PSA Stain Fail Rate: 75%
 

Time to vent...

EDITED TO ADD: This thread erroneously started with five cards, but it should've only been four. If there are any references to a Pete Rose card, please ignore them.

I had four relatively major cards with smallish stains on their glossy fronts, and decided it was a good move to break them out, remove the gum/wax deposits and send them back in to PSA through the 'Swinging Sixties' group sub way back when (the '68 Mays was actually sent in through a different sub of Bobby's).

To be clear, there was no damage committed during or after the breakouts. My method for gum/wax stain removal is slow and methodical, and there were zero issues with it.

So, take a look at these ridiculous results. Out of the four cards, only the 1969 Bench received the same grade it was deemed to have to begin with, and a whopping three out of four (75 frickin' percent) actually received a one point DROP in number grade!! Where in heck is the consistency?? Nothing changed except the meaningless removal of a thin, small area of gum/wax residue, yet the assessment of their grade was lowered?? Huh?? And even under the new 'no qualifiers given' approach of PSA, the centering on all four cards is fine and wouldn't merit a reduction in grade. Pathetic.

SMH.

Attachment 542908
Attachment 542909


Afterthought: some people will say who cares? Even at a lower grade, they are still probably worth a little more than what you paid for them originally, but that just misses the overall point. These cards SHOULD HAVE come back with their original grades minus the 'ST.' That's the grade these cards were worthy of, said the company who graded them originally...which is the exact same company who graded them now!!

Grading is gambling if you're a commoner; an exercise in corruption when you're one of the favorites who get the gift grades.

Honestly, are you surprised? I wish someone would try the following exercise - submit the same card 10 or 15 or even 20 times to the same TPG. Then show the distribution of the grades, because they won't come back with the same number every time. Same card, same TPG.

There is an amount or randomness (+/- 0.75 pts?) in their human based grading. Why else would folks resubmit cards hoping for a 'bump'?

Nice cards, BTW.

I will give you an even better example. There are certain large PSA sellers who some think get special grades.

Randomly pick 10 numbers between 1 and 50 first. Then pull up the big sellers eBay account. Have their PSA 10 cards listed from cheapest to most expensive. Now take those 10 numbers you picked and buy those cards in order from cheapest to most expensive.

This is a fairly cheap way to prove the average person WILL NOT get the same 10 grade that the big sellers get for the same card. When I done this years ago I got more 7s back than 10s. :eek::eek:

Hell I paid to get a card graded. Then paid again to try to get the flip corrected. After paying twice it is still mislabeled. Maybe I will pay a third time hoping they get it correct because that makes sense.:rolleyes:

grade
 

Yea, this grading stuff can be a real crap shoot !

Hi Jolly:

I noticed that you covered the original certs. By chance were any of them early grades? I hear a lot around here how early grading was often more generous than current grading, so I’m always curious about whether that might have played a role in your experience here.

Naturally, if true, then that phenomenon is just another reason to question the legitimacy of a TPG whose results are inconsistent over time, albeit perhaps in a predictable fashion.

The cards run the gamut of timeframes. Of the two that got the 'correct' number, one was pretty old and one was pretty new. Two of the three bad ones were old and one was the newest graded of the entire group. I only eliminated the certs to head off the contrarians who'll go look up the sold prices on-line (although I bought some of these in person) and change the direction of the thread the way they do.

Cool cool. Totally understand, which is why I just inquired about them generally, rather than asking to see the old certs specifically.

And not really surprising that the results were so inconsistent.

Time to crack and resubmit!

If a card is submitted twice and gets two different grades, how do you know which grade is the 'correct' one?

Whoa...I think you just blew my mind. :)

(In case it wasn't clear, with 'correct' I was referring to the pair of PSA 7 ST cards that properly came back as straight sevens.)

60s , they will not give anything above a seven and 70s nothing above an 8. This is the rule for the common folk and is especially true on tougher cards. It might be worse actually on tougher cards. Try sniffing above a 7 on a 1976 Brett no matter how nice you think your copy is. I’m sure once you sell it and one of the chosen ones cracks and resubmits it’s a 9. I’m just giving a random example. It does really suck though.
Bruce


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

right to vent and great looking cards

Jolly,

It seems to me, a novice when it comes to grading, they are getting a little more strict on grading. It also seems they are using their new digital tech to look for different things they didn't pick up previously.

At this point, the evidence is overwhelming that if you are not willing to accept subjectivity in "professional" grading, then you should probably quit giving your money to PSA. The great con has worked on a vast majority of collectors. Grading standards that are supposed to be precise and regimented are always at the end of the day open to interpretation. I have a small handful of valuable cards in my PC that I want in slabs for one reason or another. But make no mistake - grading is a game, and always has been. You either accept the way the game is played, or you don't.

I find it surprising just how many collectors seem to know this, that it's a game and that that game is somewhat rigged, but continue to play the game anyways. PSA has a stunningly loyal customer base, many of them aware of the shenanigans, frauds, and baloney, but still willing to pay top dollar so they can 'win' that game. I personally would think cognizance of the game would essentially make one have to conclude it's a silly game not worth playing.

But it's the only game in town!

Be honest, does any of this really surprise you? We live in a world where NFT's are still a thing, and crypto bros continue to defend to the financial death, their low rent, highly laundered, completely unhinged currency schemes.

PSA is childs play compared to most of the con games trying to suck peoples wallets dry nowadays.

I think there is a massive difference. In the world of Crpyto Bros., the Crypto Bro's think that they know when the dump is on their pump and will win. The resulting action makes sense, given the foundational belief. I don't think that foundational belief is true. On the other hand, if I'd kept the bitcoins I got to play around with the tech (the underlying blockchain tech has numerous possible reasonable uses, not just silly BS like NFT's) when it started, I would be retired today at 31.

I totally get why the people with the connects love PSA and pump the graded card scheme. The oddity here is that so too do many people who appear to be cognizant it's also a facade. Many, members here and not, complaining about the grading scandals, subjectivity and corruption, keep buying graded and furthering that very scheme they are cognizant of.

That's the big difference. People buying into NFT's and crypto things its a game rigged for others, they think they are in on it and intend to make others the bag holders when it blows up. This is the element that surprises me, the numerous collectors who know the game, are not on the inside of the game, and still continue to play it anyways. It's very unusual.

637. Opinionomics
The determination of a card’s value based not on inherent market factors such as the give and take of supply and demand, or the specific attributes of the individual card, but solely and blindly on the number assigned to it by a Third Party Grader.


The PSA 'loyalty' really has nothing to do with devotion per se. It is all about their slabs holding much greater sales value than the other grading operations (some exceptions may apply), so if you want to sell something now or way off in the future, it does you right to have them housed in PSA holders. A sad reality considering how they treat their customers.

I spoke to a dealer at the last Philly Show who submits a large amount of vintage and he said that AI is now a part of vintage grading as well as modern. The scanning seems to be picking up surface imperfections specifically and taking cards down a grade.

Jolly Elm,

Lots of good work, but I’ve been studying those 1969 Topps Rose cards and I think they are two different cards.
Several subtle differences, but can’t get past how much more damage the bottom left corner of the PSA 7 ST appears to show in the picture vs. the PSA 7. Also, the bottom border on the PSA 7 ST looks slightly larger than it’s counterpart. More differences within the thin inside white borders of each card, especially in top right corner.
With those soft corners, not sure how the ‘ST’ Rose card ever got a PSA 7.

Holy mother of frickin' crap...YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me thank you as I eat a huge bowl of crow. The most obvious giveaway is the white halo on Pete's hat on the one card. It was right there in front of me the whole time. Mothers, do not let your children drink and post. PWI is serious.

For the life of me I can't figure it out. I assumed it was a crack and resubmit, but when I just dug through my boxes, I located the PSA 7 ST card. It's still here!! Thought I only had one '69 Rose, besides a PSA 9 OC I picked up, but I was wrong. Ugh. Embarrassing. Time to revise the OP.

On an odd note, though, it means the PSA Stain Fail Rate is now 75% (3/4), which means only the Bench was 'correctly' graded.

or maybe none are graded correctly. Your correctly is that they got the same grade as before without the beyond silly qualifier they use. What is the realistic chance they actually got it correct the first time?

Or is it possible that the residue removal wasn't as perfect as hoped and with better scanning/technology, even though we can't really see it with the human eye, their equipment/techniques still detected some lingering residue or other new surface issues now caused by the removal process, with the result being the cards with lowered grades are actually now properly graded, just without the former qualifier?

Maybe we could all chip in a few bucks to crack and resubmit these cards a few times from different submitters with other cards. Then we could see how many times the grade comes back the same for each card. It is a fun eye opener that used to be cheap to do.

Just have to be willing to wait 4 months to get them back!

Technically I could be considered a part of this group. The conundrum for me I suppose, is that I believe a majority of the scandals and schemes occur at the fringe high end of the spectrum where I basically am not involved. I collect mid-grade and lower postwar vintage, PSA 2 - 6 range mostly, and the vast majority of that (well) under $1,000 per card. I would guess in that range that 85-90% of slabbed PSA and SGC cards are reasonably if not properly graded, and sell for reasonable prices.

I do love a properly graded card in an attractive slab, but I also love a raw card that just has a quality that some of it's entombed relatives no longer have. It's the suspect trimmed PSA 9's of HOF'ers that seem to ruin it for everyone, and when I read stories like that or see what the Blowout folks have outed - it usually makes me consider busting every last slab I own. I don't of course - and therein lies the dilemma.

Resubs to PSA are the Schrodinger's Cat of collecting: until the grade pops it is both a PSA 8 ST and a PSA 7. Like Shimmer, a dessert topping and a floor wax...

Or maybe, just maybe, no matter how you slice it, grading is baloney and you just got a different slice?