Is PSA vintage grading coming back to "normal"?

[Tom S.]

I just received my small 11 card lot of 1952 Topps that I sent in under the 1950's special that PSA ran last October. Based on all of the 4 and 5 grades (when I was hoping for 6's) that I got on another batch of similarly conditioned 52T cards that I submitted in the early part of 2023, I really wasn't expecting anything different this time around.

I was really surprised to find out that this batch fared much better:

83952609 1952 TOPPS 15 JOHNNY PESKY BLACK BACK VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4
83952610 1952 TOPPS 85 BOB KUZAVA EXCELLENT-MINT 6
83952611 1952 TOPPS 90 MICKEY GRASSO EXCELLENT-MINT 6
83952612 1952 TOPPS 104 DON KOLLOWAY NEAR MINT 7
83952613 1952 TOPPS 116 CARL SCHEIB NEAR MINT 7
83952614 1952 TOPPS 225 FRANK BAUMHOLTZ EXCELLENT-MINT+ 6.5
83952615 1952 TOPPS 229 GENE BEARDON NEAR MINT-MINT 8
83952616 1952 TOPPS 249 BOBBY ADAMS EXCELLENT-MINT 6
83952617 1952 TOPPS 283 PHIL MASI NEAR MINT 7
83952618 1952 TOPPS 292 FLOYD BAKER NEAR MINT-MINT 8
83952619 1952 TOPPS 295 PHIL CAVARRETTA EXCELLENT-MINT 6

The Pesky and Cavarrretta cards were both graded as 4's in my first sub; Pesky came back as a 4 again but the Cavarretta bumped a full 2 grades.

Has anyone else noticed a return to "normalcy" on how PSA grades vintage cards like this?

Tom S@ndl!n

[Leon]

Grading is a crapshoot. Totally subjective.

[jchcollins]

Agree with Leon. PSA might be having a better week on the whole or something, but IMHO it's still overwhelmingly related to the subjective opinion of each grader, as evidenced by the fact that (still, today) you can send your vintage card in that you think should be a 7, it will get graded a 5, you will be unhappy and bust it out - and when you send it back it might get a 6, or it might get a 4. This happens a LOT, every single day, at PSA and SGC and everywhere else.

Also in my opinion, many collectors still just place waaaaay too much value on what they think grading is. It's just one grader's opinion on one day. It's not some final, end-all be-all pronouncement of your card's worth. Mostly, it's an opinion on a slip of paper and (usually) a nice holder.

But yes - until folks accept the subjectivity aspect of the opinion - this btw is the TPG's bread and butter - I think that many will continue to misunderstand / be unhappy with their submissions and results. If you are one of these types and like slabs - best advice would probably be buy your stuff 3rd party already graded - and go after cards that look good to you in grades you will be happy with.

[Republicaninmass]

No, not even close. Consider yourself lucky! New 4s look like old 6s with barely a touch on the corners. Good time yo accumluate low priced graded cards with good eye appeal

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Grading is a crapshoot. Totally subjective.

What Leon said. It is just the luck of the draw on graders. Amazing things can and do happen when you get the "right" grader. My recent experience is way different than most posting. They have been very generous in the grades I have received on my last four submissions. Even on a 3 card submission that I cracked out 3 freshly graded SGC slabs to get into PSA slabs. All 3 got a bump from PSA and 2 became their highest graded. On another one I resubmitted a card they wouldn't slab(altered/counterfeit) the first time I submitted it get a PSA 8 the second time.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Tom S.

I just received my small 11 card lot of 1952 Topps that I sent in under the 1950's special that PSA ran last October. Based on all of the 4 and 5 grades (when I was hoping for 6's) that I got on another batch of similarly conditioned 52T cards that I submitted in the early part of 2023, I really wasn't expecting anything different this time around.

I was really surprised to find out that this batch fared much better:

83952609 1952 TOPPS 15 JOHNNY PESKY BLACK BACK VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4
83952610 1952 TOPPS 85 BOB KUZAVA EXCELLENT-MINT 6
83952611 1952 TOPPS 90 MICKEY GRASSO EXCELLENT-MINT 6
83952612 1952 TOPPS 104 DON KOLLOWAY NEAR MINT 7
83952613 1952 TOPPS 116 CARL SCHEIB NEAR MINT 7
83952614 1952 TOPPS 225 FRANK BAUMHOLTZ EXCELLENT-MINT+ 6.5
83952615 1952 TOPPS 229 GENE BEARDON NEAR MINT-MINT 8
83952616 1952 TOPPS 249 BOBBY ADAMS EXCELLENT-MINT 6
83952617 1952 TOPPS 283 PHIL MASI NEAR MINT 7
83952618 1952 TOPPS 292 FLOYD BAKER NEAR MINT-MINT 8
83952619 1952 TOPPS 295 PHIL CAVARRETTA EXCELLENT-MINT 6

The Pesky and Cavarrretta cards were both graded as 4's in my first sub; Pesky came back as a 4 again but the Cavarretta bumped a full 2 grades.

Has anyone else noticed a return to "normalcy" on how PSA grades vintage cards like this?

Tom S@ndl!n

Not surprised to read at all.
When I first joined this site, I asked way too many questions about my cards and their grades so, when someone set me straight and told me to do my own homework, I found out, through months of looking/searching, that PSA was, and still is, the most inconsistent TPG of the bunch.

Read here of a member receiving a 2 then resubmitting only to receive a 7 the next time around. How's that happen?
Numerous stories/vids later showing similar/same issues which reveals it's a crap shoot. It could be the weather, the day/month of the year, the grader, or many numerous other things, so when they say never get cheated, or any other of their buzz words, I just laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pUSIBlEHkw

[brian1961]

Is PSA vintage grading coming back to "normal", you ask?

DEFINITELY NOT FOR ME!!!!!@@@@@@@@!!!! --- Brian Powell

[hcv123]

My last bunch of subs have come back with much different (some higher, some lower) grades than I had predicted. While the process has always been inconsistent, it is grossly so, currently. "Normal" isn't a word that feels like it fits anywhere near PSA graded cards currently.

[raulus]

My sense is that when I submit at higher service levels, I get the graders who are more knowledgeable about vintage. When I submit at the bulk level, I get the noobs. Could just be happenstance, but that has been my experience of late.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by raulus

My sense is that when I submit at higher service levels, I get the graders who are more knowledgeable about vintage. When I submit at the bulk level, I get the noobs. Could just be happenstance, but that has been my experience of late.

I agree with Raulus. Higher service levels = appear to get more knowledgeable grader. Overall I have not seen a return to the old standards. Consider yourself lucky!

[babraham]

Dang, this was surprising.
I sent in a 16-card submission to PSA earlier this month under their Value (45-business day turnaround) service. So it showed an April 15 estimated completion date.
So, I was quite surprised to get an email today that my submission was completed and already being sent back to me.
Less than a month total time.



As for the grades...a few lower than expected, a couple higher than expected...most right about where I thought they'd be.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by babraham

Dang, this was surprising.
I sent in a 16-card submission to PSA earlier this month under their Value (45-business day turnaround) service. So it showed an April 15 estimated completion date.
So, I was quite surprised to get an email today that my submission was completed and already being sent back to me.
Less than a month total time.



As for the grades...a few lower than expected, a couple higher than expected...most right about where I thought they'd be.

Awesome. Always nice to get zippy turnaround. By any chance was your order for modern cards? It seems like these days PSA is overstaffed on the modern side and understaffed on the vintage side, so modern submissions fly on through while the vintage submissions malinger FOR-EV-ER.

[babraham]

Originally Posted by raulus

Awesome. Always nice to get zippy turnaround. By any chance was your order for modern cards? It seems like these days PSA is overstaffed on the modern side and understaffed on the vintage side, so modern submissions fly on through while the vintage submissions malinger FOR-EV-ER.

They were all 1984 Fleer Update and 1985 Leaf cards.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by babraham

They were all 1984 Fleer Update and 1985 Leaf cards.

Cool, cool. Glad you got them back so quickly. And the fact that they were "modern" explains why. Our good friends at PSA draw the line at 1979 and earlier, and 1980 and later. At least for now that's where they draw the line. If memory serves, they've moved it around a bit over the last few years.

[Zach Wheat]

Modern + Autograph authentication slows the process down considerably as well.

[bnorth]

Really, what is normal?

Like many on here I have been collecting for longer than grading has been around. The only consistent thing with PSA grading is almost everyone complaining about it. With PSA I honestly don't think there has ever been a normal as it has always been a crap shoot in my personal experience. One time you get a grader that gives accurate grades(very rare in my experience), then one with lower than expected grades, then one that you love with every card being over graded, and one of my favorites every card in the submission gets the same grade no matter of actual condition. I have received all of these multiple times and I can't imagine very many who has submitted to PSA multiple times has received different results.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Really, what is normal?

Like many on here I have been collecting for longer than grading has been around. The only consistent thing with PSA grading is almost everyone complaining about it. With PSA I honestly don't think there has ever been a normal as it has always been a crap shoot in my personal experience. One time you get a grader that gives accurate grades(very rare in my experience), then one with lower than expected grades, then one that you love with every card being over graded, and one of my favorites every card in the submission gets the same grade no matter of actual condition. I have received all of these multiple times and I can't imagine very many who has submitted to PSA multiple times has received different results.

Goldilocks grading, by golly. Not too strict, not too generous. Just right. That's what we want.

And it should be based on my personal standards. I should be able to look at fuzzy/blurry scans through a big fat slab someone posted online and agree with the grades, every time.

If not that, then maybe they should hew to their own published standards. Those would work too.