I'm putting the O/U at Feb. 20. PSA could have a half dozen graders sitting in the back watching Batman reruns and they still won't strong-arm one of those guys into grading a 470 card hodge-podge submission.
<< <i>I'm putting the O/U at Feb. 20. PSA could have a half dozen graders sitting in the back watching Batman reruns and they still won't strong-arm one of those guys into grading a 470 card hodge-podge submission. >>
I'm not liking your attitude. Looking at the shared orders every day only makes me confused. Every day there is a 100+ card submission that pops in 3 or 4 days. Then there are the ones that were received before Thanksgiving and finally pop 2 months later.
Yeah, I've been torturing myself with the shared orders page too. I check THAT about twice a day. There were a ton of sub pops yesterday, and that was just the shared ones! I'm getting excited!
Maybe if Bill started calling Customer service 5-8 times a day with that Southern N'leans Drawl, they would get tired of saying, Wow I can't understand this guy at all, and then call down to Grading and Yell "Get This Order Done So This Guy Will Quit Calling".
Neil
Actually Collect Non Sport, but am just so full of myself I post all over the place !!!!!!!
I also do not have any stake in this group sub but I interested in seeing what everyone submitted and what the grades are. Additionally, I am watching to see if my 57 card modern sub, which was logged in the same day the hold was released, pops before this one does.
May you all get 10's.
WANTLIST 1992 Topps FB Golds (72% complete) 1997 Topps FB Minted in Canton (10% complete) 1999 Topps FB Record Numbers Gold (80% complete) 2001 Topps FB MVP Promotion (35% complete)
I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense.
It's hard to complain about the timeframe when there are people saying they have had subs there for two months. However, I have gotten spoiled by turnaround times and I expect PSA to start a "spoiled" and "not yet spoiled" customer list.
<< <i>I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense. >>
Yes & no...it makes more business sense to have tiered timeframes. If people want their cards back more quickly, they have the option to pay more. I think that makes a whole lot more business sense than a first in, first out system.
<< <i>I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense. >>
You have no idea it makes business sense or not, since you don't know what kind of efficiency gains this current system offers, and whether those gains outweigh the customer dissatisfaction that the current system can at times produce.
I'm sure PSA has considered a FIFO approach for orders that were submitted under the same service level, and I'm sure it's no accident that they've chosen not to adopt such a model.
<< <i>I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense. >>
You have no idea it makes business sense or not, since you don't know what kind of efficiency gains this current system offers, and whether those gains outweigh the customer dissatisfaction that the current system can at times produce.
I'm sure PSA has considered a FIFO approach for orders that were submitted under the same service level, and I'm sure it's no accident that they've chosen not to adopt such a model. >>
Unfortunately I think you've been proven right Boo. I've always wondered how they delegate the grading. It seems that oft times if you send in all of the same set or even same era of cards that you receive a quick turnaround but if your submission runs the gambit of different sports for a wide range of years that it seems to take the longest. I wonder if they really think someone who grades 1988 Topps for them is incapable of grading 1950 Bowman. The way grades seem to pop on here, that belief would seem to apply. This creates another theory that you're waiting in the queue of 4-5 different graders at the same time with a 500 card sub. Once the first grader is done, the remainder go to grader #2 and so on.
the fact that different graders grade different eras of cards is pretty BS to me. Why would the year the card was printed affect the grade it gets? A 10 is a 10. A 9 is a 9. An 8 is an 8. PSA's grading standards are the same across the board are they not?
<< <i>I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense. >>
You have no idea it makes business sense or not, since you don't know what kind of efficiency gains this current system offers, and whether those gains outweigh the customer dissatisfaction that the current system can at times produce.
I'm sure PSA has considered a FIFO approach for orders that were submitted under the same service level, and I'm sure it's no accident that they've chosen not to adopt such a model. >>
Unfortunately I think you've been proven right Boo. I've always wondered how they delegate the grading. It seems that oft times if you send in all of the same set or even same era of cards that you receive a quick turnaround but if your submission runs the gambit of different sports for a wide range of years that it seems to take the longest. I wonder if they really think someone who grades 1988 Topps for them is incapable of grading 1950 Bowman. The way grades seem to pop on here, that belief would seem to apply. This creates another theory that you're waiting in the queue of 4-5 different graders at the same time with a 500 card sub. Once the first grader is done, the remainder go to grader #2 and so on. >>
I don't think it's a question of whether the guy who grades '88 Topps is capable of grading '50 Bowman so much as it is that you might as well have the more experienced grader doing the '50 Bowman as opposed to the '88 Topps. It probably takes a long time to develop a really good eye for subtle card alterations, and if this is true then it makes sense to have the more experienced graders working on the cards that are more likely to have been altered.
I think most of us would rather see a trimmed 1988 Jose Lind in a PSA holder than a '52 Bowman Large Lansford, and that's probably PSA's thinking as well (although, of course, this is all just speculation. For all I know they don't divie up the subs according to experience or seniority).
<< <i>the fact that different graders grade different eras of cards is pretty BS to me. Why would the year the card was printed affect the grade it gets? A 10 is a 10. A 9 is a 9. An 8 is an 8. PSA's grading standards are the same across the board are they not? >>
There are many sets from each sport that have varying issues based on one aspect or another. The 1981 Kelloggs cards I have mentioned recently are not graded the same as 1981 Topps because of they way they were produced. I would have to believe that there are quite a few graders that do not know that there are thousands of 1984 Topps football cards out there that were recently cut from sheets. However, a grader that specializes in 1984 Topps will know the difference.
<< <i>the fact that different graders grade different eras of cards is pretty BS to me. Why would the year the card was printed affect the grade it gets? A 10 is a 10. A 9 is a 9. An 8 is an 8. PSA's grading standards are the same across the board are they not? >>
There are many sets from each sport that have varying issues based on one aspect or another. The 1981 Kelloggs cards I have mentioned recently are not graded the same as 1981 Topps because of they way they were produced. I would have to believe that there are quite a few graders that do not know that there are thousands of 1984 Topps football cards out there that were recently cut from sheets. However, a grader that specializes in 1984 Topps will know the difference. >>
This is a great point. Now, if PSA would just get a 'perforated/hand cut' guy, so I didn't have to play Russian Roulette every time I sent a batch of these in, I'd be all set!
<< <i>the fact that different graders grade different eras of cards is pretty BS to me. Why would the year the card was printed affect the grade it gets? A 10 is a 10. A 9 is a 9. An 8 is an 8. PSA's grading standards are the same across the board are they not? >>
It's not the grading standards, it's understanding the differences in the various sets. Vintage cards were printed and cut using older technology than was used with the 1988 sets, or even the 2008 sets.
Perhaps it will come to us someday, not too many years from now...someone will design software that can grade cards completely objectively and our only concern will be the cost.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
Comments
<< <i>I had the CU forum open in 2 different windows. Clicked 399 a split second before 400. >>
Who in their right mind does things like that when a thread is on 98, 198, 298, etc....?
<< <i>I had the CU forum open in 2 different windows. Clicked 399 a split second before 400. >>
You cheated. You can't post back to back to do that.
Sorry but the point goes to Nick
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>Sorry but the point goes to Nick >>
My thread. I make the decisions here.
-1 for Nick
+1 for me
Carol, please escort the witness into custody.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry but the point goes to Nick >>
My thread. I make the decisions here.
-1 for Nick
+1 for me >>
-1 for Nick makes his 401 post actually 400
+1 for BIll makes his 400 post actually 401
Very generous of you to switch places with me like that. Thanks Bill
<< <i>-1 for Nick makes his 401 post actually 400
+1 for BIll makes his 400 post actually 401
Very generous of you to switch places with me like that. Thanks Bill
>>
I hereby vote you off the island which makes your posts after 399 void and moves me back to number 400. Please bring us your torch and leave quietly.
Just wanted to throw that one in
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>I'm putting the O/U at Feb. 20. PSA could have a half dozen graders sitting in the back watching Batman reruns and they still won't strong-arm one of those guys into grading a 470 card hodge-podge submission. >>
I'm not liking your attitude. Looking at the shared orders every day only makes me confused. Every day there is a 100+ card submission that pops in 3 or 4 days. Then there are the ones that were received before Thanksgiving and finally pop 2 months later.
<< <i>im waiting with baited breath. >>
apples? corn?
I just hope you're not fishing.
Maybe if Bill started calling Customer service 5-8 times a day with that Southern N'leans Drawl, they would get tired of saying, Wow I can't understand this guy at all, and then call down to Grading and Yell "Get This Order Done So This Guy Will Quit Calling".
Neil
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
May you all get 10's.
1992 Topps FB Golds (72% complete)
1997 Topps FB Minted in Canton (10% complete)
1999 Topps FB Record Numbers Gold (80% complete)
2001 Topps FB MVP Promotion (35% complete)
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense. >>
Yes & no...it makes more business sense to have tiered timeframes. If people want their cards back more quickly, they have the option to pay more. I think that makes a whole lot more business sense than a first in, first out system.
I think PSA agrees...
*BUMP*
Beep... Beep... Beep... Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...
<< <i>I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense. >>
You have no idea it makes business sense or not, since you don't know what kind of efficiency gains this current system offers, and whether those gains outweigh the customer dissatisfaction that the current system can at times produce.
I'm sure PSA has considered a FIFO approach for orders that were submitted under the same service level, and I'm sure it's no accident that they've chosen not to adopt such a model.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense. >>
You have no idea it makes business sense or not, since you don't know what kind of efficiency gains this current system offers, and whether those gains outweigh the customer dissatisfaction that the current system can at times produce.
I'm sure PSA has considered a FIFO approach for orders that were submitted under the same service level, and I'm sure it's no accident that they've chosen not to adopt such a model. >>
Unfortunately I think you've been proven right Boo. I've always wondered how they delegate the grading. It seems that oft times if you send in all of the same set or even same era of cards that you receive a quick turnaround but if your submission runs the gambit of different sports for a wide range of years that it seems to take the longest. I wonder if they really think someone who grades 1988 Topps for them is incapable of grading 1950 Bowman. The way grades seem to pop on here, that belief would seem to apply. This creates another theory that you're waiting in the queue of 4-5 different graders at the same time with a 500 card sub. Once the first grader is done, the remainder go to grader #2 and so on.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have 3 Submissions sitting in the queue, one from the December special. PSA really needs to adopt a first in first out approach. It just makes business sense. >>
You have no idea it makes business sense or not, since you don't know what kind of efficiency gains this current system offers, and whether those gains outweigh the customer dissatisfaction that the current system can at times produce.
I'm sure PSA has considered a FIFO approach for orders that were submitted under the same service level, and I'm sure it's no accident that they've chosen not to adopt such a model. >>
Unfortunately I think you've been proven right Boo. I've always wondered how they delegate the grading. It seems that oft times if you send in all of the same set or even same era of cards that you receive a quick turnaround but if your submission runs the gambit of different sports for a wide range of years that it seems to take the longest. I wonder if they really think someone who grades 1988 Topps for them is incapable of grading 1950 Bowman. The way grades seem to pop on here, that belief would seem to apply. This creates another theory that you're waiting in the queue of 4-5 different graders at the same time with a 500 card sub. Once the first grader is done, the remainder go to grader #2 and so on. >>
I don't think it's a question of whether the guy who grades '88 Topps is capable of grading '50 Bowman so much as it is that you might as well have the more experienced grader doing the '50 Bowman as opposed to the '88 Topps. It probably takes a long time to develop a really good eye for subtle card alterations, and if this is true then it makes sense to have the more experienced graders working on the cards that are more likely to have been altered.
I think most of us would rather see a trimmed 1988 Jose Lind in a PSA holder than a '52 Bowman Large Lansford, and that's probably PSA's thinking as well (although, of course, this is all just speculation. For all I know they don't divie up the subs according to experience or seniority).
<< <i>the fact that different graders grade different eras of cards is pretty BS to me. Why would the year the card was printed affect the grade it gets? A 10 is a 10. A 9 is a 9. An 8 is an 8. PSA's grading standards are the same across the board are they not? >>
There are many sets from each sport that have varying issues based on one aspect or another. The 1981 Kelloggs cards I have mentioned recently are not graded the same as 1981 Topps because of they way they were produced. I would have to believe that there are quite a few graders that do not know that there are thousands of 1984 Topps football cards out there that were recently cut from sheets. However, a grader that specializes in 1984 Topps will know the difference.
<< <i>
<< <i>the fact that different graders grade different eras of cards is pretty BS to me. Why would the year the card was printed affect the grade it gets? A 10 is a 10. A 9 is a 9. An 8 is an 8. PSA's grading standards are the same across the board are they not? >>
There are many sets from each sport that have varying issues based on one aspect or another. The 1981 Kelloggs cards I have mentioned recently are not graded the same as 1981 Topps because of they way they were produced. I would have to believe that there are quite a few graders that do not know that there are thousands of 1984 Topps football cards out there that were recently cut from sheets. However, a grader that specializes in 1984 Topps will know the difference. >>
This is a great point. Now, if PSA would just get a 'perforated/hand cut' guy, so I didn't have to play Russian Roulette every time I sent a batch of these in, I'd be all set!
shipped yesterday. So maybe yours is up next.
Mine took exactly 30 days from time it was entered to shipped.
Steve
<< <i>the fact that different graders grade different eras of cards is pretty BS to me. Why would the year the card was printed affect the grade it gets? A 10 is a 10. A 9 is a 9. An 8 is an 8. PSA's grading standards are the same across the board are they not? >>
It's not the grading standards, it's understanding the differences in the various sets. Vintage cards were printed and cut using older technology than was used with the 1988 sets, or even the 2008 sets.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Wouldn't that would be nice?
Neil
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject