The Value of the 8.5 Grade--One of My Largest Trades Ever
 

Since PSA went to the half grade system, I have been sending in my PSA 8s by the hundreds or even the thousands for bumps to the 8.5 grade. I usually get 6-7% bumped on prewar and maybe 1948-52 with 10% as I go through the 50s and sometimes higher in the 1960s.

As I am trying to collect graded sets each card psa 8 or better I listen to any trade offers to my 8.5s or 9s. This past month, I acted upon one of the offers.

One can debate whether I got the better of the deal or not but the deal certainly illustrates how valuable the 8.5s are becoming in the vintage sets.

The offer was for the following 1953 Bowman Color PSA 8.5s.

96 Maglie(pop 1 with 2 higher)
101 Schoendienst(pop 1 with 2 higher)
103 Ennis(pop 3 with 1 higher)
109 Wood(pop 1 with 2 higher)
155 Clark(pop 1 with 1 higher)

In return the collector gave me:

1) PSA 8s of the above 5 cards
2)PSA 8s of two high numbered dodger cards I needed in the 1953 Bowman Color set--Russ Meyer and Bobby Morgan--which Memory Lane had for sale at $5,700 and I valued at $5,000
3)PSA 8 of 1952 Topps Black Back Gil Hodges(my value $3,500)
4)PSA 6 of 1952 Topps low series toughie Wayne Terwilliger red back(my value $1,500)

So in return for accepting PSA 8s of these 5 cards(which I originally had), I got approx. $10,000 worth of cards I needed.

Again not saying I got the better or worse of the trade but it does show in the right situation the considerable value premium that the 8.5s are bringing.

Jim

Whoops--I meant PSA 8 for the Terwilliger not PSA 6.

I'd say you made out like a bandit on the deal, hell some of the cards you got may qualify for the bump. As far as your submissions though, that doesn't seem like a very high percentage for the bump. I've heard that centering is really all they look at when considering the upgrade.

Maybe some of the other guys on this board could add some experiences with the upgrades and centering.

Do you ever get bumped down? If not (and I suspect not -- PSA, to generate the much-needed extra revenue from these re-submissions, has assured re-submitters that all grade changes will be in one direction only (hint-it points to heaven, not hell)), then the tradeoff will be that 8's in time will be regarded by the market place as rejected 8.5's. My prediction for the consequences -- 8's will lose value, the rationale being they were not undergraded as 8's, and possibly overgraded.

Corey is exactly right. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. If all the 8s had a certain aggregate value before, the fact that some were upgraded and gained in value means that the ones that weren't upgraded fell in value, so that the total value of the population was unchanged. This whole concept was a revenue grab by PSA, nothing more. PSA may leave the values of 8s unchanged in their SMR, but anyone with half a brain would realize that the new system devalues 8s.

PSA has stated for reviews that they would only upgrade and never downgrade a card. Otherwise, no one would submit cards for review for fear of downgrade.

How many times do you think PSA has probably received the same card a few times for upgrade? It's actually in their best interest to not upgrade. Because every card that remains with a whole grade, still remains possible for re-submission. And I think we all know why they don't do the 9.5's. It's because they wanted to save something new for the future.

I could be wrong about the first part. Does anyone know if PSA adds whether or not a card has been submitted for upgrade to their database? Basically, if you were thinking about buying a card, and looked up the serial number on their website, would it tell you if it's failed the upgrade yet?

PSA 8s are not cards that were between 7.5 and an 8, they are cards that are an 8.00 to an 8.99. Thus why would they go down.

I think 8s are down on average in value but it is due to the general decline in sportscard values--not the advent of half point grades.

It seems to me that a card originally graded 8 would be between 7.5 and 8.5. If it was 8-8.99 wouldn't the grade be NM-MT+ to begin with?
That is the only way it makes sense to me; thus, there should be the option of downgrade but isn't done for obvious reasons (ie. $$$$$$$$$).

I agree they did it for money and to compete with the SGC 92 grade but I believe Joe has said in the past that a psa 8 is 8.00-8.00. Now a psa 8 is 8.00-8.49 and an 8.5 is 8.50 to 8.99

.

Centering is NOT all PSA looks at. I submitted a beautiful, perfectly centered T206 Green Cobb PSA 4 (with a VERY slight diamond cut) under the half-grade service couple years back and it was returned with a note on it that said "corners." I'm thinking about resubmitting because the card is so deserving of a bump in my view. I guess that's how they make their money.

PSA's website says "there will be a clear focus on centering."

Near perfect centering on a PSA 4 should equal 4.5 nearly every time...Unless, the centering is what kept you from getting a lower grade in the first place. Which may be the case with your Cobb. I don't know though.

A card isn't perfectly centered if it's slightly diamond cut. It may not get the upgrade because of the slight diamond cut. But then again, if you send it a few times, they'll probably give it to you once they've gotten enough money out of you for it.

Anyways, how much did they charge you for the submission? and does their database have any notation about it having already been submitted for upgrade?

Jim-You are saying it right yourself. Before a PSA 8 was 8.00-8.99. Now a PSA 8 is 8.00-8.49. Therefore, it is, on average, a lower grade card and should be worth less.

The funny thing about this is........downgrading a card that they've graded would be admiting they got it wrong the first time around..........but in a way, bumping it up a half a grade is just about saying the same thing :rolleyes: so much for standing by their grades.

Clayton

Jay, that assumes people are buying the cards for their condition, as opposed to buying the label for set registry purposes. There are people in both categories.

interesting thread which clearly proves one thing to me.....i'm not smart enough to collect graded cards.

Peter-You are wrong. An 8 is worth less in the registry now because you have raised the overall average grade by raising some 8s to 8.5s.

Exactly. Lets say, as an example, you had a psa graded 8 card, that only had 50 higher(9's or 10's). Well now, without your card physically getting any worse, there's a bunch more higher now because of the 8.5's. Without the .5 grades before, the cards that should've been 8.5's were carrying the plain old 8's, and that's just not the case anymore.

Jim.............
 

Without regard to the effect of the value of 8, 8.5 or whatever other factors were involved.

If YOU are happy with the trade that is really all that matters. I think you got a lot of bang for your buck in this trade, essentially leveraging a handful of cards to trade for an even larger group in an almost imperceptible 1/2 grade lower condition in most instances. The value is secondary if in fact you needed or wanted the other cards to add to or complete sets, obtaining cards that otherwise might not have been made available to you.

I think everyone has done a trade to some degree that made others scratch their head. Most of these were done because the person "wanted or needed" what the other had to offer, specific dollar value within reason, was inconsequential, as both parties felt they were receiving equitable trades.

When PSA first announced the new half-grade program, their cards had to be hot because any large group of 8's could potentially contain some candidates for the bump to 8.5. Today, we have to assume most have already been submitted. Thus, it is reasonable to think that any card still in an 8 holder is lacking some qualification needed for a bump. And that's a strike against it.

And has been cited, the fact that cards will only get a bump up, and are guaranteed not to go down, suggests a complete lack of objectivity when cards are being reevaluated.

8.5s are relatively few and far between. I doubt someone collecting 8-type sets would pay less for an 8 that became available because it wasn't an 8.5 and they preferred to hold out for one.

I find it ironic
 

Because IIRC; Jim was one of the leading proponents against the bump to half grades by PSA.

However; that did sound like one heck of a deal for Jim and is a great 1st move to other trades he may want to make. A good buisness person, which Jim obviously is, thinks through 2-3 steps usually

Regards
Rich

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the early graded PSA 8 cards were resubmitted for a bump up after PSA announced the new .5 grading system ?

Answer -- Because they were never 8.0's to start with. How can this be? Well maybe PSA missed a hairline crease, or didn't notice that the card was trimmed. Your question assumes PSA got it right in the first place. Clearly the market does not feel that way because why else would PSA need to give the assurance they will never bump down? If the market was so confident no mistakes were made when the card was originally graded, assurances of no bump downs (which by the way garned PSA a lot of negative publicity) would be unnecessary.

To finish Corey's thought: if this resubmission were done fairly, with cards getting higher or lower grades based on merit, only a small fraction would be sent in. But with nothing to lose except the grading fee, the number of submissions increased dramatically.

Here's my beef with the whole thing: if a grader were reassessing a card and he felt it was a tad overgraded, closer to a 7.5, and was still forced to put it back in an 8 holder, I'm okay with that. Grading is subjective enough that a 7.5 is about the same as a weak 8. But invariably the grader is going to find cards that were altered, the alteration having been missed the first time around. To recirculate such a card back into an 8 holder is plain unethical. But according to the rules, that is what he has to do.

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with Jim's question, Did I make a good trade? But sometimes I like to vent.

"To finish Corey's thought: if this resubmission were done fairly, with cards getting higher or lower grades based on merit, only a small fraction would be sent in. But with nothing to lose except the grading fee, the number of submissions increased dramatically"

QUOTE]

Barry & Corey, does any other grading company lower the submitted cards when sent in for review?
I have sent in a few cards for review w/ various grading companies & only ones that I thought would warrant a higher grade as I though these were undergraded.
No way would I expect them to lower the grade when I felt the exisiting grade was too low.

Just to correct a couple of things that I think Barry said:

1)Most PSA 8s have been submitted for bumps. I have sent in 8200 and have about 20,700
To go.

2)Reza will pull the card out of the holder if he believes it is altered.

Most alterations are subtle and are not going to be obvious in the holder especially if one is not looking hard for them. I seriously doubt many cards have been pulled by Reza or anyone else at PSA, or by any other grading company for that matter, in a resubmission process.

Jim- I am very glad to hear that they won't reholder an altered card. That's great.

Regarding your point that you have 20,000+ 8's and have only sent in about 8,000...well, most people don't have nearly that many.

Certainly is one way to accumulate cards but I am glad I am not beholden to the high grade flip. I am also very skeptical that Reza has PSA buy back much of anything but especially anything material.

When the half grade was initially introduced PSA gave written assurance that the card either bumped or it was returned in the holder it was submitted. Those were the only two options. The assumption was that everything they had graded was either right on or too conservative.

my only comment
 

First of all, congrats to Jim for what looks to be a great trade he made. I always am happy when other collectors get excited about collecting. That is, to me, what collecting is all about.

As for the PSA half grade debate. Anyone with half a brain can see it was a money grab, pure and simple. More great marketing by PSA if you ask me. Kudo's to Joe and gang for that. Honestly, when that money grab peters out I wouldn't be surprised to see some other great revelation in their grading. I am thinking that if they could go to .25 of a grade, they will make even more money!! The possibilities are really almost limitless.

Why doesn't PSA just go to a 1-100 grade scale ? :D

You mean like SGC? Where there is a 20 point gap between EX and EX/MT, and a 4 point gap between NM and NM/MT? :D

For someone better at math than I am....
 

I usually get 6-7% bumped on prewar and maybe 1948-52 with 10% as I go through the 50s and sometimes higher in the 1960s.

PSA 8s are not cards that were between 7.5 and an 8, they are cards that are an 8.00 to an 8.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an 8 was between 8.00 & 8.99 shouldn't we expect a significantly higher percentage of resubmissions to be bumped than just 6-10%? It seems odd to me that just 6 to10 out of every 100 8s are judged to be between 8.5 & 8.99 but 90+ are judged to be between 8.00 & 8.49.

I attempted a bump submission on a PSA 8 1966 Topps Pete Rose from my own 1966 Topps set registry that looked like an easy PSA 9. The card was centered with no corner wear. It came back in the PSA 8 holder (3 cards were bumped from the 20 card submission) I decided to crack the card out and submit in a regular submission. It came back trimmed. I attempted once more a month later and it came back trimmed again. Must have been a fairly obvious trim job to two different graders, I guess Reza missed that one.

The ultimate act of courage would be cracking out a large number of PSA, or SGC, 8s or 9s.

BBeck,

Or else the card was graded in the pre-Reza era. Although I think Mike Baker is an excellent gradfer, things were so frantic in this era I think a number of altered cards slipped through.

Howard38,

There are dramatically fewer vintage 10s than 9s. There are dramaticaLly fewer 8s than 9s. So it would stand to reason that there are a lot more 8 to 8.49s than 8.50s to 8.99s.

That is almost as funny as Jim's comment to BBeck:

Or else the card was graded in the pre-Reza era. Although I think Mike Baker is an excellent gradfer, things were so frantic in this era I think a number of altered cards slipped through.

Greg,

Just so I can be in on the joke do you not think Mike Baker is an excellent grader?

Or do you think as many cards slip through under Reza?

You know I respect your views and you are a tell it like it is guy so please elaborate.

Jim

Jim,

You've state that you've sent in 8,000 card for review and that Reza will remove any cards from their holders that he believes to be altered.

So my question is this. How many cards out of your 8,000 have been returned as altered?

Jim, I think what Greg was trying to say is that there are an extraordinary amount of trimmed cards that get by PSA yesterday, today and tomorrow. There are many people who earn a great living trimming cards and getting them past PSA yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Beware the low pop common.

Jim,

Exactly what Jeff stated. I will add that there is no incentive for SGC or PSA to take slabbed altered cards off the market for the average collector barring a lawsuit or the threat of one. I think Baker is/was a great grader but I think grading companies, SGC included make more errors (by negligence, inexperience or...) than collectors are willing to acknowledge.

I don't know what the review process is that you are using but I would not be 100% sure that it is Reza who is looking at every single card you have submitted. My point is that when Baker was grading at PSA he was not the only one looking at cards. Now that Reza is in charge he is not the only one. Any grading company is only as good as its "worst" grader. By worst I mean the one(s) who intentionally or accidentally miss alterations.

Greg

Just a thought...
 

If I have a really nice trimmed card, as opposed to a beater, would they consider an "A.5" grade? Or would it be an "Aa" instead?

Cheers,
Geno

.

Thank you Greg,

I respect your opinions greatly. As usual, you have good points.

Thanks again for what you have done for the hobby.

Jim

The Pete Rose card I was referring to was actually graded during the Reza Era as the back of the slab had the dark blue labeling on the flip. Absolutely post Mike Baker. What is the incentive for PSA to pull out of circulation low pop high end trimmed pre-war cards (or any big money cards for that matter) as that would result in a lot of expensive buybacks not to mention a large hit with high end collector confidence. Both main stream grading companies get a lot right and they make some mistakes. I find it difficult to believe that they would pull out all their mistakes when they see them.

Exactly. There would be a zero upside and a horrendous downside incentive-wise for any grading company to proactively buy back doctored cards and acknowledge they messed up - especially in times like this when a company president recently writes an article acknowledging we are in a "market slowdown" but assures his readers we are not in a "market paralysis".

BBeck,

I have had cards bought back for full market value that I submitted that were deemed altered after they were resubmitted.

JIm