Options
UPDATE (with concerns) Wish me luck - shooting for the moon with this crackout submission
SidePocket
Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭
You only live once right? So I picked through my entire collection of graded cards to find the 15 cards I think have the best chance of regrading high. Hopefully very high.
Cracked them all out, VERY carefully, and subbed them today.
I think all have a chance of grading higher. I didn't include the current grades with the scans below, but they ranged from PSA 4 to 8.
No Mantle rookies or anything like that, but cards I've really enjoyed picking up through the years.
Kind of nerve wracking to do this but kind of fun in the way ripping an old pack is fun.
Hopefully we'll see how I did fairly soon, I used the 15 Collector's Club free subs and I've always found those to pop in a week or less. Wish me luck!
Cracked them all out, VERY carefully, and subbed them today.
I think all have a chance of grading higher. I didn't include the current grades with the scans below, but they ranged from PSA 4 to 8.
No Mantle rookies or anything like that, but cards I've really enjoyed picking up through the years.
Kind of nerve wracking to do this but kind of fun in the way ripping an old pack is fun.
Hopefully we'll see how I did fairly soon, I used the 15 Collector's Club free subs and I've always found those to pop in a week or less. Wish me luck!
"Molon Labe"
0
Comments
Sure like the Dodger Sluggers card.
<< <i>Good luck Mark!
Sure like the Dodger Sluggers card. >>
That, and the 61 Clemente really caught my centering eye. Other notables: 64 Gibson and both Drysdales.
Good luck, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
Can't imagine which one received a 4. Good luck.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>.....Can't imagine which one received a 4............ >>
My guess would be the Post cereal Clemente.
Bosox1976
Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona.
-George F. Will
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
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
And let me know if you end up selling the 1956s, I'd definitely be interested in any grade on any of them.
<< <i>Wow those are some sharp cards. Good luck!
And let me know if you end up selling the 1956s, I'd definitely be interested in any grade on any of them. >>
+1 Esp. the RC. GLWTS!
Successful transactions with: yankeeno7, raiderguy10, Beck6, CDsNuts, DaveP01, Dboneesq, Elemenopeo, gameusedhoop, georgebailey2, Goldlabels, gstarling, justmichael, etc
Working on.........
Tony Dorsett Master Set
1977 Topps Mexican FB (raw)
1957 Topps FB Set (raw or graded)
Here are the good.
Before and After:
Thought these would possibly grade up but came back the same grade. At least these show consistency, and I like that.
Disappointments. These cards are gorgeous and all downgraded. You could shave with the 64 Gibson. The 63 McCovey is a 6? Hmmm.
Now for the disturbing.
I'm somewhat speechless here. I'm not even sure how to react. One third of the sub comes back like this? How can this be?
Do I question the integrity of PSA grading?
Not only that, but I received nothing but a packing slip with the cards. Am I supposed to eat the $75 in grading fees for these cards?
Advice and comments would be welcome.
This Musial was a 6 although I guess I didn't save a scan of it.
"Molon Labe"
1. PSA grades harshly the 63s. The colored border is prone to chipping. Any hint of white is a death sentence. While yours look good from the scan, I'd look them over closely under magnification and see if you pick up any white. If not, I can only suggest try again. It's also not uncommon to have such potential troublesome border issues looked at differently by a different grader (I've bumped 71s from 6s to 8s; similar border and corner issues but dealing with four corners instead of two on that issue).
2. Also I think submitting a relatively large number of clean vintage stars can raise suspicion in the mind of a grader: "why weren't these already graded and how come there are so many of them? Must be something wrong with them." While that may not always be the case, in today's environment of grading, we've all become even more sensitive to alterations and, as a consequence, perhaps err on the side of believing there might be an issue. Personally, and I am sure many feel the same way, I'd have serious concerns about buying any raw high priced card. Of course, I am not saying your cards are trimmed, I'm merely setting out a potential thought process of a third party.
3. Note as well the grader has no knowledge of the history of the cards or what their prior grades were. It is therefore perhaps not entirely fair to assess the situation possessing superior information.
4. Grading remains highly subjective. There will be variants. All things considered, for those cards that graded you seemed to be within the range of reason-- a few bumped, a few declined and a few stayed the same. All told, seems to be a tolerable baseline.
5. Still on the subjective component, set aside 20 of your own cards. Grade them yourself and write the grades down. Wait six months and do it again. I'm willing to bet you will have discrepancies.
6. Cracking and resubmitting to me is high risk/high reward. I believe you have a better shot bumping from a crack compared to a review. However you risk exactly what happened to you-- altered and minimum size requirement rejections. Note however that you can get such rejections yet find those same cards in a holder on a different submission. Again, subjective. I would definitely resub those that did not make a holder but spread them out over different submissions.
Good luck!
Matt
I wonder about the undersize thing.
I have 2 Ripken rookies returned that are slightly smaller - it's right at 1/32" - which I thought was within tolerance?
Am I wrong.
I don't see how min size req is subjective. I completely understand a grade changing from 7 to a 6 ect... But a size req is quantitative not subjective. I would contact someone sr in customer service and see what your options are.
Interesting observation. I can however only conclude it is considering I, like others, have had the same card graded and receiving that dreaded tag. Case in point on one of my travels is a 1978 Ray Fosse card. Nothing exciting or major about it beside it's low 10 pop at the time I submitted it. It's path for me:
1. Initially submitted a 9.
2. Cracked and resubmitted a no grade due to minimum size requirement.
3. Submitted again and now back in a 9 holder.
I think one of three things are happening:
1. Cards are not consistently measured each submission.
2. Cards are only measured if an eye ball test raises suspicion.
3. Cards are measured but may present borderline calls (older cards with poor cutting technology leads to naturally wavy borders). That could make a judgment call come into play as to whether or not that particular issue would have a card that size from a pack.
Honestly I believe option 2 is most likely as I don't think it would be efficient or practical to take the time and energy to carefully measure every single card. Higher dollar cards I can see being more heavily scrutinized. And when those cards are, I do think subjective factors come in to play.
In the end I really don't know. Just making my educated guess. I do however believe there is, and by necessity has to be, much subjective opinion applied.
Matt
I don't see why people put so much stock in grading,except 10s low pop and tough to grade items,when there's no consistency. Just my opinion.
The benefit of grading is supposed to be in having an agreed upon 3rd party make the conclusion.
There is no consistency with Raw cards stated conditions, because those involve in the transaction will be looking out for there own best interests. Which is an even worse situation.
The best analogy is the use of an appraiser for Real Estate transactions.
Commissions
Check out my Facebook page
You submit enough cards in holders for review you get a bump that either just pays for the sub, or puts you slightly ahead. Everyone wins, PSA gets paid to look at cards already graded.
You submit crackouts, a number will come back higher, some lower and a few will not get a grade. You will sub the min size again and most will end up in holders, some at higher grades, some lower. You will be even, a little behind or slightly ahead. PSA gets to take grading fee's on cards that were already graded, sometimes multiple times. Advantage PSA.
On the odd occasion, you hit it big (see the Ryan that went from a 9 to a 10). For this reason, people will always be willing to take the risk of cracking and subbing or sending in reviews.
The system is inherently inconsistent, with one constant - PSA always wins. The inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
as for using your cc voucher, you will still have 4 credits on your account. when you submit the 4 cards next time , write , 4/15 ungraded from submission #XXXXX, voucher #XXXXXX (not sure if you need the voucher number but if you have it , you should include it)
Is it just me or are more people receiving the MINSIZERQ on their subs lately??
nope, i have several that have been coming back lately. one in particular is a 68 ryan that is a beauty and has been sent back 4 times now as minsizerq. it's almost like they are invisibly marking them!
I just had a sub with 25% coming back as MINSIZERQ (granted it was only 4 cards, so one MIN!). It measured up similar to the Ripken rookie above (ie within the prescribed parameters). As for the 'keep resubbing until you get it slabbed' approach, my pockets are not deep enough to play that game. I'll just have to sell the card ungraded.
I didn't think there was a charge for MINSIZE, at least I didn't get charged for one on my last sub.
I don't see how min size req is subjective. I completely understand a grade changing from 7 to a 6 ect... But a size req is quantitative not subjective. I would contact someone sr in customer service and see what your options are.
i agree with this - if you've got the prior scans, i would contact someone and find out what options you've got
i do think there's been an increase in the min size req lately, but without stats from PSA it can't be proven or quantified
i also think the midsize should be quantitative, although i would also say that especially in the 50s, the size in a given set can be all over the place, so not sure how they ultimately decide exactly where the min resides
saucywombat@hotmail.com
As for the cards that received numerical grades, I actually think there was pretty good consistency on those at least. When I submit to PSA, I generally try to go in with a reasonable expectation of a range of outcomes. I think it is impossible to look at grading as anything other than an attempt to standardize a subjective measurement. How much should I deduct for this soft corner? How much does the perfect centering elevate the grade of the card? Does this print defect deserve a qualifier or not? These are some of the subjective questions a grader has to ask themselves. There are guidelines to try to minimize inter grader and even intra grader differences but in the end there is subjectivity that is impossible to eliminate with human graders. All of the grades are within one grade up or down of the original grades received. We have all heard that some 7's look like 8's and some 6's look like 7's and so on. Well, the 6's and 7's you received could easily be in 7 and 8 holders. Just as easily the 9 you got could probably be an 8 or 8.5. Those are reasonable outcomes in my opinion and within normal standard deviations of subjective grading.
As for the Min Size, I don't see how that happens on so many of your cards. This should seem like one of the least subjective parts of grading as it should involve just a measurement of the card. I would definitely re sub all of those and no, you should not have to eat those fees. It should only cost you the amount of shipping so keep subbing until they get number grades. Good luck!
They love to hit you with min siz req on vintage stars. If you re-submit good chance they'll come back holdered.
I'm right at 20-25% on Min Size Req on cards I sent this year. Some cracked some raw,I've sent about 30 or so. Has anyone sent the Min Size Req cards to SGC for a regrade?
They love to hit you with min siz req on vintage stars. If you re-submit good chance they'll come back holdered.
I'm right at 20-25% on Min Size Req on cards I sent this year. Some cracked some raw,I've sent about 30 or so. Has anyone sent the Min Size Req cards to SGC for a regrade?
We're not even talking about Evidence of Trim.
I did six 1954 Hockey in August. Three were raw purchases, two were SGC 7.5 crack-outs and one KSA 8 crack-out. One of the raw came back a 7 and the rest were all Evidence of Trim. The raw card that graded was the one I was most concerned with as it was possibly the smallest of the group. When they came back, I compared them to two raw extras: one that I am confident was trimmed that I keep as an exemplar; and a vg-ex raw card that clearly is not trimmed. I could not determine any tell-tale signs of trimming (smoothness, bright/white, or cut pressure signs on any corners). I will send them back in at some point.
On my first submission several years ago, I had included abut a dozen of this set for grading and about 5 came back EOT. Two I agreed with as they were short both height and width (I hadn't even thought about measuring or comparing the cards. I just knew they had nice corners. A newbie mistake.). I included the other three in my next sub and they all graded.
They love to hit you with min siz req on vintage stars. If you re-submit good chance they'll come back holdered.
I'm right at 20-25% on Min Size Req on cards I sent this year. Some cracked some raw,I've sent about 30 or so. Has anyone sent the Min Size Req cards to SGC for a regrade?
Yes. I've had success with MSQ PSA grading out at SGC. I even had a very undersized '75 mini get holdered by SGC. Depending on the value of the card, I'll usually send a MSQ back for another opinion at PSA before going elsewhere.
Here's the mini:
i think this will be my next move.One more shot at PSA slabs, then on to SGC
Watching the ALCS last night and that questionable strike two call on Revere always makes one wonder if there should be a system in place in which the ump doesn't call balls and strikes, and instead technology does it for him. In the same way, PSA could use technology to more accurately grade cards and take the element of human error out of the equation. Is that preferable to the way things are done now?
What a terrible call. Maybe give the managers a challenge to review a strike per game? IDK.
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.
Watching the ALCS last night and that questionable strike two call on Revere always makes one wonder if there should be a system in place in which the ump doesn't call balls and strikes, and instead technology does it for him. In the same way, PSA could use technology to more accurately grade cards and take the element of human error out of the equation. Is that preferable to the way things are done now?
Livan Hernandez does not like this idea.
Tim: Look at the left ledge of that Fingers Mini. It shows evidence of being a "cut card case" Mini (i.e., it has a similar cut to that of 1976 Topps Baseball cards that come from a cut card case). The Fingers Mini of this type is quite often found on eBay.
That Fingers seems shorter than even a card from a cut card case, though. Possibly a trimmed cut case card?
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 75 mini Fingers card is trimmed. That color combo does not come out of the pack undersized.
I don't think it was trimmed. I picked up about 100 of the Fingers, and I believe they were from vending or direct from Topps. I still have some that are slightly shorter, but not as bad as the one previously shown.