Attached is a screenshot the message. I've removed any personal info and any info relating to the name of the PSA person I was dealing with.

I wonder if “current grade” refers to “the grade the card currently has”, rather than, “the way we currently grade”.

It’s obviously an important distinction, and it’s not clear to me that the author was all that precise in their wording.

Agreed, it could be taken either way.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Regardless of the interpretation it is good enough reason to never do a reholder, damaged or not. Submitter gives up way too much control over their property at the whim of PSA's behind closed doors policies.

I wouldn't believe these stories at face value without evidence or more information.
 

AGREED!

I recently sent in one card for a label correction. Came back to me within about two weeks. Corrected and of course n/c.

I have done dozens of re-holders over the years mostly for damaged cases. Never one single issue. Obviously, they can not change the grade on a re-holder order, only a review, and it can only stay the same or go up. Doesn't everyone know this?

I'm glad you haven't had a problem.

I've never submitted a re-holder to PSA or anyone else. However, when the CS representative at Beckett told me that my card was subject to regrading it gave me pause. My Braun was initially graded in 2002 - that's a long time ago. Why would it be subject to regrade if the case hasn't been tampered with, no sign of manipulation in any way, and it was there error in the data base compromise? Should they not have done due diligence at the initial time of grading? Isn't that why people have cards graded?

Maybe I'm missing something here. If a legitimate graded card owner simply wants to re-holder their card - which they pay for - why does it become questionable at all. Why not just simply re-holder the F'n card!

Bingo!!! Someone who gets it!

+1

If enough people got together to bring action against things like this, it would be very interesting to see how a TPG would answer in court when asked to explain how someone that they charged to perform a service could later be told that the work they had previously done was now no good anymore. In other words, the original service those people paid for is basically being deemed worthless by the very party that originally performed the service/work.

Would be interesting to then see these same customers now asking for their money back from the TPG, through the courts, since the TPG itself is apparently admitting their work and original assigned grades cannot be relied upon. Would love to see an impartial jury made up of mostly non-collectors weigh the basic issue of charging people for something that is basically not worth anything then. The snake-oil salesman aspect of TPGs, and what they actually do, would hopefully become even more apparent to the public at large, especially those in the hobby itself.

But unfortunately, this will likely never happen, at least not anytime soon. Too many people/players in the collecting industry, supported by their lawyers, have too much money and value tied up in TPG graded cards and the concept of grading to let this happen. But on the other end of the spectrum, not enough money and value is involved for any government to see a potential risk to our overall economy, and therefore be willing to step in to actually regulate and correct the issues we're seeing and experiencing in the collecting hobby today. Just look at what is happening in the crypto-currency realm today, and the number of people now being negatively affected (ie: the amounts they're losing), and how it is actually starting to impact some of our overall economy. And even so, the governments are still somewhat slow to start acting to do something about it, that they should have jumped on to do something about a while ago.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I actually have to applaud China and their central bank for refusing to accept or allow any transactions in digital currencies, and banning all digital tokens, such as Bitcoin, effectively making crypto-currencies illegal in China. Had the same previously been done in the U.S., there would probably be a lot more happy people around today, including the likes of Robert Kraft, Giselle Bundchen, and Tom Brady, along with countless others.

Having said all that, it seems the only real possibility for any true correction of abuses in our hobby can only now be achieved by those that are in the hobby (true hobby collectors) banding together to form an overriding group/organization to force the other players in the hobby industry to now abide by the rules that the collectors propose and set down, not the other way around like it has been for decades now. But again, as I said earlier in this post, that will never happen any time soon either as too many people have too much money/value tied up in their graded card collections to want to chance that being negatively affected by something like that. The parties that have stepped into the hobby industry to manipulate the people involved so as to make money, have at least done one very, very smart thing, whether it was intentional or just pure dumb luck on their part. They allowed enough of the profit being made from the manipulations and such in the hobby to also be passed on or pour over to many people that are actual true collectors in the hobby, and thus make them liable for personal losses if the hobby industry "players" were to suddenly become subject to rules and regulations they did not set for themselves. By sharing a little bit of the wealth, so to speak, they effectively protect and preserve their own way of doing things, and the control they have over it.

Just in case anyone would like to read my PSA reholdering fiasco with before and after pictures.
https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=323198

Ben,

That sucks. And also, once again demonstrates the arbitrariness a TPG can exhibit towards their customers. How can they explain with a straight face that they originally graded a card a certain way (w/blue streak designation), then suddenly decide not to grade it that way (which they did with your card's initial submission), and then suddenly change back again to how they grade it (including the blue streak designation again)? That makes absolutely no logical sense, and appears to show how no one at such a TPG really knows what they are doing, and/or that there isn't any centralized, common order or control over how things are done, and absolutely shows their lack of any consistency and inability to accurately perform services they claim to be experts in.

Yet they had absolutely no problem or consistency issues in asking you for $25 for something they should have done correctly in the first place. Would love to see how a TPG would respond in court, under oath, if enough people having experienced the disregard and mistreatment you experienced got together and decided to take them to court, and ask for all their money back from the useless, worthless, and redundant services they were originally sold. Companies, like this, count on the fact that they are only getting $25, or some other somewhat nominal amount for things like this, and figure that no single individual will bother trying to go through the time and expense to fight them (and their corporate/business mercenaries....errrrr, lawyers) to try and get their money back. The trick is having companies like that, pissing off and taking unfair advantage of enough people, at a bad enough level, to the point that those people being harmed and taken advantage of finally decide to get together and do something about it. One can only hold out hope that that point is reached sooner, as opposed to later.

Ben that is totally amazing that PSA mucked that up. Seriously. I have no words.

This seems like a pretty simple case of PSA not being able to get their act together when it comes to the blue streak print variation. And it’s disappointing that they can’t figure it out.

Disclaimer: please don’t hate me for the following thoughts. I promise I’m not trying to suggest, promote, or celebrate the notion that PSA is somehow amazing and/or even merely competent.

At the same time, this specific situation seems to be less about PSA reholdering in general generating serious problems with potential re-grades, and instead seems to be more about PSA’s schizophrenic approach to this print variation, which happens to be wrapped up in a reholdering scenario.

This is a pretty straight-forward policy. I don't understand the confusion. If a slab shows any signs of damage, it is more than reasonable to think that the card inside may have been damaged as well. If you drop a card in a PSA holder and it lands on a tile floor, cracking the corner of the slab, there's a pretty decent chance that the card inside might have sustained damage as its edges were jolted against the bumpers inside. I've seen countless cards inside PSA holders where the edges were damaged by the bumpers. If PSA receives a damaged slab from a customer, regardless of the extent of that damage, they are more than within their rights to want to examine the card again. And once they crack it out, the card just goes into grading without the bias of the label. A grader receives it raw just like any other card and gives it a grade.

The real problem here is that PSA has moved its own goalposts, not that they regrade cards in cracked slabs.

Just one more reason I own ~0 PSA holders with old certs. I buy the cards, not the holders. And nearly every single card in an old holder has been over-graded even by yesterday's standards, let alone today's.

So don't send in this card, huh?
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1967...inal&side=back
1967 Topps - [Base] #150 - Mickey Mantle [PSA 4 VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

The new certs are just as bad, and in most cases worse than old certs. When searching for a card I'm looking for it's more often than not (when comparing PSA old vs. PSA new) it's the old label that has the better centering and aesthetics than the new. Their grading in regards to centering is atrocious, and that's only if they give it the correct label to begin with. Seems like even the simplest of tasks is too much to ask of the new PSA.

Haha, no, best not.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Speaking of class action suits and PSA reholdering:

https://www.sportscardradio.com/card...ction-lawsuit/

Here's a video on the class-action lawsuit. The guy's delivery may be a bit obnoxious for some, but pertinent information is contained within. At issue is the fact that PSA removed the card from its "10" slab prior to handing it over to the FBI. The re-holdering of the Bird/Erving/Magic card was conducted under Joe Orlando's tenure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLQK1zcB3o

Interesting, and hadn't heard about this before. And since the new regime bought the stock/corporate entity of the old publicly traded company, doesn't matter who the current owner actually is. The lawsuit is against the corporate entity/company, and not the individual owners. And this is exactly why when someone buys the corporate stock of a company they are acquiring, instead of just acquiring the separate company assets, normally the liability for any issues or problems that originated before the transfer/sale goes through and are now normally solely the new owner's problem. This is exactly why people that look to buy other companies are supposed to do adequate and thorough "due diligence" before finally closing such a deal, so they don't become stuck with issues and liabilities like this.

Unless there was a specific clause included in the original purchase/sales agreement that gives the purchasing party a window to somehow go back and still make the true offending party that actually caused the problem to pay for it to the new corporate owners, the new owners may be SOL.

This should be interesting, and depending on how many people decide to join in, could actually do something as I was previously suggesting. Will remain to be seen, and won't be surprised if the Defendant's attorneys work like heck to identify participants in the suit, and then try to get them to settle and drop out of such a suit, while also signing an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) so they can't talk about the settlement with anyone else, and so the Defendant can hopefully make the whole thing go away as quickly as possible. Something like this could potentially have a big impact on the hobby, and the Defendant especially, if enough people were to come forward and see this through to trial. We shall see.

And actually like the Sportscard radio guy. he doesn't pull any punches, and seems pretty much right on the money for the various issues and such he talks about.

is it just me or does the PD version of this look better? :)

That is like grading 101 type stuff. A print defect is caused by something in the printing of the card. A stain is something spilled on the card. This is elementary type stuff and should not happen.

Travis, you make excellent points. The policy is pretty clear to my eyes as well.
Absent details from the OP about these 3 examples, I'm not sure there's any real evidence to disprove the rule on Reholdering here, as you've laid out.

No doubt PSA has toughened up their grading of raw cards generally, since late 2019/2020. For those of us who have submitted for many years, there were always palpable shifts in grading 'toughness' that would occur every so often. But the latest shift was really significant.

That said, If a submitter is careful in selecting what to send in, he could do very well with PSA Reviews.
For fun, I have some examples here (top row of pic) of PSA being fair, if not very lenient -- but only the Reggie was submitted in 2022. The Ruth was maybe 2018, and the Jordan probably 2016 or so?
All were submitted in-holder, not cracked out.

To your point about nearly every old holder being weak for grade, I've actually had a lot of success as above getting half-point (or with the MJ a full point) bump with nice cards in holders from the years when PSA didn't do half-grades.
It is successful less of the time than it should be these days, but to my eye I think that the Old Holder cards in the lower row would/should all get a 1/2 point bump if sent in.
|
|

Wow. Just wow. It's truly Stockholm Syndrome with some people and PSA

I always looked at it as they are just trying to protect the value of their collection.

It's just the scan, man, just the scan. :D

Interesting video from yesterday about a lawsuit brought against psa for reholdering a fake slab:

https://youtu.be/4iLQK1zcB3o

Yeah, it was linked up above :)

We may have talked this one to death but I wonder how eBay's Authenticity Guarantee, specifically for PSA graded cards, factors into this whole confusion with PSA's Reholder service apparent vulnerabilities.

Per eBay https://pages.ebay.com/authenticity-...-tradingcards/:

For graded cards, a PSA authenticator will verify that the case and label are authentic to the grade and check for any tampering and verify that the case and label are authentic to the grader. Cards will not be regraded.

Per the Terms and Conditions:

Description of the Authenticity Guarantee Service.

After the purchase of an Eligible Item (description in Section 5(a) below) on eBay.com, the item is shipped to a vetted third-party authentication partner (“Authentication Partner”) to carefully inspect the item for authenticity and accuracy against the item listing. Upon confirmation of the item by the third-party authentication partner, it is properly packaged and securely shipped to the buyer. If the item’s authenticity cannot be verified or the item is significantly not as described, the item is returned to the seller and a refund is issued to the buyer.

AUTHENTICITY GUARANTEE FOR TRADING CARDS DOES NOT INCLUDE GRADING SERVICES.

If the item condition or any other aspect of the trading card does not match the listing, the trading card will be returned from the Authentication Partner to the seller, with the purchase canceled and payment price returned to the buyer. By listing for sale or purchasing an Eligible Item, you acknowledge and agree that the Eligible Item will be sent to the Authentication Partner to perform the Services. More information about the Authentication Partner and Services may be found here (This is a link to the FAQ).

And under the FAQ:

What happens at the authenticator?

For graded cards, this involves inspecting the sealed plastic holder for signs of tampering and verifying that the case and label are authentic to the grader. Then they confirm the item is consistent with the listing title, images, and listing description.

Who is authenticating the cards?
For graded cards, Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA) is authenticating the sealed plastic holder, not the underlying card.

I agree at least in the sense that more information would be required. I have talked to people who have gotten money back from PSA's guarantee, though those circumstances may be different. But without full details, it's too vague to really make much of a judgement.

I had one recently. It was reholdered with no issues.

Yea - Never underestimate the ability of PSA to disenfranchise it's customer base.

Bumping this post… anyone have any recent reholder issues? Or were these three examples one offs?

Bumping this up again. Last week, I saw two examples on social media about reholders coming back in lower grades.

Hi Mike, was this sent in for review, reholder, or CrC? (Label correction)

This might be the issue.

Since shipping sucks, I sent in a card for "review" that was mislabeled. I figure let me get a bump and a new holder. Currently says crc assembly, so I believe they would not review it in the mislabeled slab. Hopefully they wont charge me! It will be tied for highest graded copy as is, a .5 will be highest, any lower and I'm looking for boku bucks

Could you share links to those posts?

[QUOTE=Republicaninmass;2329494]Hi Mike, was this sent in for review, reholder, or CrC? (Label correction)

I have a newer Clemente card that I think is overgraded, it was also mislabeled. I sent it in to have the label corrected and it came back with the same grade. Maybe they don't re-grade the CRC cards?

[QUOTE=jimq16415;2329533]That's my guess. Mine I had sent specifically for review...with the notation to relabel correctly and I was moved from review to crc

Still awaiting evidence that PSA is lowering grades on cards when people are using the reholder service.

I know there are some on this board that are doubting this, but I know for a fact this has happened, especially recently. I never said all, just that there are examples and that it can happen.

Agreed

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

If you know it for a fact it should be very easy to post the evidence.

You could find a handful of people on Twitter who post that Bigfoot kidnapped their grandma. That doesn't mean anything. I have little but contempt for PSA and their incompetency, but there should be some reasonable basis here for a charge levied. I am unable to find one.

+1 here. As I said a few months ago, the only examples I have seen are where there were case issues or obvious issues (like a card submerged in water while in a slab). As has been asked numerous times, show the examples. Not hard to prove it exists if it in fact does exist.

I wonder if cards sent in for reholdered service count towards their stats of total cards graded per month?

But that shouldn't change the Pop report, unless they use a new cert #

No that's SGC who does that on reholder service.

The collecting public is the biggest enabler.

If you're not on the inside, you're on the outside looking in. With all the crappy service and subjectivity (accepting trimmed cards and looking the other way), the collecting public keeps begging for more and continues to pay for it.

Think about this - if a company doesn't honor their original subjective opinion and stiffs the public without any compensation by re-holdering with lower grade, then they're going to continue to do it because the collecting public (as a whole) allows/enables them to do so.

Until the collecting public gets their collective shittt together and boycotts, they're going to continue to get their asses handed to them.

I can almost recall "when it was a hobby". It hasn't for a long time now.

Every thread should have a picture of a card:

Attachment 566034

Because the holder could have been damaged and this could damage the card thereby changing its condition. That is the only time I have had an issue with a reholder. Otherwise it’s a simple procedure like you’d expect. But to answer your question of hy it might not go simply, maybe they made an error the first time that is discovered in reholder They are human as shocking as that is they make mistakes. Expecting perfection is asinine. Of course that should be the goal but it’s not a reality. I know what would half this board do if they couldn’t complain about PSA and spout nonsense.

If it's just rumors, I understand the skepticism. If people have evidence, please share...