I think most of us feel your pain, as we have had similar experiences with subs... as for what % is acceptable on "misgrades" or "re-submits" is anyone's guess and I don't think there is a published PSA guideline on this topic (or %).
Here's an idea which you may (or someone else no doubt will) think is ridiculous... if you decide to crack & re-submit, first:
1) fill out your sub and prepare the package.
2) scan sub & all cards before cracking.
3) have a friend video tape you clearly showing each card prior to cracking, then crack one at a time & place card in CSI, continue until complete.
4) continue video taping without stopping or pausing, seal package and clearly show ship to label.
5) this may be difficult... continue video taping as you take the package and drive to the Post Office (never let the package leave the camera view).
6) this too may be difficult... continue video taping (your friend may need to hide the camera) as you take the package into the Post Office and hand it over to the clerk, ect...
Once your sub is complete, you will have fairly convincing proof on the failure of accurate grading of the original sub (as well as a exact %)... just a thought, good luck on whichever road you travel.
<< <i>And Stown....instead of calling me and everyone else who is critical of PSA a troll, why don't you actually engage in discussion and provide some counter-arguments. You childlishly criticize just about every comment I make, but I've yet to see you actually try to refute any of the points I make. >>
I have successfully refuted them, many times over. It's just that, as Lee said, you're schtick has grown old.
And don't forget to look in the mirror, boy. You were one of the loudest complainers when PSA went to the .5 system. When Joe called your bluff, you ran with your tail inbetween your legs.
Not worth your time, eh?
But we should take the time to prove you wrong over and over again?
Hypocrite.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>I have successfully refuted them, many times over >>
When and where? Every argument I make you respond to with nothing more than sarcastic derision.
<< <i>You were one of the loudest complainers when PSA went to the .5 system. When Joe called your bluff, you ran with your tail inbetween your legs. >>
Not exactly. I just said that I couldn't be bothered to play telephone tag with him and/or have to transcribe his responses if he didn't want to respond via email. Big difference. He's the one who can't be bothered to answer my questions. I posted them on this board twice and emailed them to him as well. You can't accuse me of running away just because I couldn't also be bothered to call him.
<< <i>But we should take the time to prove you wrong over and over again? >>
You haven't even proved me wrong once yet...
CDNuts just postulated on this thread that PSA only gets it right the first time about 80-85 percent of the time, and that's with full point grading. How low do you think their accuracy going to be at the half point level?
And do you think that customers are getting good value for their money if their cards are only being graded accurately 80% of the time?
Why don't you answer those two questions instead of calling me a troll for daring to have the temerity to ask the questions! You're nothing but an intolerant bully...
<< <i>How low do you think their accuracy going to be at the half point level? >>
Uh, you need a sample size first to make an educated guess. Untill then, it's only speculation. However, since you are anti-PSA, you are going to demand answers now. How many times are you going to claim the sky is falling without any proof. The burden should be on you, not us, since you're the one making the claims.
<< <i>And do you think that customers are getting good value for their money if their cards are only being graded accurately 80% of the time? >>
Maybe in your little world, things are perfect. In reality, people know mistakes are made, especially in TPG. SGC, BVG, and PSA all make mistakes; hence the reason we preach "BUY THE HOLDER, NOT THE CARD."
Now, since you are soooooo concerned about PSA customers, you should give Joe a call and voice your complaints.
Oh, but you won't since you will be unable to transcribe that conversation and relay it to the board members..
HA!
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Numberdude- Your logic is flawed, and here's why: You contend that grades will be less accurate with the half point system. You may be right in terms of percentage that they get the exact grade correct, but the overall average accuracy will improve because now when they get it wrong, it will only be a half point off which will change the slabbed card's value more incrementally. Before the switch, when PSA would miss by a full grade, the card's value could increase or decrease by a much greater degree because they would be a full point off. That's not to say that PSA will never be a full grade off, because they will. But with more options with regard to how a card could grade, they will generally be off only by a half grade overall.
Your perspective doesn't make sense because you are looking at the number PSA assigns to a card. While this might be intuitively correct because, afterall, PSA assigns numbers to cards, it doesn't really have any function in the real world. In reality, the more correct perspective is to view how the assigned grade valuates a card. While PSA might now only give an accurate grade 70-75% of the time, the overall card values of those that they grade incorrectly will have greatly diminished from when they were grading incorrectly with the 10 pt scale. By your logic, PSA should use a 5 point scale because they would get the grade correct an even larger percent of the time. Why not a 3 point scale? They'd almost never get grades wrong then!
Here's an example to illustrate what I'm saying:
Say you have 100 1994 SP Arod RCs that you want to get graded. They are all in NM-MT condition. Let's say real market value has these cards at:
If they were all truly NM-MT, then they should be graded as an 8 and the lot would be worth $10,000.
- With the 10 point scale at 80% accuracy, the 100 cards would grade out to something like (remember, they are all NM-MT and should be 8s): (10) PSA 9 (80) PSA 8 (10) PSA 7
This is with PSA overgrading as often as they're undergrading. The total value of this lot would be $13,100.
- With the half grade scale at 70% accuracy, the 100 cards would grade out to something like: (2) PSA 9 (13) PSA 8.5 (70) PSA 8 (13) PSA 8.5 (2) PSA 7
The total value of this lot would be $11,265.
So, while they were more inaccurate in terms of assigning the cards the correct grade, they were more accurate in terms of assigning a real market value to the cards (and let's not kid ourselves, this is what PSA does). Place this theory over a large scale (all of the cards PSA grades), and you have a system that works better in the current marketplace because cards are selling for closer to what they should over a grand scale.
unny how everyone is now starting to agree with my comments from last month (which I got blasted for) noting that it is impossible to consitently and accurately discern such minute differences in card condition and that PSA's graders are no more accurate than the collectors on this board!
Thank you for providing a cogent counterargument!!
You probably are right in that the overall average grade of large sample sizes will be more accurate under the half point system.
The problem I have with this line of thinking, though, is that people do not buy 100 copies of the same card. They buy one. And when they do, they want to get exactly the grade they are paying for. People do not want to pay a PSA 9 price for an inaccurately graded card that really should be a PSA 8 or 8.5 (especially given the price differential between grades). They want to get an accurately graded card, 100% of the time.
Now yes, people are supposed to buy the card, not the grade. But truth be told, most collectors out there can't reliably tell the difference between grades (look at the range of opinions when people post raw cards on this board asking for grades). That's why they want to buy a graded card; because someone else (i.e. an expert grader from a grading company) has definitively determined an accurate grade for that card.
The whole third party grading system is based on the premise that the "expert" opinion rendered by the grading company is more accurate than the opinion of the average collector/dealer who grades their own cards. However, given that none of the grading companies tell you who is actually grading your card (nor the qualifications that make said person(s) an "expert"), I actually have more confidence that I can get an accurate grade by submitting a card to the board and averaging everyone's opinion (which costs me nothing), than by sending my hard-earned cash to a grading company where it will be graded by some anonymous "expert".
I just don't see how people can think that grading companies are providing good value for money with an 80% accuracy rate, especially when you may have to send a card in two or three times (paying every single time) to get an accurate grade.
<< <i>People do not want to pay a PSA 9 price for an inaccurately graded card that really should be a PSA 8 or 8.5 (especially given the price differential between grades). They want to get an accurately graded card, 100% of the time. >>
Numbers
People pay for a service - the grade is irrelevant - and they have a reasonable expectation of accuracy - but again - you're throwing out unrealistic numbers - 100% of the time? Come on.
Order of events:
1. Someone has a card. 2. They submit it to PSA 3. It comes back graded - either they're satisfied or not. 4. Their satisfied 9 goes up for sale - but as you have so eloquently alluded to - what if it's really an 8 or an 8.5?
Well - this has little to do with PSA at this point - it begs the whole issue of buy the card not the holder.
We're right back where we started - you're looking for perfection in an imperfect world.
I can't think of much stuff that I've purchased over the years where I haven't had to make the long trek back to the store because the item was defective or flat didn't work.
Last - again - your point has been made - but these are very informed people here...
<< <i>Now yes, people are supposed to buy the card, not the grade. But truth be told, most collectors out there can't reliably tell the difference between grades >>
If you truly believe this? Then the whole discussion is moot. If they can't tell - then just get excited by the pretty number 9 in the holder.
<< <i>I just don't see how people can think that grading companies are providing good value for money with an 80% accuracy rate, especially when you may have to send a card in two or three times (paying every single time) to get an accurate grade. >>
As a submitter - the "value" comes from knowing the card - when holdered is authentic - peace of mind. And - secondarily - that they were reasonably satisfied in the grade. If not - gonna have to resubmit. Again - no one is gonna get it right 100% at these grading fees.
Then there's "value" - after the fact for the submitter - if they choose to sell - since the buyer now sees value in the peace of mind that the item is 1. authentic and 2. reasonably graded. And yes - ya gonna need a good scan.
But - PSA offers a guarantee - so if ya think an 8 is a 6? Send it back for review - no?
Ron/Tom, maybe NOW you can take your own advice and go raw? Remember this epiphany you had????
<< <i>Steve - That was me! Congrats on your new found freedom! It's great, isn't it? FWIW we must be in some parallel collecting universe because this epiphany came to me after putting together a fully graded '57 set.
Stay classy,
Ron >>
It was YOUR post that got me to switch building raw sets (and having a great deal of fun doing so). Sad to see that you still played the submission game on some of your cards.
<< <i>I really hate to add my voice to those who complain about grades. Most of the time I shrug my shoulders and move on, but not this time. This is an absolute joke, in particular the back half of the order. Who looked at these, a 5th grader? Many of you know I have a decent eye for vintage cards, and if I'm off by a grade I can live with it. This is another story and was pretty much a waste of my money. I also realize that without scans it is hard for you to respond so I will post them once received. But in the meantime know that I will not be submitting anything to PSA for a long, long time (minimum 6 months). Comments follow.
1 03193337 1958 TOPPS 403 STEVE KORCHECK N/A 8 - accurate though the card is 9 worthy. 2 03193338 1958 TOPPS 399 MARV GRISSOM N/A 9 - this card was, at minimum, a 9. 3 03193339 1959 TOPPS 45 ANDY CAREY N/A 7 - accurate 4 03193340 1959 TOPPS 178 RUBEN AMARO N/A 8 - accurate 5 03193341 1959 TOPPS 338 GEORGE ANDERSON N/A 7 - ridiculous. Some dealers in Houston thought this was an 8.5 candidate. 6 03193342 1959 TOPPS 392 WHITEY HERZOG N/A 8 - the lowest possible grade for this card. 7 03193343 1959 TOPPS 230 BILL FISCHER N/A 7 - this card was thought by many of you to be 9 worthy when I scanned it. 8 03193344 1959 TOPPS 231 ELLIS BURTON N/A 8 - accurate. 9 03193345 1959 TOPPS 71 DON BESSENT N/A 8 - accurate. 10 03193346 1959 TOPPS 25 DON HOAK N/A 7 - probably accurate, thought it could slide to 8. 11 03193347 1975 TOPPS 660 HANK AARON N/A 7 - ? Pulled straight out of a pack. Vomit. 12 03193348 1980 TOPPS 482 RICKEY HENDERSON N/A 7 - double vomit. 13 03193349 1980 TOPPS 580 NOLAN RYAN N/A 8 - fine, I guess a dealer friend of mine was right. The crackdown on 9's is on. 14 03193350 1963 TOPPS 472 LOU BROCK N/A 7 - the lowest possible grade for the card. 15 03193351 1969 TOPPS 221 ART SHAMSKY N/A 8 - accurate. 16 03193352 1958 TOPPS 88 DUKE SNIDER N/A 5 - probably accurate, sent it in with a weird surface defect on the back. 17 03193353 1958 TOPPS 394 JIM GRANT N/A 7 - lowest possible grade for the card. 18 03193354 1958 TOPPS 19 GIANTS TEAM N/A 6 - here's where the fun starts. This card is a solid 7. 19 03193355 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 6 - hmmm. This card mirrors the Grissom. No surface wrinkles either. Did we invert 6? 20 03193356 1958 TOPPS 331 PEDRO RAMOS N/A 6 - let's see 50/50 centering, fresh gloss, sharp corners, no defects = 6. Ok. 21 03193357 1958 TOPPS 434 HARVEY KUENN N/A 7 - centering may have gotten this one, I can't remember. 22 03193358 1958 TOPPS 285 FRANK ROBINSON N/A 6 - LOL. 23 03193359 1958 TOPPS 190 RED SCHOENDIENST N/A 7 - centering probably makes this one accurate. 24 03193360 1958 TOPPS 283 RAY SHEARER N/A 7 - same (centering). 25 03193361 1958 TOPPS 238 BILL MAZEROSKI N/A 8 - the one gift of the lot. 26 03193362 1958 TOPPS 310 ERNIE BANKS N/A 6 - Are you $%#@! kidding me? Wow I can't wait to post the scan of this card. 27 03193363 1958 TOPPS 438 WHITEY HERZOG N/A 8 - Another carbon copy of the Grissom. Not the same grade. 28 03193364 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 7 - An uppercut to the chin. 29 03193365 1958 TOPPS 13 BILLY HOEFT WHITE NAME 6 - The final death blow. Absolutely unreal. Wait for the scan. 30 03193366 1958 TOPPS 183 DAVE JOLLY N/A 6 - Kicking the body after it's dead.
Final comment: I miss on cards from time to time. We all do, even the graders. But I didn't miss on all of these and I can assure you that many of you would feel the same way if you had these in your hands.
Ron >>
Ron- pregrade your cards and be on conservative side (I know you are) and this the result?? Protecting the registry???? It's the only thing I can think of. chaz
"....But truth be told, most collectors out there can't reliably tell the difference between grades (look at the range of opinions when people post raw cards on this board asking for grades)... "
I suspect everybody here is a little better at grading in-hand cards than they are at judging scans.
BUT, a collector's superb grading skills do NOT add any value to the card AFTER it has been purchased. ONLY an unbiased, third-party opinion can add that value.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
You are primarily an investor who buys cards to re-sell them for a profit.
I primarily buy cards to enjoy looking at them.
So from my perspective, getting a card graded does not add value. In fact, for me, a graded card is actually less visually appealing than a raw card because the grading company's slabs are all fairly ugly.
Also, I'm guessing that at some point in the future so many cards will have been graded that prices for high-quality raw cards will actually be higher than equivalent graded cards. There are already many vintage cards from the 50's and 60's that are already very hard to find raw in NM condition because so many have been graded.
I have found that one of the most difficult things to do is to objectively and harshly grade your own cards under 10x magnification. That said, PSA is not infallible and human error is part of the process, especially since they spend less than a minute on average to grade each card. I have also found that most cards straight out of the best packs will grade an 8 on average. If you get a few 9s and an occasional 10, take note of that seller, for he is the exception rather than the rule.
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.
The only cards I've ever gotten graded were the free submissions that I got when I joined CU (all of which were sold to raise money for other purchases). Was not particularly happy with the results (both the grades and turnaround times). Also submitted some cellos I bought from various sources and most came back "altered" after two months (30-day service), which is what led me to first post on this board (rather infamously).
I do buy graded cards from time to time when I can't find a nice raw card, but can count the number I have in my collection on one hand. I've got a a BVG 7.5 1960-61 Topps Bobby Hull, a GAI 8 1955 Topps Ted Williams (bought for less than half the PSA 8 price), a PSA 6 1955 Topps Willie Mays, and an ASA 6 1954 Banks RC which I bought years ago when they were the only grading company around.
RonBurgundy brings in some of the nicest raw cards I've seen on the boards. I think he knows what he's doing.
I do not accept the premise that graders have "bad days". They're paid to do a job and do it well. To take a solid 8 (maybe 9), and make it a 7 just "because its a bad day" says to me that grader should be doing something else for a living.
It's a very fine line between an high end 8 and a 9, and 9's should absolutely have a quality about them that separates them from the pack.
But to take solid 8's from the 50's/60's, call them a 7, and put a little "bad day" prejudice into the grade figuring they can be resubmitted spells the end of grading at some point and the beginning of "authentic" or "not trimmed" as only the reason to submit.
I think everyone on this board takes some pride in the job they do no matter what it is. Graders DO NOT get to slide.
Does anyone really think PSA checks each card with a 10x loupe? Joe himself came on here and said that they do not. Using a 10x loupe distorts it too much. Also ever try and check a card with a loupe? sheesh it takes a minute just to get it set up right.
This may be a reason why today we see cards that do not have obvious flaws grade 6 one day and 7 or 8 on another.
Also back in the day I never heard of the grade Nm/Mnt.
We already have legitimate disagreements with a 1-10 scale. Now we want the graders to distinguish between 1-10 with .5 differentials?
I do have confidence in grading, I just do not excuse obvious poor grading where we justify it with the old "resubmit" excuse. Graders, do your job with pride and expertise.
Does anyone really think PSA checks each card with a 10x loupe?
Unless it's a high-dollar card, most cards are graded by eye and I believe the average time spent on the average card is about 45 seconds, if that, if I'm not mistaken.
Edit: But from my own experiences, at least, I've had much greater success when inspecting cards under a 10x loupe before selecting those to submit.
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>So from my perspective, getting a card graded does not add value. In fact, for me, a graded card is actually less visually appealing than a raw card because the grading company's slabs are all fairly ugly. >>
Thanks for making your agenda perfectly clear.
We understand you don't like graded cards, you don't like TPG's accuracy rate, and you believe, over time, raw cards will hold a premium over slabbed ones.
If you want to continue to only bash PSA on their message board with your opinions, while portraying them to be facts, expect to get the same response in return.
Why don't you take your TPGing grievances to the Net54 or Beckett boards if you are honestly trying to help the hobby?
In my opinion, I personally believe you're here just to bash PSA. Why should I think any different, you have been since day one.
I've said it before but it's worth repeating to the loudest complainer here... If you are genuinely concerned, call Joe with your complaints. If you feel the need to transcribe your conversation, while it's not necessary, go ahead to the best of your ability. If you are dishonest with your "reporting", I'm positive Joe will gladly call you out, again.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Stown, I cant figure out why you defend PSA at every level. I was a big fan of PSA in the start and actually believed them to know what they are doing. I was with Ron at Houston and was with him when he submitted these cards. Believe me, there were cards in there I thought had shots at 10,s. Coupled with the terrible back log in orders, the .5 grading that was shoved down our throats, the GREAT customer service, the wrong flips that are becoming more common,the special treatment for their A+ customers etc etc......PSA is supposed to be the industry leader,sadly as of late they have not been even close. In fact Stown, can you explain to me why I should even have faith in PSA anymore?
As you've probably figured out, I'm not all that "genuinely concerned". I've already decided not to get any more cards graded by PSA (or any other grading company), because I do not believe that they provide good value for the fees they charge.
That said, I do have an agenda, which is to get people to spend less money getting cards graded and more money actually buying cards. As I posted on another thread a while ago, I believe that because most people have a fixed amount of money to spend on this hobby, every dollar spent on grading is a dollar not being spent buying actual cards, and that the hobby would be much healthier if the amount of money being spent on grading decreased. Several other posters disputed my point of view, and I think we pretty much all agreed to disagree.
As to your last point about my not following up two posts and two emails with a phone call, Joe Orlando is the one whose business is losing customers, not mine. I've given him FOUR CHANCES to respond to my questions. If he can't be bothered to spend half an hour writing responses to them, then he will have to live with the consquences of his decision (i.e. losing me, and possibly many others, as customers).
Geez, what has this place become? It's really simple people. If you submit cards and they come back lower than expected, resubmit them. If that higher grade means that much to you and you truly feel it is that higher grade, then resubmit. If you don't like the results, but want it graded, send it to one of the other graders. Hell, send it to Gem or Pro if you want that perfect grade.
Grading is subjective, just like every other business out there. It will not be perfect every time. Tell me, what business is perfect? that 30 minute oil change takes 31 minutes, do you complain? Do you complain if the medication your doctor prescribes for you doesn't work immediately? Do you track down the carpet manufacturer if your carpet doesn't hold up like it should according to the salesperson. No you don't. You also don't go on their websites and gripe about their product. Yet you come here and gripe because grading is killing the card business, or you didn't get the right grade that you thought. Or someone gets preferrental treatment on grades in your eyes.
Joe Orlando has personally posted his phone number and extension on these boards. Call him if you have a concern. He openly said call him. Not email him. Not send him a letter. Call him.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, it is just in general.
Next MONTH? So he's saying that if he wins, the best-case scenario is that he'll be paying for it two weeks after the auction ends?
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
The 100 card sub that I have in the works since December is the only one that will be sent to PSA for awhile (if ever again). The next few subs will be with SGC.
* '72 BASEBALL #15 100% * C. PASCUAL BASIC #3 * T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100% * L. TIANT BASIC #1 * DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100% * MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3 * PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1 * '65 DISNEYLAND #2 * '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6 * '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
You are right. There is no reason for you to call JO.
You are NOT going to talk him into the notion that grading "is bad."
That said, your views are valuable and you should not let folks who disagree with you run you off. Folks who like raw cards can learn as much here as folks who only go for graded stuff.
To me, raw cards are "incomplete," until they find their way into a PSA holder. They are safe there, and they ARE more valuable, too.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
The point of the matter is that I should not have to resubmit.I expect the grading to be correct the first time . I expect the flip on the card to be correct. I expect to receive good customer service. I expect PSA to differntiate between the new .5 grading and do it correctly. I would love to come on here and give "props" to PSA for doing a good job. Can any of you who have submitted recently do that? How many have actually had a $13 5 day sub pop in 5 days???? Probably not to many. Ron is correct in not submitting for a while. I hope PSA straightens it problems out, I really do... I shouldnt have to call JOE and let him know about the problems with his company. If he isnt swift enough to pick it up by now then he isnt ever gonna get it.....
Grading can get tedious as the day goes by - and putting the loupe on something involves a very tedious process.
But, there is a simple way - this is what we use in dentistry - it allows me to look away from the field and see everthing around/peripherally and yet magnify what's in front of me without bending over.
That's all a grader would need - for routine examinations - they come up to 5X I believe.
<< <i>Joe Orlando has personally posted his phone number and extension on these boards. Call him if you have a concern. He openly said call him. Not email him. Not send him a letter. Call him. >>
I totally agree with Only on this.
There doesn't have to be this much negativity - if ya don't like PSA? I get it. But constantly making threads like: looks at this card, look at that card - what's wrong with this picture. I get it already.
How about posting on something you enjoy or saw that was interesting?
And finally - on PSA and Mr Orlando.
The guy cares! But keep in mind - he's a businessman and is responsible for a big division of CU.
But, when I wanted to come back to the boards, I called him - left message - SAME day he called me back.
We talked about PSA for 20 minutes - the board part was just 2 seconds - I wanted back - he said he would talk to Carolj.
I never look back - but I will say - I've been here over 4 yrs now and the amount of threads related to criticizing PSA and grading rather than talking about cards and memorabilia is at an all time low IMO.
<< <i>"That's all a grader would need - for routine examinations - they come up to 5X I believe."
/////////////////////////////////////
I like those, but I think 5X might not find all of the tiny surface wrinkles that have been killing my submissions.
I use a 16X loupe, and still miss the MINIATURE "wrinkles." >>
Remember - I said ROUTINE examination - they can pull out the 20X if they choose - but with loads of modern cards that wouldn't be necessary I believe.
I would urge everyone who can no longer stomach whatever issues they have with PSA to move on to greener pastures...Fell free to start buying up all the NM/MT raw you can find...Maybe the PSA graded cards I purchase and collect will become cheaper...
Or if you want to stay in the grading game, move over to SGC...No lines, no wait there..It's kinda like Disney World you know, the best rides usually have the longest lines..You want quick turn around? SGC has ZERO backup...Not to mention, you can always request that they ''restore'' your card and try and get it to a higher grade for you...lol...Maybe this will make my submission wait shorter if PSA has less cards to grade...
In keeping with these options, SGC has a message board you can begin posting..Since you longer have any use for PSA, why waste time posting here...Net 54 has a message board for raw collectors..Same as above, find a crowd who is interested in hearing your complaints...
This is a PSA message board...You are on PSA property here..Yet you call out posters who like, collect and/or agree with anything GOOD about PSA as "PSA workers"..Its lunacy...
Find a new home you can enjoy, please. For all of our sanity...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Honest criticism is good for PSA, keeps them on their toes.
In some cases the complaints do see 100% justified. Ron has a great eye for cards and it seems as if he got the shaft on a number of cards.
I buy very few graded cards, but I don't have anything against PSA, I do happen to like SGC holders better on vintage, white bordered cards; really makes'em pop. I also feel SGC is as accurate as PSA.
<< <i>Honest criticism is good for PSA, keeps them on their toes. >>
And you truly think that PSA reads all the posts here on a message board in order to find ways to improve their business??? That's dillusional..
As was stated previously, if you have a legit issue, address someone AT PSA who can actually help you...Posting over and over again on a message board does absolutely nothing...
I really don;t have a problem with Ron posting what he considers bad submission results...It is the add on posts about no longer giving PSA business, moving to raw or SGC or BGS or GEM or whatever...If you no longer wish to do business with PSA so be it. Move on and find a way to ENJOY THIS HOBBY...It's supposed to be an enjoyable venture isn't? If you don't like anything about it, find a new hobby...It just seems like a simple answer to all of these problems...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Comments
(Banging his head against the wall),
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
I think most of us feel your pain, as we have had similar experiences with subs... as for what % is acceptable on "misgrades" or "re-submits" is anyone's guess and I don't think there is a published PSA guideline on this topic (or %).
Here's an idea which you may (or someone else no doubt will) think is ridiculous... if you decide to crack & re-submit, first:
1) fill out your sub and prepare the package.
2) scan sub & all cards before cracking.
3) have a friend video tape you clearly showing each card prior to cracking, then crack one at a time & place card in CSI, continue until complete.
4) continue video taping without stopping or pausing, seal package and clearly show ship to label.
5) this may be difficult... continue video taping as you take the package and drive to the Post Office (never let the package leave the camera view).
6) this too may be difficult... continue video taping (your friend may need to hide the camera) as you take the package into the Post Office and hand it over to the clerk, ect...
Once your sub is complete, you will have fairly convincing proof on the failure of accurate grading of the original sub (as well as a exact %)... just a thought, good luck on whichever road you travel.
Mike
<< <i>And Stown....instead of calling me and everyone else who is critical of PSA a troll, why don't you actually engage in discussion and provide some counter-arguments. You childlishly criticize just about every comment I make, but I've yet to see you actually try to refute any of the points I make. >>
I have successfully refuted them, many times over. It's just that, as Lee said, you're schtick has grown old.
And don't forget to look in the mirror, boy. You were one of the loudest complainers when PSA went to the .5 system. When Joe called your bluff, you ran with your tail inbetween your legs.
Not worth your time, eh?
But we should take the time to prove you wrong over and over again?
Hypocrite.
<< <i>I have successfully refuted them, many times over >>
When and where? Every argument I make you respond to with nothing more than sarcastic derision.
<< <i>You were one of the loudest complainers when PSA went to the .5 system. When Joe called your bluff, you ran with your tail inbetween your legs. >>
Not exactly. I just said that I couldn't be bothered to play telephone tag with him and/or have to transcribe his responses if he didn't want to respond via email. Big difference. He's the one who can't be bothered to answer my questions. I posted them on this board twice and emailed them to him as well. You can't accuse me of running away just because I couldn't also be bothered to call him.
<< <i>But we should take the time to prove you wrong over and over again? >>
You haven't even proved me wrong once yet...
CDNuts just postulated on this thread that PSA only gets it right the first time about 80-85 percent of the time, and that's with full point grading. How low do you think their accuracy going to be at the half point level?
And do you think that customers are getting good value for their money if their cards are only being graded accurately 80% of the time?
Why don't you answer those two questions instead of calling me a troll for daring to have the temerity to ask the questions! You're nothing but an intolerant bully...
<< <i>How low do you think their accuracy going to be at the half point level? >>
Uh, you need a sample size first to make an educated guess. Untill then, it's only speculation. However, since you are anti-PSA, you are going to demand answers now. How many times are you going to claim the sky is falling without any proof. The burden should be on you, not us, since you're the one making the claims.
<< <i>And do you think that customers are getting good value for their money if their cards are only being graded accurately 80% of the time? >>
Maybe in your little world, things are perfect. In reality, people know mistakes are made, especially in TPG. SGC, BVG, and PSA all make mistakes; hence the reason we preach "BUY THE HOLDER, NOT THE CARD."
Now, since you are soooooo concerned about PSA customers, you should give Joe a call and voice your complaints.
Oh, but you won't since you will be unable to transcribe that conversation and relay it to the board members..
HA!
Your perspective doesn't make sense because you are looking at the number PSA assigns to a card. While this might be intuitively correct because, afterall, PSA assigns numbers to cards, it doesn't really have any function in the real world. In reality, the more correct perspective is to view how the assigned grade valuates a card. While PSA might now only give an accurate grade 70-75% of the time, the overall card values of those that they grade incorrectly will have greatly diminished from when they were grading incorrectly with the 10 pt scale. By your logic, PSA should use a 5 point scale because they would get the grade correct an even larger percent of the time. Why not a 3 point scale? They'd almost never get grades wrong then!
Here's an example to illustrate what I'm saying:
Say you have 100 1994 SP Arod RCs that you want to get graded. They are all in NM-MT condition. Let's say real market value has these cards at:
PSA 9- $450
PSA 8.5- $175
PSA 8- $100
PSA 7.5- $70
PSA 7- $60
If they were all truly NM-MT, then they should be graded as an 8 and the lot would be worth $10,000.
- With the 10 point scale at 80% accuracy, the 100 cards would grade out to something like (remember, they are all NM-MT and should be 8s):
(10) PSA 9
(80) PSA 8
(10) PSA 7
This is with PSA overgrading as often as they're undergrading. The total value of this lot would be $13,100.
- With the half grade scale at 70% accuracy, the 100 cards would grade out to something like:
(2) PSA 9
(13) PSA 8.5
(70) PSA 8
(13) PSA 8.5
(2) PSA 7
The total value of this lot would be $11,265.
So, while they were more inaccurate in terms of assigning the cards the correct grade, they were more accurate in terms of assigning a real market value to the cards (and let's not kid ourselves, this is what PSA does). Place this theory over a large scale (all of the cards PSA grades), and you have a system that works better in the current marketplace because cards are selling for closer to what they should over a grand scale.
Really? I think most here already knew that.
Steve
I don't think ya can argue with that ,
Scary . .
Feel like I just entered the twilight zone or sumthin !!!!
Thank you for providing a cogent counterargument!!
You probably are right in that the overall average grade of large sample sizes will be more accurate under the half point system.
The problem I have with this line of thinking, though, is that people do not buy 100 copies of the same card. They buy one. And when they do, they want to get exactly the grade they are paying for. People do not want to pay a PSA 9 price for an inaccurately graded card that really should be a PSA 8 or 8.5 (especially given the price differential between grades). They want to get an accurately graded card, 100% of the time.
Now yes, people are supposed to buy the card, not the grade. But truth be told, most collectors out there can't reliably tell the difference between grades (look at the range of opinions when people post raw cards on this board asking for grades). That's why they want to buy a graded card; because someone else (i.e. an expert grader from a grading company) has definitively determined an accurate grade for that card.
The whole third party grading system is based on the premise that the "expert" opinion rendered by the grading company is more accurate than the opinion of the average collector/dealer who grades their own cards. However, given that none of the grading companies tell you who is actually grading your card (nor the qualifications that make said person(s) an "expert"), I actually have more confidence that I can get an accurate grade by submitting a card to the board and averaging everyone's opinion (which costs me nothing), than by sending my hard-earned cash to a grading company where it will be graded by some anonymous "expert".
I just don't see how people can think that grading companies are providing good value for money with an 80% accuracy rate, especially when you may have to send a card in two or three times (paying every single time) to get an accurate grade.
<< <i>People do not want to pay a PSA 9 price for an inaccurately graded card that really should be a PSA 8 or 8.5 (especially given the price differential between grades). They want to get an accurately graded card, 100% of the time. >>
Numbers
People pay for a service - the grade is irrelevant - and they have a reasonable expectation of accuracy - but again - you're throwing out unrealistic numbers - 100% of the time? Come on.
Order of events:
1. Someone has a card.
2. They submit it to PSA
3. It comes back graded - either they're satisfied or not.
4. Their satisfied 9 goes up for sale - but as you have so eloquently alluded to - what if it's really an 8 or an 8.5?
Well - this has little to do with PSA at this point - it begs the whole issue of buy the card not the holder.
We're right back where we started - you're looking for perfection in an imperfect world.
I can't think of much stuff that I've purchased over the years where I haven't had to make the long trek back to the store because the item was defective or flat didn't work.
Last - again - your point has been made - but these are very informed people here...
I think you're singing to the choir out of tune.
<< <i>Now yes, people are supposed to buy the card, not the grade. But truth be told, most collectors out there can't reliably tell the difference between grades >>
If you truly believe this? Then the whole discussion is moot. If they can't tell - then just get excited by the pretty number 9 in the holder.
<< <i>I just don't see how people can think that grading companies are providing good value for money with an 80% accuracy rate, especially when you may have to send a card in two or three times (paying every single time) to get an accurate grade. >>
As a submitter - the "value" comes from knowing the card - when holdered is authentic - peace of mind. And - secondarily - that they were reasonably satisfied in the grade. If not - gonna have to resubmit. Again - no one is gonna get it right 100% at these grading fees.
Then there's "value" - after the fact for the submitter - if they choose to sell - since the buyer now sees value in the peace of mind that the item is 1. authentic and 2. reasonably graded. And yes - ya gonna need a good scan.
But - PSA offers a guarantee - so if ya think an 8 is a 6? Send it back for review - no?
Are we having fun yet?
<< <i>Steve -
That was me! Congrats on your new found freedom! It's great, isn't it? FWIW we must be in some parallel collecting universe because this epiphany came to me after putting together a fully graded '57 set.
Stay classy,
Ron >>
It was YOUR post that got me to switch building raw sets (and having a great deal of fun doing so). Sad to see that you still played the submission game on some of your cards.
<< <i>I really hate to add my voice to those who complain about grades. Most of the time I shrug my shoulders and move on, but not this time. This is an absolute joke, in particular the back half of the order. Who looked at these, a 5th grader? Many of you know I have a decent eye for vintage cards, and if I'm off by a grade I can live with it. This is another story and was pretty much a waste of my money. I also realize that without scans it is hard for you to respond so I will post them once received. But in the meantime know that I will not be submitting anything to PSA for a long, long time (minimum 6 months). Comments follow.
1 03193337 1958 TOPPS 403 STEVE KORCHECK N/A 8 - accurate though the card is 9 worthy.
2 03193338 1958 TOPPS 399 MARV GRISSOM N/A 9 - this card was, at minimum, a 9.
3 03193339 1959 TOPPS 45 ANDY CAREY N/A 7 - accurate
4 03193340 1959 TOPPS 178 RUBEN AMARO N/A 8 - accurate
5 03193341 1959 TOPPS 338 GEORGE ANDERSON N/A 7 - ridiculous. Some dealers in Houston thought this was an 8.5 candidate.
6 03193342 1959 TOPPS 392 WHITEY HERZOG N/A 8 - the lowest possible grade for this card.
7 03193343 1959 TOPPS 230 BILL FISCHER N/A 7 - this card was thought by many of you to be 9 worthy when I scanned it.
8 03193344 1959 TOPPS 231 ELLIS BURTON N/A 8 - accurate.
9 03193345 1959 TOPPS 71 DON BESSENT N/A 8 - accurate.
10 03193346 1959 TOPPS 25 DON HOAK N/A 7 - probably accurate, thought it could slide to 8.
11 03193347 1975 TOPPS 660 HANK AARON N/A 7 - ? Pulled straight out of a pack. Vomit.
12 03193348 1980 TOPPS 482 RICKEY HENDERSON N/A 7 - double vomit.
13 03193349 1980 TOPPS 580 NOLAN RYAN N/A 8 - fine, I guess a dealer friend of mine was right. The crackdown on 9's is on.
14 03193350 1963 TOPPS 472 LOU BROCK N/A 7 - the lowest possible grade for the card.
15 03193351 1969 TOPPS 221 ART SHAMSKY N/A 8 - accurate.
16 03193352 1958 TOPPS 88 DUKE SNIDER N/A 5 - probably accurate, sent it in with a weird surface defect on the back.
17 03193353 1958 TOPPS 394 JIM GRANT N/A 7 - lowest possible grade for the card.
18 03193354 1958 TOPPS 19 GIANTS TEAM N/A 6 - here's where the fun starts. This card is a solid 7.
19 03193355 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 6 - hmmm. This card mirrors the Grissom. No surface wrinkles either. Did we invert 6?
20 03193356 1958 TOPPS 331 PEDRO RAMOS N/A 6 - let's see 50/50 centering, fresh gloss, sharp corners, no defects = 6. Ok.
21 03193357 1958 TOPPS 434 HARVEY KUENN N/A 7 - centering may have gotten this one, I can't remember.
22 03193358 1958 TOPPS 285 FRANK ROBINSON N/A 6 - LOL.
23 03193359 1958 TOPPS 190 RED SCHOENDIENST N/A 7 - centering probably makes this one accurate.
24 03193360 1958 TOPPS 283 RAY SHEARER N/A 7 - same (centering).
25 03193361 1958 TOPPS 238 BILL MAZEROSKI N/A 8 - the one gift of the lot.
26 03193362 1958 TOPPS 310 ERNIE BANKS N/A 6 - Are you $%#@! kidding me? Wow I can't wait to post the scan of this card.
27 03193363 1958 TOPPS 438 WHITEY HERZOG N/A 8 - Another carbon copy of the Grissom. Not the same grade.
28 03193364 1958 TOPPS 318 FRANK HOUSE N/A 7 - An uppercut to the chin.
29 03193365 1958 TOPPS 13 BILLY HOEFT WHITE NAME 6 - The final death blow. Absolutely unreal. Wait for the scan.
30 03193366 1958 TOPPS 183 DAVE JOLLY N/A 6 - Kicking the body after it's dead.
Final comment: I miss on cards from time to time. We all do, even the graders. But I didn't miss on all of these and I can assure you that many of you would feel the same way if you had these in your hands.
Ron >>
Ron- pregrade your cards and be on conservative side (I know you are) and this the result?? Protecting the registry???? It's the only thing I can think of. chaz
(look at the range of opinions when people post raw cards on this board asking for grades)... "
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I suspect everybody here is a little better at grading in-hand cards
than they are at judging scans.
BUT, a collector's superb grading skills do NOT add any value to the card AFTER
it has been purchased. ONLY an unbiased, third-party opinion can add that value.
I guess that's the difference between us....
You are primarily an investor who buys cards to re-sell them for a profit.
I primarily buy cards to enjoy looking at them.
So from my perspective, getting a card graded does not add value. In fact, for me, a graded card is actually less visually appealing than a raw card because the grading company's slabs are all fairly ugly.
Also, I'm guessing that at some point in the future so many cards will have been graded that prices for high-quality raw cards will actually be higher than equivalent graded cards. There are already many vintage cards from the 50's and 60's that are already very hard to find raw in NM condition because so many have been graded.
Matt
<< <i>So from my perspective, getting a card graded does not add value >>
Matt
So I've inferred you don't get cards graded - right?
Or do you do it - just for the peace of mind about authenticity?
mike
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.
The only cards I've ever gotten graded were the free submissions that I got when I joined CU (all of which were sold to raise money for other purchases). Was not particularly happy with the results (both the grades and turnaround times). Also submitted some cellos I bought from various sources and most came back "altered" after two months (30-day service), which is what led me to first post on this board (rather infamously).
I do buy graded cards from time to time when I can't find a nice raw card, but can count the number I have in my collection on one hand. I've got a a BVG 7.5 1960-61 Topps Bobby Hull, a GAI 8 1955 Topps Ted Williams (bought for less than half the PSA 8 price), a PSA 6 1955 Topps Willie Mays, and an ASA 6 1954 Banks RC which I bought years ago when they were the only grading company around.
Matt
I do not accept the premise that graders have "bad days". They're paid to do a job and do it well. To take a solid 8 (maybe 9), and make it a 7 just "because its a bad day" says to me that grader should be doing something else for a living.
It's a very fine line between an high end 8 and a 9, and 9's should absolutely have a quality about them that separates them from the pack.
But to take solid 8's from the 50's/60's, call them a 7, and put a little "bad day" prejudice into the grade figuring they can be resubmitted spells the end of grading at some point and the beginning of "authentic" or "not trimmed" as only the reason to submit.
I think everyone on this board takes some pride in the job they do no matter what it is. Graders DO NOT get to slide.
"Molon Labe"
This may be a reason why today we see cards that do not have obvious flaws grade 6 one day and 7 or 8 on another.
Also back in the day I never heard of the grade Nm/Mnt.
I heard of MNT, NMNT, EX-MNT, EX, G, P
Then VG and VG/EX came into vougue later on.
Steve
Maybe we have TOO MANY grades.
We already have legitimate disagreements with a 1-10 scale. Now we want the graders to distinguish between 1-10 with .5 differentials?
I do have confidence in grading, I just do not excuse obvious poor grading where we justify it with the old "resubmit" excuse. Graders, do your job with pride and expertise.
"Molon Labe"
////////////////////////////////////
They believe they are doing that.
BUT, when they return my 9s as 5s, I dunno.
I just figure they are better at it than I am.
That is VERY possible.
Unless it's a high-dollar card, most cards are graded by eye and I believe the average time spent on the average card is about 45 seconds, if that, if I'm not mistaken.
Edit: But from my own experiences, at least, I've had much greater success when inspecting cards under a 10x loupe before selecting those to submit.
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>So from my perspective, getting a card graded does not add value. In fact, for me, a graded card is actually less visually appealing than a raw card because the grading company's slabs are all fairly ugly. >>
Thanks for making your agenda perfectly clear.
We understand you don't like graded cards, you don't like TPG's accuracy rate, and you believe, over time, raw cards will hold a premium over slabbed ones.
If you want to continue to only bash PSA on their message board with your opinions, while portraying them to be facts, expect to get the same response in return.
Why don't you take your TPGing grievances to the Net54 or Beckett boards if you are honestly trying to help the hobby?
In my opinion, I personally believe you're here just to bash PSA. Why should I think any different, you have been since day one.
I've said it before but it's worth repeating to the loudest complainer here... If you are genuinely concerned, call Joe with your complaints. If you feel the need to transcribe your conversation, while it's not necessary, go ahead to the best of your ability. If you are dishonest with your "reporting", I'm positive Joe will gladly call you out, again.
As you've probably figured out, I'm not all that "genuinely concerned". I've already decided not to get any more cards graded by PSA (or any other grading company), because I do not believe that they provide good value for the fees they charge.
That said, I do have an agenda, which is to get people to spend less money getting cards graded and more money actually buying cards. As I posted on another thread a while ago, I believe that because most people have a fixed amount of money to spend on this hobby, every dollar spent on grading is a dollar not being spent buying actual cards, and that the hobby would be much healthier if the amount of money being spent on grading decreased. Several other posters disputed my point of view, and I think we pretty much all agreed to disagree.
As to your last point about my not following up two posts and two emails with a phone call, Joe Orlando is the one whose business is losing customers, not mine. I've given him FOUR CHANCES to respond to my questions. If he can't be bothered to spend half an hour writing responses to them, then he will have to live with the consquences of his decision (i.e. losing me, and possibly many others, as customers).
Grading is subjective, just like every other business out there. It will not be perfect every time. Tell me, what business is perfect? that 30 minute oil change takes 31 minutes, do you complain? Do you complain if the medication your doctor prescribes for you doesn't work immediately? Do you track down the carpet manufacturer if your carpet doesn't hold up like it should according to the salesperson. No you don't. You also don't go on their websites and gripe about their product. Yet you come here and gripe because grading is killing the card business, or you didn't get the right grade that you thought. Or someone gets preferrental treatment on grades in your eyes.
Joe Orlando has personally posted his phone number and extension on these boards. Call him if you have a concern. He openly said call him. Not email him. Not send him a letter. Call him.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, it is just in general.
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
/////////////////////////////////////////
No evidence.
JUST bashing.
ALL customers are "A+" to companies that want to make money.
PSA is no exception.
You are right. There is no reason for you to call JO.
You are NOT going to talk him into the notion that
grading "is bad."
That said, your views are valuable and you should not
let folks who disagree with you run you off. Folks who
like raw cards can learn as much here as folks who only
go for graded stuff.
To me, raw cards are "incomplete," until they find their
way into a PSA holder. They are safe there, and they
ARE more valuable, too.
My experience with GAI has been bad.
Steve
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sorry, I thought you meant "special treatment" on grades given.
Yes. He said he got a special deal; folks who buy 20K+ of a product/service
usually get a substantial discount. That is how it should be.
Pricing-Power vs. Buying-Power is how/why capitalism works.
Grading can get tedious as the day goes by - and putting the loupe on something involves a very tedious process.
But, there is a simple way - this is what we use in dentistry - it allows me to look away from the field and see everthing around/peripherally and yet magnify what's in front of me without bending over.
That's all a grader would need - for routine examinations - they come up to 5X I believe.
mike
/////////////////////////////////////
I like those, but I think 5X might not find all of
the tiny surface wrinkles that have been killing
my submissions.
I use a 16X loupe, and still miss the MINIATURE
"wrinkles."
<< <i>Joe Orlando has personally posted his phone number and extension on these boards. Call him if you have a concern. He openly said call him. Not email him. Not send him a letter. Call him. >>
I totally agree with Only on this.
There doesn't have to be this much negativity - if ya don't like PSA? I get it. But constantly making threads like: looks at this card, look at that card - what's wrong with this picture. I get it already.
How about posting on something you enjoy or saw that was interesting?
And finally - on PSA and Mr Orlando.
The guy cares! But keep in mind - he's a businessman and is responsible for a big division of CU.
But, when I wanted to come back to the boards, I called him - left message - SAME day he called me back.
We talked about PSA for 20 minutes - the board part was just 2 seconds - I wanted back - he said he would talk to Carolj.
I never look back - but I will say - I've been here over 4 yrs now and the amount of threads related to criticizing PSA and grading rather than talking about cards and memorabilia is at an all time low IMO.
mike
<< <i>"That's all a grader would need - for routine examinations - they come up to 5X I believe."
/////////////////////////////////////
I like those, but I think 5X might not find all of
the tiny surface wrinkles that have been killing
my submissions.
I use a 16X loupe, and still miss the MINIATURE
"wrinkles." >>
Remember - I said ROUTINE examination - they can pull out the 20X if they choose - but with loads of modern cards that wouldn't be necessary I believe.
mike
////////////////////////////////////////
Does that one have the same profile as the one pictured?
<< <i>"....they can pull out the 20X if they choose ..."
////////////////////////////////////////
Does that one have the same profile as the one pictured? >>
That was a joke - the highest - I believe without going to the chairside or table-side microscope is 5X.
I just think for most routine work - a 5X would be more than enough and they can always take them off and use a bigger loupe when needed.
mike
edit: the one pictured actually looks like a 2.8x or 3.0x - not sure.
Or if you want to stay in the grading game, move over to SGC...No lines, no wait there..It's kinda like Disney World you know, the best rides usually have the longest lines..You want quick turn around? SGC has ZERO backup...Not to mention, you can always request that they ''restore'' your card and try and get it to a higher grade for you...lol...Maybe this will make my submission wait shorter if PSA has less cards to grade...
In keeping with these options, SGC has a message board you can begin posting..Since you longer have any use for PSA, why waste time posting here...Net 54 has a message board for raw collectors..Same as above, find a crowd who is interested in hearing your complaints...
This is a PSA message board...You are on PSA property here..Yet you call out posters who like, collect and/or agree with anything GOOD about PSA as "PSA workers"..Its lunacy...
Find a new home you can enjoy, please. For all of our sanity...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
In some cases the complaints do see 100% justified. Ron has a great eye for cards and it seems as if he got the shaft on a number of cards.
I buy very few graded cards, but I don't have anything against PSA, I do happen to like SGC holders better on vintage, white bordered cards; really makes'em pop. I also feel SGC is as accurate as PSA.
<< <i>Honest criticism is good for PSA, keeps them on their toes. >>
And you truly think that PSA reads all the posts here on a message board in order to find ways to improve their business??? That's dillusional..
As was stated previously, if you have a legit issue, address someone AT PSA who can actually help you...Posting over and over again on a message board does absolutely nothing...
I really don;t have a problem with Ron posting what he considers bad submission results...It is the add on posts about no longer giving PSA business, moving to raw or SGC or BGS or GEM or whatever...If you no longer wish to do business with PSA so be it. Move on and find a way to ENJOY THIS HOBBY...It's supposed to be an enjoyable venture isn't? If you don't like anything about it, find a new hobby...It just seems like a simple answer to all of these problems...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
They read 'em. They may even ACT on some of them.
I have ZERO problem with anybody posting their pumps/bashes.
They will be responded to by those who agree/disagree with them.
A fun marketplace of ideas.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Based on the thread's CURRENT content, a poof/lock
would be unwarranted and silly.
<< <i>Every 7th sub for me is downgraded by a full grade across the board. I'm not sure how you don't know this as a regular submitter. >>
Lee, just skip straight over the 7th submission and send them the 8th submission right after the 6th one next time.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.