How can PSA Grading or the Set Registry be better?

FB · June 25, 2002 11:41PM

Guys,

I noticed the Joe Orlando post on the Sport Card and Memorabilia Forum about SGC's new discount grading service. Seeing all of the replies made me realize just how much knowledge there is on these boards.

So, I thought that I'd post this and see what we could come up with to help the company that we've all invested so much money in by having cards slabbed.

I've got a couple of things:

For the Set Registry:

My biggest thing would be if PSA could be the conduit for card insurance and get group rates through a major insurance carrier.

My second item would be if the Set Registry SUMMARY could also include an SMR Value for the cards registered within the set (I know its not perfect - but for someone who doesn't keep receipts, its a valid third party authority to place some value where I have no idea currently) For PSA Grading:

I'd like to see a bit more consistency in the times that it takes to grade cards. I've had cases where two different invoices under Vintage Bulk arrived on the same day. One was graded a week later and the other took 3 weeks. The flow needs to be evened out a little more and we shouldn't have to compare notes on this board as to how long each of our invoices took. Just my 2 cents...

zardoz51 · June 25, 2002 11:56PM

Frank

Nice ideas, but one thing sticks in my mind is that SMR is out of whack on several items. With the vintage, how does one establish a value on 10's? In addition, the amount of data entry updating prices would be a full time daily task for some poor soul. The entire program for the registry would have to be rewritten to accomodate the valuations.

What would be great is the addition of a rarity column, similar to that of the coin registry showng the number of similar or better examples. Obviously, a zero would be the best, translating to your card being the finest graded example.

dude · June 26, 2002 12:30AM

FB,

First, great topic! This should have been posted long ago.

I agree with both of your statements regarding the Set Registry. In fact, I suggested to add SMR values ages ago. I agree that the SMR is not perfect, and they could do things such as saying, "1972 PSA 9 commons that have a Pop of 1 = $x, Pop 2-4 = $y and 5 or greater $z. Since the Pop Report and SMR are both electronic, they could be made interactive. Placing one value on a common regardless of population just doesn't cut it.

I agree with Zardoz also regarding adding a Population column to the Registry. That would really put in perspective how many "tough" cards a given set has.

My added suggestion for the Registry is to have a Summary Table at the top or bottom of the page showing how many 10s, 9s, 8s, etc. are in this set. It's a hassle going through a 787 card set and counting how many 9's someone has.

Finally, I don't like the inconsistency of the 1969 Topps baseball set needing ALL the variations to be complete, while other sets don't. Both should be recognized, but in my opinion a complete basic set is a complete set.

As for grading, I believe consistency is all that should be expected. I've heard 4 people complain this past 6 weeks that the PSA suddenly got slightly tougher on grading (and I believe you mentioned on this Board that your last submission was also a disappointment). If this is true, then what does that do to all the cards that have been graded before this occurrence? The standards have to stay same forever.

Vargha · June 26, 2002 12:51AM

My two cents on the issue . . .

Washington set may be for sale??????

mikeschmidt · June 26, 2002 1:12AM

Dude said:
<<As for grading, I believe consistency is all that should be expected. I've heard 4 people complain this past 6 weeks that the PSA suddenly got slightly tougher on grading (and I believe you mentioned on this Board that your last submission was also a disappointment). If this is true, then what does that do to all the cards that have been graded before this occurrence? The standards have to stay same forever.>>

Dude -- this is an ongoing problem/issue with PSA. For starters -- PSA's first few years showed a ton of cards that are aovergraded by today's standards. Two things happened: 1) David Hall got favorable treatment on his sets and 2) the entire graded card landscape has changed over the last 2-3 years, and many of the grading companies made their standards "tougher" without any formal acknowledgment of such.

I have heard good things and bad things about PSA's grading as of recently. Some seem to be tougher -- but I have also heard some stories of trimmed cards getting through that may not have gotten through nine months ago (e-mail me for a story on that, Dude). The bottom line is that whatever the standards are now -- they need to stay that way forever. The constant weaving between easy months and tough months for grading has got to stop.

Finally -- as to the original point of this post -- I think that the Registry should incorporate population numbers for cards as well as population higher -- it works out amazing well with the PCGS boards, I think. I also really like Dude's suggestion for a summary table per set as to the 10's, 9's, 8's, etc.

dom · June 26, 2002 1:17AM

Frank,

Post of the week, at least.

Lotsa good suggestions coming out. I like Z's rarity column and Dan's grade summary. I've been known to count nines when I'm sober...bad. The varieties, major or minor, should always be optional or able to be mingled.

Dan's grading question is intriguing. Without question, IMHO, there is a different standard for newer cards than there is for vintage. I know what to expect from the older cards in terms of grades. The graders do an excellent job on them. I just received my first shipment of 84 Donruss, and I'll be dämned if there's a difference between so many of the nines and tens in the lot. In fact (swallows pride) there was a six and seven in the batch that are easy eights (thought they were nines) if they were from the 60's. I just bought a ten that had a little stray ink in the border, and I have a nine of the same card that is perfect. ????

I'd like values for the cards in the set if it were at all possible. Values for cards are known by collectors of the individual sets. That may not help strangers, but how can you put a $$ value on an infrequently traded issue? 1955 Topps Leo Kiely for instance? It's a "common" that's weighted at 1. Come on gang, we all know we could buy 25 Sandy Koufax RC's in eight before finding one Leo. There are Leo's in every set. One possible solution would be to poll the Registry owners of listed sets and come up with some average or median. Even that is imperfect. Then again, there are some very smart people here who will iron out this wrinkle. (Poor metaphor, maybe.)

I'm confident this post will lead to improvements and innovations.

Thanks again Frank.

Vargha · June 26, 2002 1:17AM

A summary is cool, although it's not that hard for collectors to list the totals in their set descriptions as I do.

mikeschmidt · June 26, 2002 1:32AM

As for another suggestion:

Allow an option for people whose set specifics are "closed" to have an option to have their summary statistics and/or owner's description displayed. I think some people wouldn't mind mentioning why they chose the set, what they like about it, as well as some summary statistics without disclosing all of the specific cards in the set.

carkim · June 26, 2002 6:54AM

I wish PSA would list the POP and POP HIGHER columns on the registry like PCGS...

PCGS No. 5310...Date 1796 ...Denom 25C... Grade VF25... Pop 8 ... Pop Higher 97... Owner's Comments

Carlos

vorthian · June 26, 2002 8:36AM

<< Nice ideas, but one thing sticks in my mind is that SMR is out of whack on several items. With the vintage, how does one establish a value on 10's? >>

Zardoz:

With all due respect to those that price cards, PSA could remedy this problem if they really wanted to. Heck, exchange x free submissions to someone to aid in the 1887 - 1940 years, 1941 - 1960, etc.

As for "out of whack" - juxtapose the most recent About Time auction with the latest SMR.

e93 Plank PSA 6 realized 960, SMR 250.
e93 Cobb PSA 5 realized 1312, SMR 975.
e93 Matty PSA 5 realized 794, SMR 400.
e93 Waddell PSA 7 realized 1163, SMR 475.
e93 Wagner PSA 5 realized 1455, SMR 500.

Even with the stance that the SMR takes months to process/update, these prices have been off for several months now. I should know, I have been chasing these "e cards" for years and have been paying well over SMR in the process.

<< As for grading, I believe consistency is all that should be expected. >>

Dude:

I agree. Based on my conversations at the Sportsfest show, this is precisely why so many people are upset and likely to take their business elsewhere.

How can the set registry be better?

-A bonus set rating point should be given to those that have 100% completed sets.

-Linking the SMR is going to be an ordeal, when I rated the sets I did - my "weights" reflected many things, including price. Perhaps even expand the range from 1 - 100 on certain sets and eliminate the 1 - 5 scale completely. If done properly, the SMR wouldn't even need to be linked thus saving many hours for BJ and company.

-Add more perks. I'm not sure, but with 100% complete sets - does PSA re-label your cards with "x collection" free-of-charge?

theBobs · June 26, 2002 10:26AM

<< <i>people are upset and likely to take their business elsewhere. >>

What other grading company is a better option than PSA?

zardoz51 · June 26, 2002 10:33AM

"-Add more perks. I'm not sure, but with 100% complete sets - does PSA re-label your cards with "x collection" free-of-charge?"

Nope, it will run you $5 a card. In other words an extra 3 or 4 grand for a later vintage set. As huge an ego as I have, I prefer that the money stay in my pocket.

LuxuryWines · June 26, 2002 1:34PM

Frank Great Post and some very interesting posts and points being made my feeling is that the following could improve PSA and/or the registry:

1.) Addition of the rarity column from the PCGS site

2.) Addition of more sets in the SMR - 1970 Kellogg's comes to mind quickly along with several other Kellogg's issues.

3.) A much vaster SMR on-line with more of the thinner traded issues - these sets could be updated every 3 -6 months

4.) Reduction of the vintage common grading card level from 100 cards (min order) to at least 50 or preferably 25 ... Hey the set registry specials were at 25 cards for a lower price per card and quicker turn around time.....

5.) Some Kind of Bonus in the registry ranking for a complete PSA Graded set...

Just My $0.02

Jeff

Alfiewt · June 27, 2002 4:57AM

I really like the idea of having a bonus for sets 100% complete.

Also, for sets with variations, I think you should have the option of listing them, but they shouldn't count toward completion %. Maybe there could even be some bonus points for having all of the variations.

FB · June 27, 2002 10:41AM

Alfiewt,

I wouldn't mind seeing the sets with variations set up to count the additional cards above 100%.

Example:

Ray B's 69 set is missing 6 regular issues - but he has 6 white letters.
His set should show as 99% or so. But, when he adds the last card (PSA 10 Yellow Letter Mantle just for arguments sake) - instead of going from 99.85 to 100%, it should now count the variations as well - so 101% instead.

vorthian · June 27, 2002 9:08PM

<< What other grading company is a better option than PSA? >>

ZAG, of course.

zardoz51 · June 27, 2002 9:27PM

Thanks Vorthian

You just picked up three extra grade bumps N/C