Grading Service Level Confusion - Value?

[scomeau]

Why is speed of turn-around tied to a maximum card value???

Actually, I'm not confused. But am I the only one who thinks that Service Level should imply turn-around time and not be linked to an estimated value? After all, I'm not the grader, they are!

I mean, I get it. The 'top 2' graders want a piece of the pie, but it is a pretty circular concept! "I want to learn the condition/authenticity in order to know an appropriate value, but I have to make a SWAG grade/value first." I think the 2 must be independent.

I have no problem paying a fair price for the grading service, but that cost should be identical regardless of the card's value. If that is not so, then I can only think that less care is taken with my less noteworthy items, and that's not what I want.

I also have no problem paying a premium for quick turn-around. But tying one to the other is simply a way for the grader sharing in the value of my collection. That may be good for them, but not for me.

At least one grader, BVG, recognizes that Service Level and speed are independent.

As long as the grading company (Beckett or other) performs a professional level grading service with reasonable dependability, why in the world would I go elsewhere? Because I can sell a card for more if it comes from the big guy? It seems to me that if there is a fairly consistent perception that one company grades 'easier', then the market will take the grade number into account and factor it appropriately for sales.

Oh, and the 'top 2' have never answered my submitted questions asking for advice as to how to 'estimate'. If I understate my estimate, I fear that my 3.5 might become a 3 if it was a close call. If I overstate, then I waste money (like an altered card that I can't see). If I guess my 1955 Clemente is a 6 as opposed to a 5, then I pay a huge premium. Sounds a little like buying a good grade...

What do you think?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

A big part of the reason for more expensive service for more expensive cards is the grader's liability while in possession of said cards. If they lose or damage your t206 Wagner or 1952 Topps Mantle they're on the hook for a little bit more than if they lost or damaged your Wade Boggs Rookie.

As for your thoughts about trying to estimate the grade to declare a value, I feel a LOT of people make this mistake, and some people even think that their estimate affects the final grade they receive.

In my experience this has no basis in fact. My declared value always reflects what I would need to be made whole if the cards were lost or damaged in transit and in no way reflect the value I hope to achieve after grading. I have never felt this has negatively impacted the grades I have received and often my declared value has been several multiples lower than the value for the grade eventually received.

[swarmee]

You seem to have an axe to grind, and the rules of the board require you to post your name any time you post an opinion about a person, company, or product.

[swarmee]

And Aquarian is correct, the "value" of the card is based on replacing an equivalent raw card in the same condition, not predicting which grade you're going to get and then submitting for the service level that way. In the case that you submit a 1986 Fleer Michael Jordan to PSA and they assign it a 10, they'll contact you to upgrade the service level to cover the additional insurance needed to have it inside their facility.

[steve B]

As long as your assigned value is within reason I doubt there'd be a problem.

I wondered some of the same things when I went to send in the first few cards I got graded. I thought they were pretty nice, and didn't know if I should put the value of what I thought they'd come back as or some other value.

The SGC guy took a quick look and said "mid grade T206s put them down at 100 each. " The grades were all over the place, one didn't grade being cut too roughly the rest were between 40 and 84.

So the valuing isn't an exact thing. But if you're obviously way off, they'll probably ask for more. My in person ones I had done later were like that but also pretty easy. There was a limit for the "at the show" price, and two of the cards were easily over it. When they told me the prices they just said "we can't do these for the show special since they're worth more" Ok then, how much? They gave me a very reasonable price and I had them done. (Might have been so reasonable since the other seven were extremely easy as were the two more expensive cards. And I didn't pretend I didn't know the two better cards were over the limit.)

Steve B

[scomeau]

Swarmee,

Thanks for your reply. My name is Steve Comeau. I am a collector and I have been frustrated to have received no response to my questions to grading companies regarding their policies if estimates are out of line. I do not feel that I have been cheated, but I do feel upset when I get a 'A' on a card I thought was fine and I have estimated a fair value. If I could spot all alterations, I would avoid such a problem, but I can't.

I still fail to see the connection between turn-around time and card value. I would rather pay a fair price for their expertise without the confusion with turn-around.

Thanks again

[scomeau]

Thanks Scott. I see what you mean, but I don't get the sense that there is any warrantee implied by estimating a value. Maybe the graders do there best to help customers when a problem occurs, but I don't see where they have any such commitment.

Good to know your experience of graded value to your investment is positive. As a collector, I don't know that would always be true. I try to do my best, but I usually pay close to fair retail pricing.

Thanks again, for your thoughtful response.

[swarmee]

I can see how that would be frustrating. But anyone who sends in an altered card (trimmed, recolored, etc) should expect it to be returned as Authentic, rather than given a number grade, no matter what they paid for the service. That's what 3rd party grading services do. And expecting higher grades for higher service levels seems like a fool's errand to me. If I'm sending cards in, I'll try to get as many cleared under the $99 and lower price $6/card bulk service special as I can. The other ones I use my annual renewal vouchers.

PSA and SGC charge higher prices for higher valued cards because of the insurance both at their facility and through the mail back to you. And they figure if you send in a $2000 card, you want it done quicker than a $25 card.

[scomeau]

Thanks Steve. I had a pretty positive experience at a show as well. I just feel uncomfortable when submitting without the help of a consult. I also don't know what their remedy might be if my estimate is off.

It stings when I get an 'A' grade on what I thought was a nice card, and I never got a refund for over-estimating.

Some of my stuff was acquired quite a way back when few controls (or concerns, for that matter) were in place.

[scomeau]

Right. I'd never intentionally send in an altered card with a high estimate! I guess some might do that. That's why I'd be pleased to pay a fair price for the grading process irrespective of value.

As for insurances, while in their hands, they should certainly carry adequate coverage as part of the cost of doing business. For shipping, I have always paid the insurance charges when dealing with SGC - either through their coverage or the USPS.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Thanks Steve. I had a pretty positive experience at a show as well. I just feel uncomfortable when submitting without the help of a consult. I also don't know what their remedy might be if my estimate is off.

It stings when I get an 'A' grade on what I thought was a nice card, and I never got a refund for over-estimating.

Some of my stuff was acquired quite a way back when few controls (or concerns, for that matter) were in place.

I know I would be more than happy to help out a regular customer if he had concerns on a card before submitting. If you have a decent dealer that you do business with on a regular basis I'm sure they'd be happy to help. Probably not willing to pregrade 100 cards or something crazy but if you had a couple that needed to be looked at I can't imagine they'd mind. Also if you can submit at a show, SGC might even be willing to do this for you if you have concerns over a higher dollar card, especially if you're throwing them some other business regardless of the outcome.

[ctownboy]

I have some cards that I would like to eventually get graded and I also am having a problem estimating their value. The problem is that these cards are rare (less than 5 known for each one) and they don't come up for sale very often.

What do I do? Guess and hope the grading company and graders have more of an idea of what they are worth or give some sky high value thinking that if the cards are lost or damaged, I am going to have to spend a lot to replace them (if I can find more of them) ?

David

[bnorth]

With PSA I just put what I paid for the cards.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I have some cards that I would like to eventually get graded and I also am having a problem estimating their value. The problem is that these cards are rare (less than 5 known for each one) and they don't come up for sale very often.

What do I do? Guess and hope the grading company and graders have more of an idea of what they are worth or give some sky high value thinking that if the cards are lost or damaged, I am going to have to spend a lot to replace them (if I can find more of them) ?

David

With PSA I just put what I paid for the cards.

The phrase I used in my first response is definitely the plan of attack I use. What would it take to make me whole. That may be twice what I paid for it, it may be exactly what I paid for it. It is simply the amount I would want to be paid if for some reason I didn't get the card(s) back.

[swarmee]

The problem is that these cards are rare (less than 5 known for each one) and they don't come up for sale very often. What do I do?

Meet them at the National on the first day and pay for grading services immediately to get them by the end of the convention? Or fly into California and request walkthough service? If these cards are worth in the thousands each, that's probably what I would do.

[egbeachley]

I don't think it has much to do with insurance value at the facility. At one point PSA said they had no liability for lost cards.

Rather it's the warranty. How much they have to pay if their grading was later determined to be in error.

[Rich Klein]

When I drop off cards at Beckett, the cost for each level of service is the same regardless of the card value. And there are some interesting variants in the value of what I drop off.

[scomeau]

Thanks again Scott. Maybe I'll meet you in White Plains sometime. I occasionally attend.

Ha ha ha I still feel a bit uneasy with Service Levels, but your advice is solid...

[scomeau]

Same thanks to you John. I appreciate you taking the time.

[Leon]

Any company or person can say they aren't liable for something. It doesn't meant they aren't though. :)

I don't think it has much to do with insurance value at the facility. At one point PSA said they had no liability for lost cards.

Rather it's the warranty. How much they have to pay if their grading was later determined to be in error.

[scomeau]

Ha ha

Hello Leon!

[steve B]

Thanks Steve. I had a pretty positive experience at a show as well. I just feel uncomfortable when submitting without the help of a consult. I also don't know what their remedy might be if my estimate is off.

It stings when I get an 'A' grade on what I thought was a nice card, and I never got a refund for over-estimating.

Some of my stuff was acquired quite a way back when few controls (or concerns, for that matter) were in place.

I bought a lot of my stuff decades ago too :D

The estimate is also used for the return insurance.

One of the things to be aware of is how the company handles cards that are actually OK, but have issues that they're not willing to assign a number to.

One of the cards in that first batch is quite nice, but was rejected for the top and bottom cut being too rough. I opted to have rejected cards not slabbed. If I'd had it slabbed It would have simply been an "A" with no explanation. Without, it came back like this.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=5054

I'm a bit surprised they made a flip with MIS, but otherwise would have slabbed as "A" seems to me the MIS would be better, but that's how it was done.

I've had two others rejected, one not making the minimum size, another trimmed -All four edges, which I somehow missed. I'm going with it being the last one I added to make a 10 card special and I didn't look closely enough.

Other hobbies have the same tiered pricing structure, coins have a similar thing with quicker turnaround for more expensive stuff, for stamps the turnaround is basically "we'll send it back when we're done". The stamp guys are seldom wrong. (And I've seen one unofficially authenticate two stamps that I took days on in under a minute. ) The stamp places also are willing to issue a cert saying "we decline to render an opinion" not a really common thing, but it's nice to know they'll admit not knowing for sure and can look again if they get more information. Those certs also list the flaws if any, not necessarily for graded, but the authenticated stuff gets the flaws listed in detail.

I do wish the card graders worked the same way, take their time and get it right and decline if they're not sure. And make clear what the problems were.

Steve B

[scomeau]

Steve B.

I'm a little confused about your Needham card. Does the MIS indicate a factory cut issue or are they saying it was trimmed? Looks like a nice card. If the factory cut is the issue, then 'A' would certainly have been an injustice. While 'A' means authentic, to me, it also implies tampering or some questionable aspect. The 'A' without explanation on the slab is a problem for me.

[swarmee]

On a factory miscut, PSA will either not care and holder with with a number grade, give it an MC designation on a number grade, give it an Authentic if you don't require a 1 as a minimum grade, or send it back to you without charging the grading fee. I had some T121 Sweet Cap WWI scenes returned unslabbed/no charge.
I will probably send them back in to see if they get a grade this time.

[scomeau]

Good input John. I think I always opted for the 'A' slab, but if they wave the charge below 1, that sounds like a smart way to go. Thanks.

If you want a 'cross-over', do you un-slab first or send it in as is? I wonder if it unintentionally impacts their thoughts if it already has a grade.

[swarmee]

A "review" submission is for cards already graded by PSA that you think will bump to the next grade.

A "crossover" submission you send in the other company's slab and they check it in that, and if it meets the minimum grade you request, they will break it out and put it in their slab with their new grade.

A "crackout" submission is where the owner cracks them out of the slabs and submits them raw. Some people think this is the best way to get the best grade, because they're worried that if you send it into PSA in SGC or BVG or GAI that they'll automatically downgrade it (if you request a min grade lower than those companies) or send it back in the original holder if it doesn't meet the grade you request. The crackout is also the most risky, because they card could have a number grade from a different company, and PSA may determine it to be trimmed or factory cut short and then not give it a number grade. One guy on PSA's message board did this with like 15 PSA or other 7 and 8 1950s Hall of Famers and half of them came back marked "MINSIZREQ" which means factory cut short and no longer graded unless they meet the right size for the issue. So he probably lost a few thousand in value. If he sent them in as a review sub, he would at least have kept them in their original grades and maybe got a few bumps.

[frankbmd]

Scenario #1

You have a card that you paid $1000 for, but you think it would be worth more graded. You submit it with a valuation of $1000.

It is returned in an "A" slab or worse (ungraded, not "A") with a new market value of $83.

Scenario #2

You submit a 50 card lot that you paid $1000 for and you submit them with a valuation of $1000.

Three of the cards grade very well and the overall graded value of your submission is now $8300.

It has always been my impression that the valuation you submit serves as ungraded replacement value should something happen at the grading company or in transit (insured value).

These scenarios may be extreme in the real world, but raise the following questions.

If the cards declared valuation impact grading company service level and fees,
are their fees justified in these two scenarios?

In Scenario #1 should the submitter receive a partial refund from the TPG, based on the devaluation of their submission as a result of the grading process?

In Scenarion #2, similarly, should the submitter be charged an additional fee by the TPG, based on the submitter's undervaluation of their submission?

To link valuation to TPG fees assumes that the TPG spends more time grading high value cards. Do they?

If the submitter profits from a beneficial grade above the valuation, is the TPG warranted in claiming a percentage of that gain, either before or after grading?

As previously mentioned, Beckett's service level (i.e.: turn around time) is independent of declared valuation. Whether you are submitting a Mendoza or a Cobb, and want either back in 14 days, makes no difference in their fee.

Obviously the value appreciation potential of grading a Cobb is greater than grading a Mendoza and I suppose this is justification for increased fees for grading Cobbs by SGC and PSA.

Unfortunately no matter what he did, Mendoza could never have a batting average above the Mendoza line.:D

[tschock]

To link valuation to TPG fees assumes that the TPG spends more time grading high value cards. Do they?

Think of it more like women in line to get into a chic night club. The hot ones go to the front of the line and get in faster, while the average ones stay in queue. The hot ones valuation might be higher (as they get a more thorough going over by the eyes of the other guests), but once they're in the door, it doesn't matter to the night club owner. :D

[bnorth]

In Scenario #1 should the submitter receive a partial refund from the TPG, based on the devaluation of their submission as a result of the grading process?

In Scenarion #2, similarly, should the submitter be charged an additional fee by the TPG, based on their undervaluation of their submission?


I have never heard of scenario 1 happening. I have heard of scenario 2 happening several times.

People have this strange idea that grading companies are here to help the card collecting hobby.LOL They are here to make cash and lots of it, it is their one and only goal, as it should be.

[frankbmd]

Think of it more like women in line to get into a chic night club. The hot ones go to the front of the line and get in faster, while the average ones stay in queue. The hot ones valuation might be higher (as they get a more thorough going over by the eyes of the other guests), but once they're in the door, it doesn't matter to the night club owner. :D

Rest assured Taylor, all my chicks are well above the Mendoza line and it isn't even close (as long as I'm sober:eek:).

[scomeau]

Frank,

You bring up some good points. I have certainly had Scenario #1 experiences. I'm sure if I were smarter, I would never have purchased the cards, but the hobby used to be different and I ain't that smaht. We used to buy raw cards all the time.

If you submit the Scenario #1 card low-balling, you're inviting a low grade. It would be nice if the grader was unaware of the submitted service level, but I doubt that, because there's always a time parameter that they have to meet. At least PSA says the cards are submitted anonymously so that 'Big' or 'Small' customers get consistent treatment.

By coupling time and grade estimate, the grading companies are asking us to express our opinion, and while they might not intentionally lean one way or another, human nature is human nature.

I really don't doubt the integrity of the graders, but I know if the card is submitted as a $100 card and it's on the cusp of 6 and 7, as a grader, I would be subconsciously thinking that the submitter would be satisfied with a 6. This is why the have double blind drug studies - honest people are influenced by what they know. We all know the impact of 6 vs 7.

On the other hand, if I was hopeful on it being a 7, and submitted it s a $1,000 card, the grader knows my expectation, and might be similarly influenced to make inadvertent 'allowances'. It a very subjective thing after all.

But this is all simply argumentative, and as far as I know there is no good solution. The flat fee for grading (there could be different price levels for different sets or time periods) would remove most subjective leaning. In my mind, the grader should be taking more time looking at a Mayo Cut Plug Anson than a '33 Lew Fonseca (Sorry Lew).

I guess I'll take the hit and submit it as I see it and hope the best things happen. What's my option?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Frank,

You bring up some good points. I have certainly had Scenario #1 experiences. I'm sure if I were smarter, I would never have purchased the cards, but the hobby used to be different and I ain't that smaht. We used to buy raw cards all the time.

If you submit the Scenario #1 card low-balling, you're inviting a low grade. It would be nice if the grader was unaware of the submitted service level, but I doubt that, because there's always a time parameter that they have to meet. At least PSA says the cards are submitted anonymously so that 'Big' or 'Small' customers get consistent treatment.

By coupling time and grade estimate, the grading companies are asking us to express our opinion, and while they might not intentionally lean one way or another, human nature is human nature.

I really don't doubt the integrity of the graders, but I know if the card is submitted as a $100 card and it's on the cusp of 6 and 7, as a grader, I would be subconsciously thinking that the submitter would be satisfied with a 6. This is why the have double blind drug studies - honest people are influenced by what they know. We all know the impact of 6 vs 7.

On the other hand, if I was hopeful on it being a 7, and submitted it s a $1,000 card, the grader knows my expectation, and might be similarly influenced to make inadvertent 'allowances'. It a very subjective thing after all.

But this is all simply argumentative, and as far as I know there is no good solution. The flat fee for grading (there could be different price levels for different sets or time periods) would remove most subjective leaning. In my mind, the grader should be taking more time looking at a Mayo Cut Plug Anson than a '33 Lew Fonseca (Sorry Lew).

I guess I'll take the hit and submit it as I see it and hope the best things happen. What's my option?

Again, I submit at a level that recompenses me for the card pre-grade. I recently submitted a 1965 Mantle with a $250 valuation and got a NM/MT 8. I really have never noticed a correlation between my estimate and my grade.

[scomeau]

I am reassured that you feel that way. I hope my expertise or luck in my old purchases mirrors your.

[steve B]

Steve B.

I'm a little confused about your Needham card. Does the MIS indicate a factory cut issue or are they saying it was trimmed? Looks like a nice card. If the factory cut is the issue, then 'A' would certainly have been an injustice. While 'A' means authentic, to me, it also implies tampering or some questionable aspect. The 'A' without explanation on the slab is a problem for me.

Miscut in this case is a cut that's not normal, and odd enough that they didn't want to give it a number grade. At the time it bugged me, but over time seeing some altered cards that pass, and seeing genuine but odd cards that pass but are openly criticized as being undersize or whatever the manufacturing flaw is made me realize that some cards while legit would make the grading co look bad to many collectors if they were graded.

Here's a scan of the cut, both top and bottom are factory, but very rough. It's from the blade in the cutter being dull.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=5053

Another that won't grade but is factory. The weird top and bottom cuts are from debris in or under the stack of sheets being cut. Probably a bit of wood, as the sacrificial strip the blade went into was wood back then.
Haven't sent it in, and won't. It has a small crease at the bend, just as it should, but even if it did grade it shouldn't be much over a 30 or 35.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=7029

Steve B

[Leon]

With PSA's new $1200 price tag to grade a high value card I wonder how many of those will be submitted at lower value tiers? Twelve hundred a pop to get a grade that, from my experience is low, to get another $1200 submission, seems like a nice gig. BTW, after reading articles on ethics, even with fiduciary professionals, it is human nature to pick something that monetarily helps you. So giving a low grade to get more submissions is human nature, so it seems.