PSA grade head scratcher

[LKeeler]

Hey guys, needed some advice concerning a recent PSA submission, and mainly when and if I need to ask them what happened. I had a E92 Wagner SGC 4 Wagner Throwing. I am putting together a PSA graded set and wanted the Wags as PSA so cracked it out of the SGC slab. This is no big deal as I do it all of the time as the SGC cases are extremely easy to get the card out of safely. So I extract the card safely, inspect it, and know for a fact that it is wrinkle/crease free and is a solid 4. Off the card goes to PSA, Super Express service. The card gets graded, and is posted as a 2. Now I know about the grading game and it is often like Russian Roulette and "player beware", but I have to assume that something happened to the card to turn into a 2. So my question is, do I call PSA now and figure out WTH, or wait until the card arrives and see for myself? :confused: I have attached a scan of the card. Thanks!

[KCRfan1]

You're right, it is Russian Roulette. There is human element involved in grading and in the PSA graders eye, the card graded a 2. A grade by one company does not mean you get the same grade from another. Perhaps SGC was generous in the grade to begin with. Are you wanting another 4 or would you be happy with a 3 as you are clearly not happy with the 2. ( I understand grading and reselling and how grading affects the value ) Why not crack and resub to try to get the desired grade? I know many on the board here will much to say about your cross over grade. as this subject has been beaten to death.

[the 'stache]

Luke, I would contact them immediately, and get an explanation as to why the grade is so much lower than you anticipated.

If those front and back scans you've provided with your posts are recent, and indicative of the card's quality prior to submission (and you know for a fact that you did not damage the card by removing it, or placing it into the card saver you used to ship it), then I hate to say it, but it's highly possible that somebody at PSA mishandled the card, and you should be due a cash credit to compensate for the loss of value. The only other explanation is that the card somehow shifted en route.

Did you happen to re-scan the card again after cracking it?

I'm so sorry this happened to you. It's a beautiful card, and no amount of cash is going to make up for the damage that might have been done. But make sure to get satisfaction, and let us know what happens.

Good luck!

Bill

[LKeeler]

You're right, it is Russian Roulette. There is human element involved in grading and in the PSA graders eye, the card graded a 2. Perhaps SGC was generous in the grade to begin with. Why not crack and resub to try to get the desired grade? I know many on the board here will much to say about your cross over grade. as this subject has been beaten to death.

Thanks Lou. You are right. My biggest question I guess is if it got damaged "in the shop" so to speak, when is the best time to address it: when they still have it, or when it gets returned? I would assume that if this was the case I would have been notified, or would I just get a creased, graded card returned?

[LKeeler]

Thanks Bill. The only scan was before I cracked. I didn't take one afterwards because the scanner at work probably hasn't been cleaned in 10 years! Yes, perhaps it did shift during it's travels but I am pretty confident that my packaging was up to snuff. Will keep you posted.

[the 'stache]

You're right, it is Russian Roulette. There is human element involved in grading and in the PSA graders eye, the card graded a 2. Perhaps SGC was generous in the grade to begin with. Why not crack and resub to try to get the desired grade? I know many on the board here will much to say about your cross over grade. as this subject has been beaten to death.

I tend to agree with you, Lou, but I really want to know what the principal reason for the lower grade is. A 2 is indicative they're seeing some kind of damage to the card that I just don't see in the scan. I've been checking it out in Photoshop, and I see nothing that would warrant that kind of a grade (again, operating under the assumption that what we are seeing accurately represents the current condition of the card @ PSA)

http://imageshack.com/a/img812/6406/6eso.pnghttp://imageshack.com/a/img20/5590/hdb5.png

I see no creases or wrinkles, no paper loss, nothing in my comparatively limited experience with pre-war card grading that could justify this grade.

[the 'stache]

Thanks Bill. The only scan was before I cracked. I didn't take one afterwards because the scanner at work probably hasn't been cleaned in 10 years! Yes, perhaps it did shift during it's travels but I am pretty confident that my packaging was up to snuff. Will keep you posted.

I'm saying a little prayer for ya, Luke. Here's hoping there's a simple explanation, that they goofed, and your card is ok. :)

[LKeeler]

I'm saying a little prayer for ya, Luke. Here's hoping there's a simple explanation, that they goofed, and your card is ok. :)

I hope so too, Bill. The photoshop images that you did were pretty cool, thanks!

[Moonlight Graham]

Luke, I know you wanted the whole set to be PSA graded, but I have to ask: why didn't you just send it in the SGC slab and go for a crossover? I know PSA may not have given it to you but then at the very least you would have been stuck with that beautiful 4 in a SGC slab, which, in my opinion looks really sharp. But I am sorry that it didn't work out for you and hopefully no damage was done to your card.
Joe

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I feel for you but this one of the risks of rolling the dice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LKeeler]

Luke, I know you wanted the whole set to be PSA graded, but I have to ask: why didn't you just send it in the SGC slab and go for a crossover? I know PSA may not have given it to you but then at the very least you would have been stuck with that beautiful 4 in a SGC slab, which, in my opinion looks really sharp. But I am sorry that it didn't work out for you and hopefully no damage was done to your card.
Joe

Hi Joe. Yep, you are right. I typically send them in slabbed for a crossover, and the one time I didn't (on a high dollar card), BOOM! Right in the kisser. I was just certain it would come back at least a 4 as all my other Dockmans came back higher grade from PSA than when they left SGC (now I am really sounding like a Russian Roulette player!) Not to bring up a different debate on the board :-) but every time I have sent in a slabbed card to a different grader for a crossover, that grader wants to be "tough" and "the more stricter company" and the minimum grade (always the existing grade in place) is never met; as if they were wanting to prove a point. That just further makes the grading game frustrating, but at least it makes for constant conversation!

[T206Collector]

Every time I have sent in a slabbed card to a different grader for a crossover, that grader wants to be "tough" and "the more stricter company" and the minimum grade (always the existing grade in place) is never met; as if they were wanting to prove a point.

My experience has been just the opposite with respect to PSA -> SGC crossovers. Some of my best PSA 4s have become SGC 60s. I never crack them out for just the reason you are experiencing in this case.

PSA and SGC grade caramels very differently, in my opinion. I suspect the PSA grader saw something like minor chipping or paper loss that the SGC folks recognize is typical of E92s and don't treat as strictly.

[Sean1125]

I always review 2-3 times in the current holder before cracking. When stuff like this happens cost still ends up being roughly the same.

[sycks22]

If you call up or e-mail PSA they won't give you an explanation on why the card didn't cross or why it got a 2. I've tried numerous times and they keep telling me that's now how they do business.

[ullmandds]

Bummer...definitely a head scratcher to me?! PSA just wants more of your money...that's all!

[jhs5120]

I don't think there was any damaged caused in transit or cracking. In my experience PSA is very strict on diamond cut/miscut cards, while SGC seems very lenient. I agree it isn't a "2", but I'm not surprised PSA docked you a couple points for it. I had an E92 with a similar cut get rejected by PSA 3 times before they eventually slabbed it.

It's a crap shoot.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I don't think there was any damaged caused in transit or cracking. In my experience PSA is very strict on diamond cut/miscut cards, while SGC seems very lenient. I agree it isn't a "2", but I'm not surprised PSA docked you a couple points for it. I had an E92 with a similar cut get rejected by PSA 3 times before they eventually slabbed it.



It's a crap shoot.


Sounds like you should just resubmit the card a few times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ullmandds]

[QUOTE=I Only Smoke 4 the Cards;1243241]Sounds like you should just resubmit the card a few times.


Pretty much!!! If you're going to participate in the "game"...what choice do you have but to keep playing!

[LKeeler]

Thanks guys! I agree totally. I hate to fudge up the pop reports, but I guess I will continue to play the game :D

[frankbmd]

Thanks guys! I agree totally. I hate to fudge up the pop reports, but I guess I will continue to play the game :D

You crack the card out of one holder and then state that you hate to fudge up the pop reports. Can you spell hypocrisy? Have you told the guy with the SGC 40 Wagner that your SGC 50 copy no longer exists? I doubt it.

[ullmandds]

Don't make Frank mad...you won't like Frank when he's mad!

[LKeeler]

[Don't make Frank mad...you won't like Frank when he's mad!r exists and ask if they would make the correct update. To me that seems more than fair, but I may be wrong.


+1

[E93]

I would call/email Joe Orlando with the attached scans ask if something happened to the card because a PSA 2 does not make sense - looks like a borderline 5.
JimB

[scotgreb]

Luke -

Not sure how you prepared the submission but if you specified "no qualifiers" and PSA deemed there to be a mark -- your PSA 2 might have really been a PSA 4(MK). Just a thought.

Scott

[LKeeler]

I would call/email Joe Orlando with the attached scans ask if something happened to the card because a PSA 2 does not make sense - looks like a borderline 5.
JimB

Thanks Jim. That's the gist of what I was wondering!

[LKeeler]

Luke -

Not sure how you prepared the submission but if you specified "no qualifiers" and PSA deemed there to be a mark -- your PSA 2 might have really been a PSA 4(MK). Just a thought.

Scott

Thanks Scott. You have a point. Never thought of that.

[Jason]

Luke -

Not sure how you prepared the submission but if you specified "no qualifiers" and PSA deemed there to be a mark -- your PSA 2 might have really been a PSA 4(MK). Just a thought.

Scott

I agree with this statement.There is what appears to be stray ink on the back in the left margin.

[LKeeler]

I agree with this statement.There is what appears to be stray ink on the back in the left margin.

Thanks Jason. Yeah, I thought that it was perhaps some bleeding through from the front, but perhaps it is stray ink that is considered a qualification. Hmmm

[Jason]

Thanks Jason. Yeah, I thought that it was perhaps some bleeding through from the front, but perhaps it is stray ink that is considered a qualification. Hmmm

It's still a beauty of a card and deserving of a higher grade.These graders can be fickle at times.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I think it's a speck of paperloss on the back in the word "Manufactured." The "M" is not complete. Blow up the scan and then look at it. You'll see what I am talking about.

[egbeachley]

all my other Dockmans came back higher grade from PSA than when they left SGC

When you call about this card and ask for compensation you must also demand why the others graded higher and give them back some cash in return.

[LKeeler]

When you call about this card and ask for compensation you must also demand why the others graded higher and give them back some cash in return.

Yeah David, I think you may be right. Sure appreciate all the opinions. Definitely appreciate all of the insight!

[ullmandds]

Wow...PSA usually doesn't see paper loss...let alone that small? MAybe they got their graders' eyes checked for x-mas this year?

[bnorth]

When you call about this card and ask for compensation you must also demand why the others graded higher and give them back some cash in return.

LOL Best post in the whole thread.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

When you call about this card and ask for compensation you must also demand why the others graded higher and give them back some cash in return.


This is almost funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

Pretty nice 2

[scottglevy]

Perhaps just slightly off topic....but had a most unusual experience with PSA recently. A card that my dad and I sent to them (incidentally a T206 Tolstoi Cy Young) was listed in their grading report as Evid Trim.

Some cards are borderline instances but there is NO WAY that this card was trimmed. My dad called them immediately and asked for them to provide a more detailed explanation for their grading opinion before sending the card back (e.g. where was it trimmed, etc).

PSA agreed to do so and in their evaluation changed their grade to 4.5. I have to say that I'm really impressed by the willingness to admit they made a mistake and then rectify it.

[Bridwell]

I've had 3 situations where a nice card with no creases came back as a PSA 2. All three times it turned out there was a small amount of glue residue on the back. If you can feel the glue residue, or see a shiny area on the back then that is your problem. It is likely to keep coming back as a PSA 2 if re-submitted.

Once I got lucky and was able to wet the card and rub off the residue. The card came back as a PSA 6.

[LKeeler]

Luke -

Not sure how you prepared the submission but if you specified "no qualifiers" and PSA deemed there to be a mark -- your PSA 2 might have really been a PSA 4(MK). Just a thought.

Scott

Ding, ding, ding. This appears to be the winning answer! PSA was very quick in responding to my inquiry so kudos to good customer service.

[glchen]

Ding, ding, ding. This appears to be the winning answer! PSA was very quick in responding to my inquiry so kudos to good customer service.

I thought that marks on cards were qualifiers that could not be removed from the flip for PSA.

[scotgreb]

What did I win? ;)

Gary - you can always request no qualifiers -- after that, I'm not sure the specifics of PSA's procedures. I believe that it is generally a 2-point downgrade for mid and higher grade cards -- although I'm not sure it applies to 9s and 10s. Lower grade (PSA 3 and below) I believe it is a 1-point downgrade.

Scott

[vintagetoppsguy]

I thought that marks on cards were qualifiers that could not be removed from the flip for PSA.

That was my understanding as well. I think there is some confustion between PSA and Luke.

Besides, what appears to be a mark (at least what I'm looking at) is just a WST and I've never seen one of those get a MK qualifier anyway.

[MattyC]

You can request no qualifiers when you submit.

If the card then has what they deem a qualifier, there will be a point deduction, in lieu of MK, ST, OC, etc.

[j_cook]

I just think PSA is very strict in general when it comes to their grades compared with other companies. I guess it is why people tend to pay top dollar for PSA graded cards, but it can be frustrating sometimes when sending raw cards in to be graded yourself.

[ullmandds]

i just think psa is very strict in general when it comes to their grades compared with other companies. I guess it is why people tend to pay top dollar for psa graded cards, but it can be frustrating sometimes when sending raw cards in to be graded yourself.


really?

[slipk1068]

I just think PSA is very strict in general when it comes to their grades compared with other companies. I guess it is why people tend to pay top dollar for PSA graded cards, but it can be frustrating sometimes when sending raw cards in to be graded yourself.

Hmmmmm

[ValKehl]

I just think PSA is very strict in general when it comes to their grades compared with other companies. I guess it is why people tend to pay top dollar for PSA graded cards, but it can be frustrating sometimes when sending raw cards in to be graded yourself.

You're kidding, right?!

[bn2cardz]

I just think PSA is very strict in general when it comes to their grades compared with other companies. I guess it is why people tend to pay top dollar for PSA graded cards, but it can be frustrating sometimes when sending raw cards in to be graded yourself.

You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=183625&highlight=NAMES

[freakhappy]

You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=183625&highlight=NAMES

Do you think his name is needed? Unless I'm missing something...

[bn2cardz]

Do you think his name is needed? Unless I'm missing something...

Yes. He is giving his opinion of a business.


"If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post."
.

[1880nonsports]

I just think PSA is very strict in general when it comes to their grades compared with other companies. I guess it is why people tend to pay top dollar for PSA graded cards, but it can be frustrating sometimes when sending raw cards in to be graded yourself.

certainly not my feeling on many levels - but we are each entitled to an opinion here. I am aware that a segment of the collecting community will pay more for a PSA graded card in many categories - I don't think it's because PSA is "very strict". If collecting graded cards - allign yourself with the one whose grading standards - perhaps more appropriately parameters - most closely mirror your own. Frustration is easy to understand where you talk about sending raw cards to be graded yourself. If it's because you don't feel accomplished at grading your cards that's one thing - it comes with experience and is never a science and always open to interpretation. Grading is just an application of terms to describe the degrees to which a card deviates from that of a perfect example. All of the grading companies have a different system and do differing amounts of due diligence. The problem with cards and paper in general is that often there are flaws not easily discernible with a casual glance or even a loupe. The problem can be compounded because the major companies don't specifically address to the consumer what caused the grade they are given. One can factor in obvious faults and cross-reference with the company "standards" things like creases, tilt, corner wear, stains, and centering but the onus still falls on the consumer. For me - I prefer to purchase my cards in person whether graded or raw. It's not always possible so in the cyberverse I am more comfortable buying a card already graded than raw - something one can expect to have to pay a bit more for - as they risk has already been executed by the seller. I am suspending for the moment issues like WHO is making the submissions and the level of redress they have with the grading company as well as the percentage of "mistakes". I'm just a little guy and I have to believe the big guys get better attention. I continue to collect graded and raw cards depending on the set and my grader of choice up to this point has been SGC...........

no guarantees whether written or implied
henr.y moses

[freakhappy]

I hear what you're saying, but it is a positive opinion and I could be wrong, but Leon wasn't as harsh on this sort of stuff. IMO if this merits a full name, then pretty much everything does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LKeeler]

That was my understanding as well. I think there is some confustion between PSA and Luke.

Besides, what appears to be a mark (at least what I'm looking at) is just a WST and I've never seen one of those get a MK qualifier anyway.

David, you may be right. I probably am confused as this is new to me. Here is the email from Michael Viola of PSA in response to my email asking if the marking on the back was what brought my grade to a 2, in addition to how I marked the qualifiers box.

"Everything seems to be pretty accurate with what you stated in your previous e-mail, however on our PSA card submission forms, you have the option to mark “No Qualifiers” but you would not have to notate that you would like “Qualifiers”. With that said, even if you were to have notated “No Qualifiers” on your submission form, we would have graded your cards with a (MK) qualifier for Marks because that is one of the qualifiers that we notate on the label regardless, unlike (OC) for off-center. I hope this makes sense and is of some help to you"

So after re-reading that I am still confused and could use some help. So a mark is going to result in an MK regardless of what I checked pertaining to qualifiers?

[freakhappy]

David, you may be right. I probably am confused as this is new to me. Here is the email from Michael Viola of PSA in response to my email asking if the marking on the back was what brought my grade to a 2, in addition to how I marked the qualifiers box.

"Everything seems to be pretty accurate with what you stated in your previous e-mail, however on our PSA card submission forms, you have the option to mark “No Qualifiers” but you would not have to notate that you would like “Qualifiers”. With that said, even if you were to have notated “No Qualifiers” on your submission form, we would have graded your cards with a (MK) qualifier for Marks because that is one of the qualifiers that we notate on the label regardless, unlike (OC) for off-center. I hope this makes sense and is of some help to you"

So after re-reading that I am still confused and could use some help. So a mark is going to result in an MK regardless of what I checked pertaining to qualifiers?

So if you do not mark anything on your submission form, PSA will grade any card with a qualifier if need be. If you mark "No Qualifiers" on the submission form, PSA will grade the card without using qualifiers and in this case, the mark on the back brings the grade down to a "2"...and nothing higher because of the mark. If you peruse eBay and look at some of the cards with qualifiers, you will notice cards that are PSA 8(OC) and if they didn't include the "OC", the card would probably be around a "6".

The Wagner would have probably received a PSA 4(MK) if you chose to accept a qualifier.

[bn2cardz]

I hear what you're saying, but it is a positive opinion and I could be wrong, but Leon wasn't as harsh on this sort of stuff. IMO if this merits a full name, then pretty much everything does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is the deal. I am tired of reminding members to put their full names by posts where they give opinions...good, bad or indifferent. Later today, and from here on out for the foreseeable future, I will be adding full names per the rules...and when I add them there won't be any going back as they are permanent. If you don't like it, I don't care. If you don't want your full name attached to your opinion of someone or a business, then don't post one. Thanks and happy collecting....


here is the verbiage, at the top of every page, that no one seems to read but will be more enforced from here on out...

"If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post."



.

Hi Chris
I will have to go back over the rules and refine them if they are not clear. The rule is fairly easy though. Just like it says at the top of every page. It doesn't say what kind of opinion on purpose. That is because ANY opinion positive or negative should really have a full name by it. That being said the name rule is enforced much less due to positive remarks than negative ones. The reason it's there is for the mere fact we don't know if the person saying something positive is a shill for whomever they speak of. I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but it isn't. I don't want this place to be sterile either so try not to come down too hard too often. But when I see thread(s) on the main page, with multiple people in each one, giving negative opinions or remarks anonymously, then I have to say something. It's important, imo, to keep the rule in place. I am on a few other boards, which allow anonymity even when bashing, and I think it sucks.

Here is a person giving an opinion about a company and for all we know it could be an employee at PSA that is telling us that PSA is more strict and you get more money for selling their cards.

[freakhappy]

Very true Andy. I guess I'm just used to the way it has been for a while now. It doesn't bother me either way...just seemed like a harmless post, but you bring good points to the table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[glchen]

What did I win? ;)

Gary - you can always request no qualifiers -- after that, I'm not sure the specifics of PSA's procedures. I believe that it is generally a 2-point downgrade for mid and higher grade cards -- although I'm not sure it applies to 9s and 10s. Lower grade (PSA 3 and below) I believe it is a 1-point downgrade.

Scott

You can request no qualifiers when you submit.

If the card then has what they deem a qualifier, there will be a point deduction, in lieu of MK, ST, OC, etc.

No, some qualifiers you can never get rid of, even if you request no qualifiers in your PSA submission. I believe the latest email that Luke shared from PSA confirms this point. You cannot remove MK or MC qualifiers even if you request no qualifers from PSA.

[glchen]

David, you may be right. I probably am confused as this is new to me. Here is the email from Michael Viola of PSA in response to my email asking if the marking on the back was what brought my grade to a 2, in addition to how I marked the qualifiers box.

"Everything seems to be pretty accurate with what you stated in your previous e-mail, however on our PSA card submission forms, you have the option to mark “No Qualifiers” but you would not have to notate that you would like “Qualifiers”. With that said, even if you were to have notated “No Qualifiers” on your submission form, we would have graded your cards with a (MK) qualifier for Marks because that is one of the qualifiers that we notate on the label regardless, unlike (OC) for off-center. I hope this makes sense and is of some help to you"

So after re-reading that I am still confused and could use some help. So a mark is going to result in an MK regardless of what I checked pertaining to qualifiers?

Correct, so PSA is saying that the card was not downgraded by what seemed to be a mark. That is, PSA determined that was not a mark on the card. Of course, they could have downgraded a card if they believed it was a stain, but I don't think it would be downgraded to a 2. My guess is that PSA believed that there was some paper loss on the card. light surface wrinkling that's hard to see in a scan, or this was a misgrade.

[freakhappy]

Correct, so PSA is saying that the card was not downgraded by what seemed to be a mark. That is, PSA determined that was not a mark on the card. Of course, they could have downgraded a card if they believed it was a stain, but I don't think it would be downgraded to a 2. My guess is that PSA believed that there was some paper loss on the card. light surface wrinkling that's hard to see in a scan, or this was a misgrade.

That's interesting...didn't know they include the (MK) qualifier no matter what.

IMO it seems to be a misgrade...a small wrinkle wouldn't kill the grade this bad.

[bn2cardz]

No, some qualifiers you can never get rid of, even if you request no qualifiers in your PSA submission. I believe the latest email that Luke shared from PSA confirms this point. You cannot remove MK or MC qualifiers even if you request no qualifers from PSA.

MC isn't a qualifier that can't be removed according to an email I got asking about the highest grade a card can get with a MC qualifier:

The highest grade a card could get with a miscut is a 9 MC. The “MC” would be labeled appropriately if you choose so.

[scotgreb]

No, some qualifiers you can never get rid of, even if you request no qualifiers in your PSA submission. I believe the latest email that Luke shared from PSA confirms this point. You cannot remove MK or MC qualifiers even if you request no qualifers from PSA.

I'm not one to question PSA's policies but I've had several experiences to the contrary. For example, I have cracked cards with (MK) qualifiers, resubmitted (requesting no qualifiers) and each time they have been returned a grade lower without the qualifier. I have also submitted cards with very obvious writing (again requesting no qualifiers) that were graded without the (MK) notation and a numeric grade (not just as Authentic). Lastly, I have submitted cards with obvious marks that I requested to simply be graded as "Authentic" and PSA did not qualify the "Authentic" grade. Maybe not perfectly contradictory experiences but IMO the policy in question is not strictly followed.

Edited to add that I believe I misspoke on the second example above. I went back and reviewed those instances and in each case the grade was "Authentic" -- supporting what others have said that PSA will not qualify an Authentic grade. Sorry for the confusion.

[JasonD08]

Just resubmit it will probably come back a 5.

[glynparson]

I have NEVER been allowed to get a card to have no qualifier if it had ink or pencil on it when requesting no qualifiers and i have been submitting since 1993. They are not supposed to grade a card without the qualifier for MC or MK and surely they would normally drop it more than 1 grade. Did you remove the mk? otherwise i honestly think you either got lucky or are full of it? Also They do not qualify cards graded authentic. only numerical grades 1 to 9 can receive qualifiers.

[LKeeler]

Thanks again for everyone's input. The card should arrive today, and may be for sale, lol.

[freakhappy]

I have NEVER been allowed to get a card to have no qualifier if it had ink or pencil on it when requesting no qualifiers and i have been submitting since 1993. They are not supposed to grade a card without the qualifier for MC or MK and surely they would normally drop it more than 1 grade. Did you remove the mk? otherwise i honestly think you either got lucky or are full of it? Also They do not qualify cards graded authentic. only numerical grades 1 to 9 can receive qualifiers.


The only thing that matters here is that you've been submitting to PSA since '93....I'm sorry you had to admit that :( I feel your pain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[4815162342]

Here's a little card with a mark and no MK qualifier: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2012/2.html

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2012images/Item_21653_1.jpghttp://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2012images/Item_21653_2.jpg

[j_cook]

Here is a person giving an opinion about a company and for all we know it could be an employee at PSA that is telling us that PSA is more strict and you get more money for selling their cards.

I most certainly don't work for PSA. My post was based on my personal experience, which I suppose could be considered a small sample size. I'll keep the "opinion of companies" thing in mind for future posts, though.

[Il Padrino]

The only thing that matters here is that you've been submitting to PSA since '93....I'm sorry you had to admit that :( I feel your pain



I'm just curious as to why that would matter at all?

Each card should stand on its own despite how many cards you have sent in previously and/or if you've ever sent in a single card prior to. If you are implying otherwise then that conveys a message that goes against the very reason for grading... "hey good customer, we'll bump all your grades...".

[glchen]

I'm just curious as to why that would matter at all?

Each card should stand on its own despite how many cards you have sent in previously and/or if you've ever sent in a single card prior to. If you are implying otherwise then that conveys a message that goes against the very reason for grading... "hey good customer, we'll bump all your grades...".

The point he is making is that he has been submitting cards to PSA for a very long time, and their entire policy during that time was to put the MK qualifier on the flip regardless of whether the submission was specified as "No qualifiers." Obviously, PSA has made mistakes in forgetting the qualifier like in the Wagner in the above post, but my correspondence w/ PSA has also been that they are always SUPPOSED to use the MK or MC qualifier if the card has these attributes.

[jchcollins]

Wagner card in the above post (while pretty nice in terms of color and otherwise) also appears to be MC on the bottom.

[ls7plus]

Luke, I would contact them immediately, and get an explanation as to why the grade is so much lower than you anticipated.

If those front and back scans you've provided with your posts are recent, and indicative of the card's quality prior to submission (and you know for a fact that you did not damage the card by removing it, or placing it into the card saver you used to ship it), then I hate to say it, but it's highly possible that somebody at PSA mishandled the card, and you should be due a cash credit to compensate for the loss of value. The only other explanation is that the card somehow shifted en route.

Did you happen to re-scan the card again after cracking it?

I'm so sorry this happened to you. It's a beautiful card, and no amount of cash is going to make up for the damage that might have been done. But make sure to get satisfaction, and let us know what happens.

Good luck!

Bill

You're right on re the damage, Bill. Back in the late '90's, I submitted what was clearly a NrMt or MrMt-Mt '70 Topps Reggie Jackson to PSA, and it came back as a "5," presumably due to a dinged corner which it most definitively did not have when I mailed it off.

Regards,

Larry

[glynparson]

they made an exception for Honus, should they no but they often do. just like many wagners are a grade higher than they really should be.I have seen some really ugly psa 2s. Every rule has an exception which proves the rules, lol. You can not opt out of mk for pen or pencil they even stated that on the email. you also can not opt out of MC. If a card is both mc and mk they will either return no charge unholdered or give it a 1 mk from what i was told. I have submitted 10 thousand+ cards to PSA i do not just pull my responses from my rear end.
Not sure where you got some implication of better grades il Padrino whomever you are, but i was implying i probably understand their protocol more than someone who has rarely or never dealt with them. Your response was asinine. Plus in 22 years i have asked them many questions and already received many answers a newbie would not know. Your implication was both insulting and ignorant.
Leon his name should be in the post.

[Bliggity]

Not sure where you got some implication of better grades il Padrino whomever you are, but i was implying i probably understand their protocol more than someone who has rarely or never dealt with them. Your response was asinine. Plus in 22 years i have asked them many questions and already received many answers a newbie would not know. Your implication was both insulting and ignorant.
Leon his name should be in the post.

Nothing like getting mad at a post from 21 months ago :rolleyes:

[glynparson]

do you have a time machine so i can go back and see it earlier?

[the 'stache]

You're right on re the damage, Bill. Back in the late '90's, I submitted what was clearly a NrMt or MrMt-Mt '70 Topps Reggie Jackson to PSA, and it came back as a "5," presumably due to a dinged corner which it most definitively did not have when I mailed it off.

Regards,

Larry

I'm really sorry that happened, Larry. That's the kind of horror story that has me paranoid about sending my cards in for grading. You can take every precaution imaginable in packaging and shipping the card. But you can't control for the person(s) on the other end, and no matter what their credentials or experience may be in handling cards, it only takes one lapse in concentration to ruin your prized possession.

Having seen some of the spectacular (and rare) examples you all have in your collections, it's clear there are cards for which there is no replacement. You might get the monetary value of the card, but some cards are priceless. And when you consider how these beauties have managed to make it a century, or a century and a half without any major damage, that's frightening and sad.

[Leon]

do you have a time machine so i can go back and see it earlier?

I have answered questions that were probably 10 yrs old before :). I prefer to start new threads but old ones pop up after 14 yrs.....his name is Danie.l Elsas.s per the rules