Lowering Expectations – Submitting Cards to PSA

[parkplace33]

I was talking to a vintage baseball card collector over the weekend. He has submitted cards to PSA to grade since the late 1990s. From that time up until 2018 or so, he was able to guess the grade of his submitted card to 1 grade above/below and was normally right on the number. All of his submitted cards were vintage, maybe half prewar and half postwar.

However, since 2019, more often his guesses were incorrect by 1 or more grades. Cards that used to be 7s are now 6s or 5s… or ever worse. In the group he submitted a few months ago, 60 percent came back at least 1 grade lower than anticipated.

For those that submit to PSA, are you seeing the same thing? Have you lowered grading expectations in the last few years?

Please no discussion of utilizing other grading companies, this is strictly a PSA submission expectation post.

[philliesfan]

Well I will let you know my experience in a few months when I get a couple of larger submissions back. That being said, I did have a small submission come back with lower than expected grades on a couple and very few on target but none better. Hope I get pleasantly surprised in a month or two.
Bob

[Kzoo]

I posted a similar message on a thread last year about PSA and these were my thoughts at the time... and I still feel the same way now.

"...it looks like they're pretty accurate on the modern 'shiny' stuff and I believe they get the Poor to Good (1-2 range) stuff graded correctly, but the 4-8 range stuff is really off.

I have an order of 1950's to 70's mid to higher grade cards on their way back to me right now from PSA and every single card is at least 1 grade lower (a couple are 2+ grades lower) than I've been accustomed to over the past 22 years. It seems to me that they take an even harsher grading approach to a card that is even slightly off-center. These new graders are so used to seeing perfectly centered new cards, that 40/60 off center vintage cards are getting hammered.....and it seems that they don't realize vintage cards were manufactured with rougher non-perfect cuts, as compared to modern. It would be great to see different graders for only modern OR only vintage."

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

I posted a similar message on a thread last year about PSA and these were my thoughts at the time... and I still feel the same way now.

"...it looks like they're pretty accurate on the modern 'shiny' stuff and I believe they get the Poor to Good (1-2 range) stuff graded correctly, but the 4-8 range stuff is really off.

I have an order of 1950's to 70's mid to higher grade cards on their way back to me right now from PSA and every single card is at least 1 grade lower (a couple are 2+ grades lower) than I've been accustomed to over the past 22 years. It seems to me that they take an even harsher grading approach to a card that is even slightly off-center. These new graders are so used to seeing perfectly centered new cards, that 40/60 off center vintage cards are getting hammered.....and it seems that they don't realize vintage cards were manufactured with rougher non-perfect cuts, as compared to modern. It would be great to see different graders for only modern OR only vintage."

I generally agree with these sentiments.

Some opportunistic collectors are targeting recently graded cards as an opportunity to pick them up for cheap since they are undergraded.

[rugbymarine]

Originally Posted by raulus

Some opportunistic collectors are targeting recently graded cards as an opportunity to pick them up for cheap since they are undergraded.

SHHH!! Not so loud...
LoL

[bbcard1]

I don't know why you guys do this to yourselves....

[Johnny630]

When I now submit Cards, and this is been for the past couple of years I no longer have any expectations. I feel it’s a fool-hearted contemplation.

[ALBB]

I think its crazy to get cards in the VG EX ..or lower range graded, unless its an extremely rare or expensive card..I don't see the point

Seems like a waste of time and money

[JollyElm]

There has been an incredibly marked increase in the number of 'lower' graded cards on display and up for sale at the shows I've been to recently. The vast majority of the PSA cards fit into the 'Frontsixer' category, where they were graded very recently (as seen by cert numbers beginning with a 6). Harshness definitely abounds!!


745. “Four is the New Seven” (adage)
As old cards are regularly being hammered by the new brutality of the TPGs, lower slab numbers are not only the order of the day, but are now more acceptable to collectors than ever before.

[Republicaninmass]

Always thought keeping a large quality of cash in mid grade commons was a fools errand.

[Touch'EmAll]

I have been involved with grading for many years, since soon after PSA even started.

Recently I had a '69 Aaron, looked a lock for an 8 and closer to a 9 than a 7. Near perfect centering, no tilt, very nice color focus & gloss, super clean back, 4 corners sharp front & back. Came back a 7. Very disappointed.

And I just picked up a 1973/4 Cassius Clay SGC 7. Compared it up against my PSA 8. Holy cow! The SGC 7 appears honest to goodness MINT 9. If it were in a 9 holder I wouldn't bat an eye - yes, most deservedly so, and would have been very happy with the card even knowing I paid a 9 price.

Then there is always the I didn't see something the graders caught.

[BobbyStrawberry]

2-3 grade reduction seems to be the norm these days. Just wait until they change their label and start the whole process over again! 1 will be the new 7.

[Touch'EmAll]

It has been mentioned that the very old certs don't quite get the higher prices of new certs.

Ok, but my old cert T206 Cobb is in a PSA 5 holder. If I submitted for grading now, lets say it comes back a PSA 4. Then wouldn't my older cert 5 be worth more than a new cert 4 ?

[donmuth]

They should take current 8's, 9's, and 10's and just call them all 10's and then re-distribute things below that like they should be. The so-called grading standards they are using are NOT consistent with what long time collectors know to be the standards.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by donmuth

They should take current 8's, 9's, and 10's and just call them all 10's and then re-distribute things below that like they should be. The so-called grading standards they are using are NOT consistent with what long time collectors know to be the standards.

I completely agree, but just like your algebra teacher, they grade on a bell curve. This ensures that the quantity of the higher grades decrease exponentially, which translates to exponentially higher prices and a generally higher demand for cards to be re-subbed at higher price levels. It just wouldn't make $$ sense for the graders to lump together all those cards that you and I can't tell apart without magnification and different light sources.

[Snowman]

PSA moved the goalposts from their initial standards by a full grade prior to the pandemic, around the mid 2010s. They have since moved the goalposts by another full grade. They're just ridiculous now. An absolute clown show in the grading room. It's really not difficult to grade vintage cards, and it's not difficult to maintain a consistent standard. Yet, here we are. Soon, PSA will have to introduce the 0 and -1 grades in order to make room for the new goalposts. I've been buying dead mint cards in PSA 6 & 7 holders and EXMT cards galore in PSA 4 slabs. I'm buying hoards of recently graded cards entirely because of it. Eventually, they're going to have to correct this. They're getting a lot of heat about it. Publicly, they keep trying to pretend like it isn't true, but at some point they're going to have to face reality. When they put the goalposts back where they belong, I'll resub my under graded hoard.

[Jim65]

I will never understand people who complain about these companies while boxing up their next submission.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I will never understand people who complain about these companies while boxing up their next submission.

When 90% of the value of their collection is dependent on those magic plastic holders it is easy to understand.

I just wish PSA would hurry up and undergrade my card and send it back.

I was actually very happy with my last submission as I cracked out 3 newly graded SGC cards and all 3 received higher grades from PSA. Two of the 3 became PSAs highest graded examples.

[bxb]

Grading is subjective.

The goal posts will always be on wheels.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

...it looks like they're pretty accurate on the modern 'shiny' stuff and I believe they get the Poor to Good (1-2 range) stuff graded correctly, but the 4-8 range stuff is really off.

I have an order of 1950's to 70's mid to higher grade cards on their way back to me right now from PSA and every single card is at least 1 grade lower (a couple are 2+ grades lower) than I've been accustomed to over the past 22 years. It seems to me that they take an even harsher grading approach to a card that is even slightly off-center.

Agree. Although I am new to grading, Modern cards I have had graded (2010-2022) are close to what I anticipated. Pre-war is generally 1-1.5 grades lower than expected.

Guess I am just a poor guesstimator at grades.

[Brian Van Horn]

I would still like to know how PSA arrived at the following grade on this trimmed card.

[jchcollins]

I think it’s more frustrating now than it’s been in some time. While I think we can all agree that “BVG-esque” grading that is too easy / reminiscent of raw grading in the early 1990’s or even 80’s is no longer the standard - there is no reason for PSA today to be grading cards with decent centering, clean surfaces and just minor touches of corner wear 3’s and 4’s when as recently as earlier in the Lighthouse holder generation - the same cards were grading at least 2 points higher on average.

I don’t submit myself, but as an example - I bought a ‘63 Clemente in a PSA 4 fairly recently on eBay. The card is not perfectly centered, but I would imagine meets the criteria for at least a 6. The surface is clean, the color is bright, and the card has three NM corners and one that I would call probably EX at worst with a light ding. I wouldn’t expect it to be a 6.5 or anything, but….a 4? Really? I have scrutinized it up and down and I really see nothing that should prevent the card from having gotten at least a 5. In the early days of PSA (1990’s - maybe 2005) I could have seen it pulling a 6.

I get that the goalposts will always move in an industry where they will not change their written standards, but the “allowable” shift in reality based on subjectivity lets them get away with it. This has been PSA’s MO ever since they started. But at what point do you actually change the written rules when things seem to be missing so badly? I know, don’t answer that - they won’t.

To me this just means I’ll go back to looking for nice cards first and foremost over a number on a slab. I’m glad to have my 6-ish looking ‘63 Clemente that I got at a 4 price…the lesson once again for me is just to think that a lot of credence given to PSA is silly and pointless when the standard clearly fluctuates so significantly over time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I think it’s more frustrating now than it’s been in some time. While I think we can all agree that “BVG-esque” grading that is too easy / reminiscent of raw grading in the early 1990’s or even 80’s is no longer the standard - there is no reason for PSA today to be grading cards with decent centering, clean surfaces and just minor touches of corner wear 3’s and 4’s when as recently as earlier in the Lighthouse holder generation - the same cards were grading at least 2 points higher on average.

Ya, this is my #1 gripe as well. Well-centered cards with pristine surfaces, registration, and color finding their way into PSA 3 holders because of a super tiny amount of corner wear. I have a 52T Mays that is a stunning EX copy that I found in a PSA 3 holder. I laughed pretty hard the moment it arrived. Then, I immediately cracked it out. Back in the day, we would just assume there must be a small crease somewhere or some other significant flaw. But not today. A PSA 3 can literally be an EX+ card with a flawless surface. It's absolutely bonkers.

The worst part though is the arrogance they carry themselves with in regard to this topic. Nat Turner just laughs it off in every interview as if it's just sour grapes or ignorant noobie submitters. Then whoever is interviewing him just lets him off the hook because they don't want to be confrontational. Someone needs to sit his ass down with some scans of these cards and force him to accept that this is in fact going on and that it's a massive problem.

The problem is far-reaching as well. It's not just that we get hurt as submitters today, but it also divides eras of slabs into buyable and must-be-avoided holders for collectors. I never end up buying any low-numbered certs because of it. It's frustrating because I'd like to buy certain cards within a certain condition range, but pretty much all the early certs are way over-graded. I buy the cards, not the grade, and it takes so many cards off the table now because of how far they've moved the goalposts since then. I've seen countless VGEX cards that I'd love to buy, but I can't because they're sitting in PSA 6 holders and the sellers understandably are married to what's on that label. It also makes trading much more difficult, because the guy holding that PSA 8 with the 04xx cert with corners that would get a 5 at most today still thinks they're holding pure gold, and if they wait long enough for the right sucker to come around, they might still be able to cash in. It just messes with the entire ecosystem.