I just did the math (yes, another half grade rant)

70sToppsGuy · January 17, 2008 3:21PM

Let's say that I have a complete 1975 Topps set in all PSA 8. In order to have every one of them re-submitted to check on a .5 grade addition it would cost...you ready...

$4,088.65 !!! This includes grading and shipping. Now, we are told that the increased value of the cards will off-set the cost to us, the customer. Let's say that only 50 of the 660-card set get the 0.50 bump. Who really thinks that will increase my set value by over $4000 ??

This is a bad, bad move.

CDsNuts · January 17, 2008 3:23PM

Why would you do it then? Just don't resub. It's really that easy.

But now when you go to buy more 75s on ebay you'll have a better idea of what they'll look like.

rube26105 · January 17, 2008 3:25PM

that does suck for the big sets,glad mine only has 144cards in it and i ony have one set on the registry now

noanswersonlyquestions · January 17, 2008 3:25PM

My point exactly. Why crack? Really hope these aren't investment options.

storm888 · January 17, 2008 3:26PM

Hopefully, there would be ALOT more bumps than your example anticipates.
If you have been buying pretty cards, there will be.

Also, there WILL be specials that reduce the resub costs.

70sToppsGuy · January 17, 2008 3:26PM

I think the bigger question, Larry Dallas, is why would PSA do this to us ?

RipublicaninMass · January 17, 2008 3:28PM

Think it will address the "automatic" Psa 1 paper loss grade? Is there a .5 lol

CDsNuts · January 17, 2008 3:30PM

Why would they do what? Make their grading scale more precise or charge us to resub cards? The answer to the former is because it only makes sense. The answer to the latter is because they think people will pay for it. I don't think and can't imagine why they would, but that's just me. The registry makes people do stupid things all the time.

julen23 · January 17, 2008 3:44PM

RIP warron zevon

j

bigredone · January 17, 2008 3:51PM

A PSA 8 1975 set is a very nice high end achivment. The perception that it will somehow not be as nice the "Day after" is crazy.
As well a person would not blindly send every card in the set to be review for a silly .5 bump chance.

I would wait to see how the 8.5 effects the existing 9's and maybe just upgrade to 9's on many cards in the prices drop on them and tell PSA to suck on it! Im not sending ANY to you parasites for review. If they did their job right the first time a review would not be necessary.

hofautos · January 17, 2008 5:02PM

<< <i>Let's say that I have a complete 1975 Topps set in all PSA 8. In order to have every one of them re-submitted to check on a .5 grade addition it would cost...you ready...

$4,088.65 !!! This includes grading and shipping. Now, we are told that the increased value of the cards will off-set the cost to us, the customer. Let's say that only 50 of the 660-card set get the 0.50 bump. Who really thinks that will increase my set value by over $4000 ??

This is a bad, bad move. >>

NO DUH! That would be STUPID...why would you even consider that...

If it was my set, I would take a close look at only the 8's that have a CASH VALUE of say $100+. Then out of those, look and see if you believe any are SUPER NICE 8's what you consider borderline 9s. Submit those in their case, and for about $20 each, you can have a few highend 8.5s that would easily pay the difference of the reslabs....who knows you may even get a 9.

How do you like that math....

You are absolutely right, your $4088 idea was totally ludicrous, how could you even consider.

gameusedhoop · January 17, 2008 9:39PM

What if you were to crack out all the 8s and send in all 660 cards raw? You would probably get 50 7s, 100 7.5s, 360 8s, 100 8.5s, and 50 9s. I am sure the value added by the 9s and 8.5s would be above and beyond what it would cost to replace the 7s and 7.5s. It would also show how poorly graded the cards were the 1st time. Today's 7 is tomorows nine when cracked out.

53BKid · January 18, 2008 1:07AM

'Greed is good!'

clydecoolidge · January 18, 2008 1:56AM

<< <i>Let's say that I have a complete 1975 Topps set in all PSA 8. In order to have every one of them re-submitted to check on a .5 grade addition it would cost...you ready...

$4,088.65 !!! This includes grading and shipping. Now, we are told that the increased value of the cards will off-set the cost to us, the customer. Let's say that only 50 of the 660-card set get the 0.50 bump. Who really thinks that will increase my set value by over $4000 ??

This is a bad, bad move. >>

Yeah, except PSA assumes that we're not a bunch of morons and that we know the difference between a card that has a possibility of a 1/2 grade bump, and one that does not. Unless you're gonna tell me that every one of the 660 cards in your hypothetical 1975 Topps set has the chance of bumping up. I own that whole set, plauged with centering issues, I probably wouldn't submit them all.

fandango · January 18, 2008 2:05AM

<< <i>What if you were to crack out all the 8s and send in all 660 cards raw? You would probably get 50 7s, 100 7.5s, 360 8s, 100 8.5s, and 50 9s. I am sure the value added by the 9s and 8.5s would be above and beyond what it would cost to replace the 7s and 7.5s. It would also show how poorly graded the cards were the 1st time. Today's 7 is tomorows nine when cracked out. >>

i challenge you to show me scans of a PSA7 turning into a PSA 9...donth think it happens...a 7 to 8 maybe,

lets see some proof...

people LOVE making ASSUMPTIONS here, i for 1 think that PSA does a good job on grading, especially on high end....

jmbkb4 · January 18, 2008 2:06AM

Lee,

how much are they paying you? Why wouldn't you at least attempt to address the poster's point?

diamondman · January 18, 2008 2:13AM

if I resub any cards they will be 7's that I think have a shot at an 8 or 8's that have a shot of being a 9, of course I am sure that most will only get the .5 bump to put more .5 cards into the POP report. On my 72 BB set I will only look at the stars and some of the real tough low POP commons. out of the 1300 to 1500 cards that I have I doubt that I will submit more than 20 to 40 cards. some of the 6 and 7's that I have already set aside for crack and resub (roughly about 20 to 30 cards)will still be cracked and resubmitted. Have a beautiful PSA 3 that I thought was a 7 or 8 still haven't figured out what was wrong with this card. Just rambling here !!

clydecoolidge · January 18, 2008 2:26AM

Not to mention, why would you submit any card for a .5 bump unless #1. It will raise in value. Even most pre-70's commons wouldn't be worth it. And #2, if you had a set on the registry, the commons aren't gonna add much weight to the overall grade average anyway (some exceptions here for vintage). So for someone to hypothetically say that you'd submit 660 cards for re-grade is rediculous, especially for a post-70's set.

gameusedhoop · January 18, 2008 2:27AM

I haven't had them for over a year, but I had several, 10-15 1981 O-Pee-Chee hockey cards go from PSA 7 to PSA 9. Some of the graders deduct for rough cuts on OPC cards, others do not. If you know what you are looking at, it makes the resubmission easy. My last sub. had 17 71 Topps hockey cards in it that came back PSA 7, upon resubmission, 10 of the 17 went from 7 to 8. They were wrong on 60% of the first submission? I am not comfortable paying for a service like that. Of course when I tried to contact Joe O. He did not respond to my email, or phone request. What a surprise, he already had the $$, just like they are doing now. A nice big cash grab.

jmbkb4 · January 18, 2008 3:01AM

<< <i>Let's say that I have a complete 1975 Topps set in all PSA 8. In order to have every one of them re-submitted to check on a .5 grade addition it would cost...you ready...

$4,088.65 !!! This includes grading and shipping. Now, we are told that the increased value of the cards will off-set the cost to us, the customer. Let's say that only 50 of the 660-card set get the 0.50 bump. Who really thinks that will increase my set value by over $4000 ??

This is a bad, bad move. >>

Could Mr. Mint have been correct about the grading fallacy?

I'm beginning to believe so.

I just did the math (yes, another half grade rant)

Comments