PSA Graded T3s

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Is it just me, or are PSA's grading standards for T3s much more forgiving than on any regular sized card? It seems as though there are a lot of rough looking 4s out there. I wonder if the seemingly easy grades are being given because psa knows that collectors will submit to them over sgc if there is a perception that they will get a higher grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

I don't understand how T3's with pinholes grade above 1....

[Archive]

Posted By: MINE'S MINT

when did PSA start giving grades above 1 to t3's with pinholes?.. i have yet to see an example that fits this description..

the real question is why do t3's with pieces missing recieve a grade of 2 when t3's with pinholes recieve a grade of 1?.. it seems ridiculous due to the fact that some of the nicest examples around do have pinholes..

theoretically you can rip out the area surrounding a pinhole, causing it to lose its eye appeal, and now your card officially grades higher.. how can this be?..

to address the topic.. i agree that recently PSA is becoming far more leniant with their grading in regard to these cabinets.. and as a result resubmissions are going to be frequent.. even at $50.00's a pop..

psa/dna authenticated signature -> Richard M.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Now that SGC is starting to grade T3's, we'll be able to see how much stricter their grading will be.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

I have over 100 PSA T3/T9's and have submitted almost another
100 for other collectors and have yet to see any card with a pin/nail/tack hole receive a higher grade then 1.
And my set is loaded with PSA-1's from Cobb, Mathewson, Cy Young to Jack Johnson.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

Here is one of my pin hole beauties that would grade a bit higher
without the hole.
So PSA didn't miss any of the pin holed cards that I have or submitted..jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

This topic was not really intended to address pinholes, but cards with ordinary wear, paperloss, etc that are getting graded far higher than what their technical grade should be. I cant tell you how many times Ive seen t3s with severely rounded corners and creasing or staining that wouldnt merit more than a 2 if on a regular size card, and its sitting in a 4 holder. For example, this card recently sold on ebay - should it really be a 4 - its got paperloss, a very rounded bottom right corner and terrible edges:



I didnt intend to share this view in this thread, but, to answer Barry's question, I think SGC will be much stricter and lose submissions to psa as a result. I also wouldnt be surprised to find out that this is a marketing strategy by psa - in other words that psa is willing to compromise its integrity for the sake of sales.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

JOSH - don't know if I agree w/ the assesment that PSA has this
strategy to overgrade to keep submissions from SGC.
SGC just started to grade T3's, and many of the "overgraded" cards of which
you speak of could have been graded last year or even later without any SGC's
in the marketplace.

If a buyer is looking for a low grade HOFer,
and a PSA-3 and an SGC-40 are available. And the SGC looks
much better, it will be sold quicker.
With that said, the buyer will keep submitting to SGC since
the cards will be more liquid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Jay - you may very well be right. But call me a skeptic - Im sure psa had knowledge that sgc was preparing to enter the oversize card market. Further, while I think many on this board preach the "buy the card, not the slab" philosophy, I think that you are underestimating the amount of collectors who will buy a psa 4 over a similar looking sgc 40 because its in a slab with a higher number on it. I also do not think that the liquidity of t3s regardless of grade will ever be a concern.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

Maybe I'm wrong , but I don't see much difference in the corners of this card. It's the same grade as the T3. It doesn't look like the T3 got a higher grade. I know there are better eyes out there than mine, so comments.?

Joe



Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Joe,

Ive got three comments:

First, the t207 is overgraded as well.
Second, the t207 is not nearly as overgraded as the t3. the t3 has paperloss on the front of the card, the T207 does not. In my opinion, the paperloss makes the t3 no better than a 2.
Finally, as we all know, there are individual examples of cards that have been overgraded by every company. My original comment/post concerns an overwhelming number of t3s that Ive seen that appear to be overgraded - not isolated cards. Im also not saying that all t3s are overgraded - there certainly appear to be some that appear to be graded appropriately.

Please tell me how that t3 or your t207 should receive a two grade bump over this card (clean back and no wrinkles/creases):



or better yet, this card:

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

Josh, I can't explain it. It just highlights the inconsistencies that PSA and other grading companies have when grading cards. I'm not sure PSA is grading more lenient, but time will tell as these cards get published and sold.

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I recently had this T3 graded by SGC; it graded out at SGC-50. I think it's fairly graded; there's a wrinkle on the upper-left corner and a rust-colored smudge about an inch long and a few millimeters wide on the reverse, at the bottom.

I haven'g gotten the card back yet, but I figured I could post my scan of it here as an example of an SGC 4, since there haven't been any SGC-graded T3 scans that I've seen anywhere yet.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...I am willing to bet that the Cy Young has two wrinkles somewhere making it a 2 rather than a 3. In fact, I am pretty sure I can see at least one in the lower lefthand border. If I am wrong, that card would like great in an SGC 40 holder.

Also, the Plank is clean looking, but suffers either from a strong wrinkle or crease not visible on this scan or moderate back damage.

As I have said on previous posts, the grading scale is like a pyramid -- all 10's will look the same, by definition, but there are countless reasons for a card to be graded a 1. (If you can see a difference between two 10's, the one of them ain't!) As you move up from 1 to 10, there are fewer and fewer permissible flaws, so the cards will start to look more similar. But there will always be numerous differences between 3's -- some will look like your Plank and some will look like your Cy Young.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

edited to remove double post.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

T206 - I know exactly why each card rec'd the grade that it did. I assure you that the young has no creases/wrinkles anywhere. What you see in the lower left is a tiny spot of paperloss (anything you think you see on the border is not a crease). That is the reason for the grade. The point of the post was not to contend that my cards were graded improperly. Its to show that the other cards were overgraded (the t3 has a large amount of paperloss and the t207 has similar corners as the young and a small white spot that looks to be similar to the one on my young).

As for the plank (disclosure - I sold it and no longer own it), it has one wrinkle that cannot be seen unless a loupe is used. No strong crease, no strong wrinkle and absolutely no back damage. Again, Im not contending that it is undergraded. Its graded properly. The others, by comparison, should have never rec'd a grade of 4.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I get the point of the post, but I think either your cards were graded improperly or you are missing some flaws here. I've seen and owned a number of PSA graded T206 cards with better grades than a 2 with that level of paper loss on the front. That card is a 3, unless there is something else we're missing, even by SGC's standards. And, if you need a loop to see the wrinkle on the Plank, then it should be a 4.