PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>I would add that contrary to the opinions of some PSA supporters, few people on this board would like to see PSA actually disappear - we would prefer that they respond to our feedback by offering a better overall product.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />Absolutely agree.<br /><br />PASJD,<br /><br />Do not consider 8.5s and 8s the same--believe substantial gap has and will open up.<br /><br />I am only guessing on the 9s--also only guessing on the downgrades. Mike did tell me he thought 40% upgraded(to 8.5 or better) was a ballpark number.<br /><br />Dav

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>will watson</b><p>Runscott,<br /><br />i agree. the way PSA deals with their problems is laughable at best. that is my main criticism of them. but since i'm a small time collector, their problems haven't really affected me yet. if i had a collection the size of Jim's, i would probably be much more vocal with my criticism.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Chuck R</b><p>This whole thread makes me think back to those halcyon days of The Trader Speaks and Bill Mastro showing up at a convention with a Wagner in a grocery bag. 20,000 PSA cards? Wow...that's more money in grading than my collection is worth. With eBay and all the scammers, I guess we can't put the genie back in the bottle, but things sure have changed.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>Jim,<br /> If only .01% of your cards would grade less than 8, then you are in great shape. I would not even consider changing services with accuracy like that. Unfortunately from what I have seen PSA's consistancy is no where near that level. You yourself pointed out the dramatic change in grades when you submitted you card through a "known" dealer. I would take a gues that 20-25% of high grade PSA cards are flawed in some way and would not be worthy of the holder they are in. Try giving GAI or SGC a set have them evaluate it and you will see. For a collector of your magnitude, I am sure they can give you ballpark results without cracking the slabs so their is minimal risk for you.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Jim but you don't know how many of your PSA 8's PSA itself would grade an 8.5 if they had half grades. The fact that GAI might "bump" 40 percent of them says nothing bad about PSA because PSA chooses to grade cards on a whole point system, so in that sense, an 8.5 from GAI is not a "bump" rather it is a different grade based on a different system. So my point stands: your own estimates of how GAI would grade your collection support the proposition that PSA's grading is consistent. GAI would agree that, under PSA's system, almost 98 percent of your cards are graded accurately. I also do not see 8.5s bringing in major premiums for the typical star cards, but my experience concededly is not as broad as others who may be in a better position to comment.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>...you are selling to people who buy the slab rather than the card. A PSA-8 that is actually over half-way to being a PSA-9, would be a GAI-8.5, and if you assume GAI and PSA slabs have equal retail value (which they don't), then the GAI-8.5 is "worth" more. <br /><br />But of course people who buy the actual "card" would pay more for an "almost 9" PSA-8, than for a "barely 8" PSA-8....and then they would crack it out.<br /><br />It's all about marketing and money, which is why we even have PSA to talk about.<br /><br />

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Buying the slab includes buying the name of the grading company on the slab. My impression is that a GAI 8.5 of a typical star card will sell for less than, or certainly not more than, a strong PSA 8 of the same card.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jim, I'm in the 55 and 58 sets near the top.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Has this hobby really come down to mythical half grades now, good god. What a Pandora’s box we have opened with the advent of these grading companies. Half a point better how absurd.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>My understanding was when Marshall converted his 57 Topps psa set to gai there were no downgrades.<br /><br />I could check on this with Mike.<br /><br />As I said I am just guessing on what my cards would grade with GAI--my experience with PSA was over 85% of the 95 cards I resubmitted were upgraded.<br /><br />Dav

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter, I would tend to agree that with modern cards (Topps 50s and up), a GAI 8.5 may just be equal to a PSA 8 --thus making it prohibitive to consider a crossover. And you're right--a PSA 8 may very well have been a PSA 8.5 if such a grade existed. So, thousands of PSA 8s are not likely (at least in theory) to cross many over as GAI 9s -- unless GAI wanted the business badly enough.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>anonymousdave</b><p>....<br /><br /><img src="http://i10.ebayimg.com/02/i/04/0b/d3/35_12_sb.JPG">

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>what, how can you possibly not see Ward's hands on his hips?

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>David Vargha</b><p>His hands <b>were</b> on the ample hips on one FiFi LaFleur. She moved just off camera as the shot was snapped. There wasn't enough room on the flip for the full description, so it was abbreviated as shown.<br><br>DavidVargha@hotmail.com

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Hey- I'm hip to John Ward. What I mentioned on a different post is that the job of card grading is a tedious and repetitive process, and I think if any of us had to do this eight hours a day, five days a week, we would sort of put ourselves on automatic pilot; hence, all these errors we see on the labels. Try grading your own cards for eight hours without your mind wandering a bit. It's not an excuse for the labels, merely recognizing that grading is in fact a monotonous and dull job.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Harry_Pairatesties</b><p>I think the problem is that PSA encapsulation room is diffrent from the label room? I doubt that they are intertwined so as the cards come down the labels are waiting for them? Maybe someone who has worked for a grading company that pumps out 15,000 cards a month can shed some light on this problem? After all if PSA only graded vintage cards they would have been out of business a few years ago. I guess the same can be said for Topps? If collectors only bought vintage they would have stopped making cards in 1953.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Maybe its a sweatshop with graders locked into a windowless room who are not allowed breaks. Maybe not quite that bad, but repetitive and tedious for sure.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>should not occur if someone is double-checking the work. I wouldn't think it would be that difficult or time-consuming, and if reviews were being done I doubt we would see things like the t206 Heinie/Honus or this Ward example. What are the odds of these things getting past two people?<br /><br />If a 10-second review per card is too tedious, another possible solution is that PSA add "flags" to their database for high-profile cards - when a label is requested to be printed for something like a t206 Wagner (Honus), perhaps a pop-up box comes up suggesting that the item be double-checked.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I think this is the 100th post- a milestone! I agree the quality control should be better and I'm sure PSA is addressing this- certainly more time should be spent on an N172 John Ward than a modern rookie card- and the "hands on hips" label is just too goofy. All businesses strive to improve their product- PSA is no different.

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>PSA's lead card-shucker has no idea what she is opening (or so she testified) and frequently has to look at the Becketts to find info to input the cards into the computer. I assume that since she is head shucker, her subordinate shuckers are even worse. I suppose it is wishful thinking to hope that the people handling the cards have a clue as to what they are...<br /><br />What this would mean is that the errors are at the intake level initially when the items are entered into the computers by the package shuckers. Of course, if this is so, it means that the graders either don't care or don't spot errors. The alternative would be that the errors are made when the labels are created, which means that someone is re-entering data. Since I suspect that this sort of wasteful secondary data input does not occur (I'd bet everything is entered once then revised as grading and serial #ing takes place), I suspect the former is the case and the graders have the description errors in front of them but don't pick up on them. Just like they don't pick up on Mayos and OJs with no ads. <br /><br />

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>There used to be a time when I wanted to take a PSA holder, turn it sideways & stick it up the grader's _____, but I never had the guts to do that lucky for them....

PSA discussion
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>rather than have key cards flagged in their d.b., they could have dollar-value - any time a label was printed (or card input), items over $xxxx amount would set off a warning message, asking for a double-check. <br /><br />as a former programmer, this all seems to easy.