vs. a 9. Does PSA even give out a PSA 10 when it deserves it? Have not had one of those in a long time. Most of my PSA 7's and 8's look like 9's. I can't tell why some of these aren't PSA 9s. But why am I not getting the occasional PSA 10 on some of these?
The Research and ID department is a joke to me. Vintage cards are so easy to pass through this section and yet it sits there for the longest time frame. Am I wrong in thinking what is the point for this stage?
Lastly, is there anything worse than your grades are available email followed up with the email you have offers? PSA, please do your customer a big favor. Ask your customer if you would like offers and not assume that they want offers. I don't want to see you have $255 in offers after you have kicked my balls in on the grades. Last invoice I had seven offers of $2.55-$10,50 on cards that were PSA 7's and 8's. At least make an offer close to my grading costs.
I am done but would love to hear other thoughts on your strategy/pet peeves with PSA.
Comments
Seems to me it's no longer a Collector's Universe. It's theirs.
Hell hath no fury like a Northside slump.
Easily the worst is not getting the grade it deserves.
I'm not sending in cards "hoping" for a grade. I know what the grade is.
When a whole sub is 3-5 grades below what they should be, it's not just me missing a flaw.
I didn't have grade issues as far back as 2 years as you suggest, but my last 2 subs were a disaster.
They were both oddball cards. Some that have never been graded.
It's like PSA was mad for having to do extra work and lookup the card series and add it to the database.
The only reason for me send cards to PSA now would be to complete my bucket list Ron Cey Master Set Registry.
But even the Registry Dept has changed their standards.
5 cards I tried to add to the Master Set were rejected claiming they don't meet the criteria, where other similar cards that I submitted were added just a year prior. (Topps version was accepted to the Set Registry, and the same OPC card was not, for example).
Then when I make my detailed case to the Registry Dept explaining this and why it should be added based on their own criteria, I just get ghosted (it's been 5 months). So unprofessional.
Funny how the 2 disaster subs and Registry rejections all happened right after the whole Hostess panel grading debacle I had with them. They apparently takes things very personally over there.
Offers don't bother me, although the lowball offers can be insulting.
It's like they have a pawn shop mentality.
Hoping to take advantage if you're desperate enough or just unknowing.
So my strategy is to not send to PSA anymore, and it looks like I won't be completing the Registry Set that I've been dreaming about for decades.
PSA has sucked all the fun out of collecting.
Yes, you are very wrong.... Research and ID is the next step AFTER the box is opened and everything is counted to make sure it matches the submission (though not that the items themselves match). The majority of time in R&ID is just everything sitting in line waiting for a turn with an actual person who then looks at each card and matches it to the item listed on the submission and that it was entered on the submission correct (variation check, more of a TCG thing and modern sports for parallels). It's not like a human is taking weeks to R&ID your cards, that part goes quick. Same thing with grading, not like a human is spending weeks grading your cards, your cards are just sitting in line with thousands of other peeps. So in summary, the stage has an absolute point, as the grader doesn't ID cards, he just grades and makes sure it is real.
When things started going south on the entire grading process a few years ago I started having the same thoughts. Since I only really enjoy the vintage side of collecting it just kept getting worse and worse and I lost all enjoyment. That's why I cashed (mostly) out last year. Just couldn't stand how they inconsistently changed the rules almost overnight. Not something I had any interest in participating in anymore.
Not quite. They killed the part where we get to send in hoards of cards with the expectation of overnight processing and bombshell results. What they didn't kill is the joy of discovery during the daily ambitious need to earn a coveted reward. If I find a vintage beauty, I don't need them to tell me how nice it looks. I already know. The less I view cards as dollar bills and more like interesting pieces of sports history, the better I'll be. Of course, they're worth something in the eyes of myself or another collector. Those eyes don't work for grading companies. Their eyes see pie and how to get the juiciest slice.
That sucking sound is coming from the bank accounts of people who don't know why they're being so generous.
Hell hath no fury like a Northside slump.
I think some of the frustration comes from the fact that many of us have been around long enough to remember periods where grading felt a bit more accepting and, perhaps more importantly, more predictable.
Today, the standards may or may not actually be dramatically tougher across the board, but consistency from invoice to invoice can feel harder to gauge — especially with vintage where eye appeal sometimes seems to outweigh technical flaws on one card, then not on another.
As for strategy, I’ve always thought spreading out years/issues within an order made sense psychologically if nothing else, though whether it truly changes outcomes is probably debatable.
At the end of the day, graders are still human and there’s always going to be some subjectivity at the edges between 7/8/9.
On the PSA 10 point, I do think vintage collectors may sometimes underestimate just how high that bar really is today. A card can look fantastic and still have something small enough to keep it at a 9. That said, I understand the frustration when a card appears indistinguishable from examples already in 10 holders.
Research & ID is probably the biggest mystery to many submitters. Some cards fly through while others seem parked there indefinitely with no obvious explanation from the outside looking in. It may be one of the key steps in insuring your order was properly done and insuring what one submits is what they say it is?
And yes — getting lowball offers immediately after disappointing grades can feel a bit like getting tackled after the whistle.
Last, while card grading for me may be frustrating and annoying at times, what makes it all worthwhile is getting lost in the weeds on a collectible and learning something new every day.
Turnaround times can be crazy these days...I think the backlog is a lot bigger than people realize...I called in a couple weeks ago to see why my orders they rcv'd on April 15 weren't showing up on my Orders page. I was told they were still checking in packages from mid-March (and this call was in late April) -- if they are that far behind on just scanning packages in, you know orders are not coming back anytime soon
Problem is, PSA changes the card that you listed correctly in the sub into a card that it isn't.
Clearly they're using Ai tools to identify what the card is, completely disregarding what the submitter listed it as.
Why make the submitter bother to list the card only to incorrectly change it to something else?
I then have to 'Report an error' for them to correct to what I originally listed.
Even then, there have been too many times where the Research Dept resolved the reported error by NOT changing it, again making no attempt to cross match to what I have it lasted as on the submission form.
Now to get it fixed, it's going to take emails and it's going to be a battle.
Maybe just maybe, us lowly submitters might actually have it right, and the almighty PSA just might be wrong.
Come on now let’s list the positives now.
I’ll start..
They have a message board
Oh man I hope I didn’t do what I think I might have. We got 24 hrs now guys it’s been great.
My bad
This place is amazing I love it here.
Wow only 25.9999 to grade any card even if it’s a 1988 donruss card after I pay to join a club to get my psa 7.Sweetness !!
That should confuse them for a few weeks.
I think we are good.
Warning PSA does not understand sarcasm thus they will take the above posting as 100% positive. Then since they figure you are happy with 25.99 for a 7 on Junk Wax, the price will be bumped to 29.99. Expect that before year end
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)
Long wait.
Consistency.
Customer Service and Messaging.
Offers.
Price.
I can deal with bad grades and inconsistency, but my last order was a joke. Modern cards that mostly received 7s. Any small flaw, slight corner touch, print line = 7. Just lazy grading.
And the card that were perfect, 9s. Not one ten.
I’d love to submit but it just seems like a ridiculous process.
I have to think that we're at the point where Nat and his partners have to be seriously considering flipping their $850M investment to another private equity group. Since February 2021, they have increased prices and demand far exceeds capacity. The valuation of the company has to be several multiples of what they bought it for and, afterall, they are in the business of maximizing their return on investment.
Probably the only thing holding that up at the moment is the prospect of Gamestop acquiring ebay. A strategic partnership with GameStop that owns ebay would add another huge layer.
All that to say, they don't care about frustrated customers when they are succeeding in boosting valuation for a potential payday.
Boosting valuations of submittals to increase the grading fee should only be done with a corresponding offer at or above that new value point. That would be a way they could potentially protect against lawsuits. I'm thinking that offer can either come from the public or from PSA themselves.
Zero chance Cohen’s ridiculous eBay offer is holding anything up. That is Cohen trying to breathe some life into his meme company.
When you factor in how much of the grading business they now control they really DON'T care about frustrated customers. And there's not another company out there even close to being a serious threat to their golden rocket.
What happens if Pokémon isn’t popular anymore
Then the thieves can graciously return all of the cool stuff they stole when they broke into the card stores.
Hell hath no fury like a Northside slump.
Hence why I think the time is now for them to hit while the iron is hot.
Edit to add: If this were to happen and the business is offloaded, I'm not sure things would improve much for submitters.
It hasn't been the most blessed ride as a collector, but I can really appreciate what they have done from a business sense.
$850M acquisition which is likely worth $8B today. The biggest risk is the market share they have, but that's not super obvious to most as they're distributed among many brands. It's obvious to everyone here, but most people don't know Goldin, PSA, PSA/DNA, PCGS, WATA, SGC, Beckett, CCE, PSA Vault, Card Ladder, Genamint, ... are all the same team... this hot dog is a kielbasa.
but, here's my take on flip vs. IPO. Cohen and Sundheim are active board members, which is telling, and this is Cohen Private Ventures money... the Cohen family fund. So there's zero near-term flip-it pressure like you would normally have after 4 years in a normal PE flip. When they did a second round of funding to establish their valuation in 2022, they basically self-funded - meaning all the existing investors invested more. the speed of the acquisitions... impressive.
the whole gamestop thing with other Cohen (Ryan) is crazy as many have mentioned. but... with Nat on the gamestop board there might be something to it, because what Ryan Cohen needs is about 30B of cash to buy eBay with stock + cash and spin off the everything but collectibles. so there's a great and risky move there because what's that piece worth and then you're in the red on Collectors even with a rich $8B valuation today.
Absolutely. Whoever buys the spinoff will immediately start looking for ways to streamline, etc... That's really going to mess with the timing of everything from beginning to end.
The worst thing would be grading based on who the submitter is. Assuming that's a thing, like many have cited.
Since the very early days
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)
a better question to consider is, what is the outlook when bad grades + longer wait + make an offer = exorbitant demand
if you think the status quo is going to be altered, you're fooling yourself.
The right of the equal sign may be a contributor to the left but certainly not the opposite. IMHO you have the equation reversed
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 don't, and especially not in PSA's case. components of their diametrically opposed business model have done nothing but create value. a wildly inconsistent service that takes forever to satisfy the requirements of, then on top of that they test the conflict of interest waters by trying to wrestle away value that they subjectively generated themselves. yet they are thriving like never before. it's a brilliant quasi-racket, really. in very few walks of life is a company's vitality directly correlated to the number of complaints, but if you've been around long enough and paid attention, PSA pulls it off.
What a cynical comment that nails both the point and finishes with a distracting rhetorical flourish.
The headline should read... "near-monopoly with significant conflicts of interest and no accountability has grabbed collectors by the..."
Yup. If you examine the correlation between adjusted policies and reduced availability, you will know exactly why PSA graded cards are currently soaking up money like the most amazing sponge ever developed.
Hell hath no fury like a Northside slump.
.... as I pack up my next submission... submissions - who am I kidding.
and there you have it
trust me, i was a pawn too
gl with your submarine sandwiches
I don't know a business owner out there that wouldn't love a situation where there doesn't seem to be a limit on how much you can charge and only provide a basic minimum of customer service...
Regardless of their current dominance, they are severely flawed. Considering the money to be made, it seems like it's just a matter of time before a legitimate competitor emerges.
^nothing lasts forever
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)
Bad grades are the worst, long waits are irritating but if the grades are right I will deal with the wait. The waiting a couple of extra months for grades that are real head scratchers is unacceptable. Last submission is only 3 months past the due date. The offers don't bother me because I can just ignore them.
Matt
agreed...I see the email come to my inbox but don't even look at it...I wait for my order to arrive and then look at my grades...
Bad Grades... Afterall it is a grading service business which needs to be consistent and accurate.
I don't worry about this anymore. That's because after 25 years of submitting over 25,000 cards for grading, my November bulk order was my last submission. Until there's a sale or structural change with vintage grading, I'm not wasting any more pristine raw vintage cards with slabbing. I'd rather hold them than pay $25 (or even $10) to receive a grade 1-2 below what it should be. I could play the roulette wheel and hope to get the occassional grader that adheres more closely to the historical standards but I choose not to. PSA won't miss my business.
Hot off the press… The Athletic reports that PSA’s getting $200M to expand operations over the next 18 months to help deal with demand.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7279405/2026/05/14/psa-card-grading-investment/
Found this comment interesting - I don’t remember getting this kind of insight into training of graders…
“A portion of this investment is dedicated to ‘Graders University,’ our industry-leading training program. Every new PSA grader must complete this rigorous curriculum and execute thousands of supervised evaluations before grading independently...”
Jim
COMMENTS
4
M
Mario V.
· 46m ago
75 - 90 day turnaround is still too long.
You guys should look into the whole PSA changing grades from 9's to 10's and re-selling them through their buyback program.
Hell hath no fury like a Northside slump.
Just got their email this morning...
https://www.psacard.com/articles/articleview/15715/200-million-investment-grading-experience?j=769028&sfmc_sub=6036669&l=347_HTML&u=13243764&mid=534005128&jb=2177&utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PSA_20260514_PSA-M_PSATATUpdate&utm_term=Learn More&utm_id=769028&sfmc_id=6036669&$web_only=true&_branch_match_id=1583519910598894686&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAAz2OwU7EIBCGn0ZubimwYE2I2YvZw3ajscYjoZRd2ZaWDBA9+ezS3ehlkv/7M9/MZ0ohPlZViNpoGDY6hM3k5rEyzXF5HT9GQfqnnLxKFrw8WA3zHcHtAhat1A1S8AaTB5RlTQmjgrNrYbQP2p1n+fK2UwQTjrc1UyXct+vsdt17GHS6WbwdXPbSeu0mdOklqYVA8eTN6ueYcs6bW465/we+lFvKcDGX+5e/RyZJmVD7rj1c3XHJYKxct9EP2JMFcPNZ9bB8RQvy2RW2fP8CFqEK4wcBAAA=
Bad grades as it is not too much to ask for just reasonable grades
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Bad grades combined with a damaged left corner is bad
This is an interesting sentence on the thread. They are still human for now, but for how much longer? When will it be changed to a process of a human unpacking the items and setting them on a scanner at PSA, but leaving the grading to AI? I would personally much prefer an actual human trained to be a grader were the one looking at my cards to assign grades as opposed to relying on an electronic judgement of a scannner bed image. It would be nice to see some progress made on all of the Mech Errors though. There are so many mistakes still getting through that should be caught and revised during the QA/QC stage, but it remains a problem that I'd have otherwise expected to be waning in recent years.
Keeping as many pesky humans out of the loop as possible will make maintaining census medians significantly more easier and programmatic than ever. AI does not need a NDA
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 would enjoy designing and building the system to evaluate sports cards qualitatively using machine learning.
corners, surface, centering, edges are considered limiting by PSA as I understand it. ie. a card with PSA 6 corners and 10 edges and 10 surface and 10 centering shouldn't be more than a 6... or whatever all those actual labeling rules are... that's perhaps the most difficult part to reason - and get correct. the rest is just a mechanical nightmare. I'm curious how accurate you would get with a multi-class with some ordinal regression... the how it looks approach rather than the sum of it's parts.... that might be more accurate to what people expect.
I'll be shocked if PSA figures ML out in a meaningful way for grading. I expect disaster. But. What if it works and what would that mean for every card already in a slab that is.... scoff... human reviewed?! That would be fun.
hmmm... machines handling delicate mint cards ... seems like this would be rather difficult without damaging the cards... maybe a combination of machines and humans would work best...
It takes more than a high quality scan of front and back to judge a card, and I'm not sure how you can design a system of holding the raw card to get a lot of different tilt angles and views along the thin edges, mechanically, so as to use it in AI grading assessment, providing good views and without also damaging the card. We've all seen examples of cards in our own hands where you have to tilt it a very certain way in order for a hidden flaw to show up, that isn't otherwise possible to see under the other angles. Additionally, I've found evidence of card border recoloring that only shows up in a tiny way as a speck on the thin edge due to ink bleeding, but otherwise invisible if just looking at scans. AI seems like a tool that can be used in grading, but I doubt it is sufficient on its own without subsequent human auditing. Yet, anyway.
Regardless of whether AI is used to assess a card’s attributes and determine its flaws, it’ll still be up to humans to determine how to weigh each flaw in calculating/assigning a grade. And whether those weights are programmed into a computer or not, there will still be differences in opinion within the collecting community as to whether a card is graded accurately.
So you're saying it must be four sharp corners to grade a 10
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 cross-polarization rig would take some work.> @miwlvrn said:
My only point is that I think it could be done and what I think the challenges are. Humans are notoriously bad at this stuff.