PSA grade head scratcher

[1880nonsports]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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]

Originally Posted by LKeeler

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Leon

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."



.

Originally Posted by Leon

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by LKeeler

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]

Originally Posted by glchen

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]

Originally Posted by glchen

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]

Originally Posted by glchen

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[j_cook]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

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]

Originally Posted by Il Padrino

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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

[glynparson]

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

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

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]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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