Psa no longer putting qualifiers on labels

[sflayank]

PSA no longer requires submitters to decide whether to request “No Qualifiers”, as characteristics such as Centering, Staining, Print Defects and Focus will default to impacting the numerical grade rather than carrying a qualifier. There are exceptions

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by sflayank

PSA no longer requires submitters to decide whether to request “No Qualifiers”, as characteristics such as Centering, Staining, Print Defects and Focus will default to impacting the numerical grade rather than carrying a qualifier. There are exceptions

Basically, some qualifiers can't be avoided.

[Rich Klein]

If you are trying to catch up from a major overload, this was an easy decision to make. Frankly, it's overdue.

[AMBST95]

Not a fan of the change but I understand why they're doing it. It will now become more challenging to find diamonds in the rough and you'll see sellers start adding more opinion into their pricing to explain why their lower grade card has more qualities than it deserves.

[packs]

I think it's a great change and overdue as well. Some of the qualifiers just didn't make any sense. For example, why would a PSA 1 card require a qualifier? 1 is the lowest grade you can get.

[bnorth]

That sucks. I was hoping they would add some more qualifiers. I have a ton of mint cards if they would add (W) for wrinkles, (MC) but for Major Creases, (RC) for Rounded Corners, and of course (HP) for holes/hole punch.

[toledo_mudhen]

So does that mean the guys who currently own PSA 5 (MC) can now send in for re-holder and have them come back as straight 3s? (yeeah)

[conor912]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

So does that mean the guys who currently own PSA 5 (MC) can now send in for re-holder and have them come back as straight 3s? (yeeah)

Sure, but last I checked it was taking 7+ months just to reholder.

[ullmandds]

you've gotta love the consistency!

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That sucks. I was hoping they would add some more qualifiers. I have a ton of mint cards if they would add (W) for wrinkles, (MC) but for Major Creases, (RC) for Rounded Corners, and of course (HP) for holes/hole punch.

I am also waiting for those particular Qualifiers so I can submit my NrMt Rube..

rube front.jpg

rube back.jpg

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I am also waiting for those particular Qualifiers so I can submit my NrMt Rube..

Attachment 460555

Attachment 460556

If they would just add a few new qualifiers and allow several per card we could both have Gem Mint PSA cards.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If they would just add a few new qualifiers and allow several per card we could both have Gem Mint PSA cards.

LOL looks like that version of Hank was partying with Jimi Hendrix.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I am also waiting for those particular Qualifiers so I can submit my NrMt Rube..

Attachment 460555

Attachment 460556

Hahaha. PSA 9(HE) - half eaten.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I am also waiting for those particular Qualifiers so I can submit my NrMt Rube..

Attachment 460555

Attachment 460556

I opened a pack of 1955 Bowman and pulled a "mint" Whitey Ford that had a corner chewed off. Would that be a PSA 9 CH?

[egri]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I am also waiting for those particular Qualifiers so I can submit my NrMt Rube..

Attachment 460555

Attachment 460556

You should submit him with "Large Ass" Herzog; he's Gem Mint if you look past all the missing chunks.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

man this will wreak havoc on an ex member's business model

[egri]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

man this will wreak havoc on an ex member's business model

I think I can make a pretty good guess about which ex-member.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by egri

You should submit him with "Large Ass" Herzog; he's Gem Mint if you look past all the missing chunks.

SGC did a good job with the Herzog.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by egri

I think I can make a pretty good guess about which ex-member.

Is it purple sticker guy?

[egri]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If they would just add a few new qualifiers and allow several per card we could both have Gem Mint PSA cards.

If that was a 1969 Topps, I’d say it’s the Woodstock variation.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by conor912

Is it purple sticker guy?

As far as I know Greg isn't an EX member

[JollyElm]

Am I misunderstanding this, or does it mean that if you've already submitted cards, PSA is now going to grade them without putting qualifiers on the labels (except for unavoidable things like MC and the like) and lower the grades to reflect bad centering, etc.?

In Bobby's group sub, I purposefully submitted a few cards that I expect to get back in relatively high grade with OC qualifiers attached. Now, for instance, instead of a PSA 7 OC, my card will get a straight PSA 5 (or such)? Is there a 'grandfather clause'? When submitting this group sub, the rules were different, and now we're subject to 'new' rules we weren't informed of? If that's the case, it's total BS.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

...the rules were different, and now we're subject to 'new' rules we weren't informed of? If that's the case, it's total BS.

I agree with Darren. Moving the goalposts like that would be unacceptable to many people.

I realize PSA has a backlog to deal with. However, they shouldn't take shortcuts that impact the customer to more quickly address that backlog.

[Casey2296]

the rules were different, and now we're subject to 'new' rules we weren't informed of? If that's the case, it's total BS.

Think of it like a retroactive tax hike...

[rdwyer]

"A" is now a Zero?

[JustinD]

I admit I love the idea of not seeing those godawful listings of sellers listing a 9oc for the price of a straight 8 or 9 and tossing in the obligatory “pop of 1 in this grade!” or even the other more lovely “Highest graded example!”.

[JollyElm]

Some people argue with regards to qualifiers, "What does it matter?"

So, here's an example which illustrates exactly why it's important to me personally.

These two cards (just screengrabs, BTW, not my cards) are very nearly identical. Side-to-side centering is very close to being exactly the same, and the top-to-bottom is slightly different, but neither card would be considered OC based on that sole factor.

One of these cards is a PSA 9OC, and the other is a straight PSA 7. Again, they are nearly identical, so the question must be asked: a) Did somebody check the 'no qualifiers' box on their submission, so it came back a straight 7 instead of a PSA 9OC...b) or is the straight PSA 7 a 7 because the centering fits the parameters for that specific grade and there were other factors which caused it to be 'lowered' to a PSA 7? In effect, the grade of 7 is an illusion, because we don't know whether it was 'a' or 'b.' However, with the PSA 9OC there is no illusion whatsoever. The card was graded a 9, meaning its features (corners, edges, focus, etc.) are virtually perfect, but the 'OC' qualifier was added because it is unsuitably off-centered. Very straightforward.

1972ryan595mockupb.jpg

I would prefer my card to be graded with the qualifier, because the information is complete, and if I sold the card, potential buyers wouldn't be in the dark. Again, the information is straightforward - a nearly perfect card that is off-centered.

But if I sent this card in today and it came back a 7, I would be pissed. Someone looking at said card wouldn't think it's really a 9 that's OC, so it was knocked down two number grades. No way. They would see it as a 7 that is waaaaaaaay off-centered (so in their mind it would actually 'look' more like a PSA 5, so to speak)...which would hurt any potential seller's ability to move the card at the 'correct' price.

PSA screwed the pooch on this one.

• Here are two cards I have in Bobby's group sub. The 1966 Choo Choo Coleman high number is a coveted card, and it's in sweet shape (Who am I kidding? Whatever grade I believe it should get will end up being way off). I would want it to be (God willing) around a PSA 8OC, because it would tell potential traders that it really is in nice shape, but is obviously off-centered. No grey area to speak of.

And the 1967 Hammerin' Hank Aaron, too, is really beautiful with incredible image clarity. Not really a diamond cut, but what I call a 'Rotato' - a rectangular card with an image that's twisted. I purposefully submitted this card to (hopefully) come back at a high grade with the requisite OC designation, not a much lower straight grade.

1967aaron1966choochoo.jpg

It's pathetic that they can just change the rules in the middle of the game without any regard for their customers' wishes and intentions. Absolutely ridiculous!!

[JustinD]

I can see your viewpoint.

Personally I would prefer just the straight grade as in my mind it is simply the exact same thing. They are both 7s.

The idea of removing the largest flaw and grading a card without it makes no logical sense in my mind accept to garner some feel good sentiment for the submitter. If you walked on the car lot and saw two of the exact same cars, one with overall general wear and tear, but one with a perfect interior but completely covered in rust is one actually superior because it has one better trait than the other with overall wear? Would you listen to a salesman tell you to just ignore the rust and be impressed by the interior?

It’s not a perfect analogy at all, but that’s basically how I picture a qualifier.

Grade a card on the “sum” of its parts, not “some” of its parts.

[the 'stache]

This is giving me a sick headache. Remind me, again, why we even send our cards in to be graded in the first place?

The same card, sent in to one TPG every 5 years, for 25 years, freed from its plastic tomb, could conceivably receive a different grade every time. How, exactly does this service benefit the collector?

These "professionals" often miss fairly obvious card doctoring. They've whiffed on reproductions. They misidentify cards, labeling said card with the wrong designation, meaning it has to be sent back in for correction.

I'm not seeing any real expertise, and their business practices are borderline unethical.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I realize PSA has a backlog to deal with. However, they shouldn't take shortcuts that impact the customer to more quickly address that backlog.

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's pathetic that they can just change the rules in the middle of the game without any regard for their customers' wishes and intentions. Absolutely ridiculous!!

You're both 100% correct. But they'll get away with it, because there is no real accountability in this hobby. Not where these third party graders are concerned. The occasional lawsuit sheds some light on a few of the real cockroaches, and the lawyers get some money for their effort. A bunch of us see our blood pressure raised. Overwhelming visual evidence of doctored cards being submitted and receiving higher grades...even a beginning collector can find this information without much effort.

And a year from now, this "backlog" will have been cleared. And PSA will have suffered no ill effect. Nothing is going to change until they are hit where it hurts. Until we all finally agree to stop rewarding their reprehensible business practices with our money, they'll just keep on, and the viscous cycle will continue.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Grade a card on the “sum” of its parts, not “some” of its parts.

Justin, IMHO, you hit the nail on the head!

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Grade a card on the “sum” of its parts, not “some” of its parts.

I certainly agree with that sentiment, but the problem is PSA has been giving qualifiers since the beginning, so that's where the train goes off the tracks. If there never were any qualifiers given, then the 'sum' method would have been perfect, but unfortunately that's not the case. Now, like the 1972 Ryan example, there could be two realities. A highly off-centered card could be both a PSA 7 and a PSA 9OC at the same time, with the only difference being whether or not the submitter checks the 'no qualifiers' box on the form (I have no idea if that was actually the case here with regard to the graded Ryans, as I'm using it more of a general example). That's why this whole scenario is problematic for those of us who were fully expecting to get qualifiers on our cards.

Here are the 1972 Ryans with the grades exposed...

1972ryan595mockupa.jpg

[Johnny630]

Is Grading An Addiction ?

All these cards I’ve seen from you guys are great, regardless what PSA thinks.

[Rich Klein]

My point, and this is strictly from a BUSINESS point of view, is the removal of qualifiers is long overdue on PSA's part.

Why?

Even with all the people they have hired, they are still churning through their massive backlog and anything which slows the process, even by micro-seconds in typing, as putting a qualifier on cards is not worth the time at this point.

Plus, for the graders, again, even it saves micro seconds that time adds up.

So this is a decision, on the business level which is overdue. You had to think of this from the business point of view, NOT our collector point of view.

Rich

[bxb]

I also prefer no qualifiers.

I can judge for myself the centering on a card or if it is out of focus.

[swarmee]

According to the blowout post, MC and MK would still remain. I'm not a big fan of this change, and don't think it really saves that much time.
My best guess is that this is a Nat Turner-ism where he and his buddies decided to get rid of it, since the market largely ignores cards with qualifiers; at one point, they were trading around 3 grades lower than the same grade.

If they were consistent with their grading standards and gave all Mint conditioned cards with 90/10 centering on front a PSA 3 with no qualifiers, then I'll be interested in seeing how those cards are treated on the secondary market. Because the assumption on the buyer's part is that they're damaged (surface wrinkles), and the centering is incidental. However, if they got a 9(OC) they would be worth a 7 on the registry and a 6 or so in sales price.

[Republicaninmass]

I used to like sgc slabs for this reason just grade the freaking card. Now they have shifted to psa like, where a mint card 90/10 is an sgc 3. I dont get it

[Eric72]

PSA will likely never do this; however, it would be nice to see sub-grades on the flip.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Eric72

PSA will likely never do this; however, it would be nice to see sub-grades on the flip.

Putting sub-grades on the flip and listing specific qualifiers both slow down the process and also provide additional insight by PSA as to how they came up with the numerical grade. Neither of which are in PSAs vested interest at this time.

Giving a single numerical grade with no other information is the fastest and least accountable way to get a card in and push it out in a plastic tomb.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Putting sub-grades on the flip and listing specific qualifiers both slow down the process and also provide additional insight by PSA as to how they came up with the numerical grade. Neither of which are in PSAs vested interest at this time.

Giving a single numerical grade with no other information is the fastest and least accountable way to get a card in and push it out in a plastic tomb.

I completely understand. As I wrote, "PSA will likely never do this."

[JollyElm]

Here's another pair of virtually identical cards. There's a helluva lot of extra room on top of the card on the left versus the card on the right, but it received a straight grade. Is that PSA 7 a 'natural' 7, or is it a PSA 9OC that was numerically demoted by a check of the 'no qualifiers' box?? There's no way to know.

(I would absolutely prefer the card on the right, because they are basically carbon copies of each other, so the 9 tells me it's perfect in every way, save for centering. The PSA 7 begs the question above to be asked.)

1969clemente50c.jpg

If you're viewing them on-line, there's no way to really tell unless there's big-time magnification available to study the corners, focus and such. Of course, if you're buying cards in person you can judge all of these factors for yourself, but the vast majority of purchases are done over the web, so (let the PSA jokes and insults fly) you have to have some faith in the actuality of the grade on the label.

[JollyElm]

Anyone have a crop? This dead horse still needs a few whacks...

1973rosecomp.jpg

[mq711]

I don’t know why the TPGs don’t put the centering % on the flip and grade the card on other factors. This could be done with AI and would separate one TPG from the others.

[MikeGarcia]

You can still find a lot of older Beckett holders out there :

Originally Posted by Eric72

PSA will likely never do this; however, it would be nice to see sub-grades on the flip.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Here's another pair of virtually identical cards. There's a helluva lot of extra room on top of the card on the left versus the card on the right, but it received a straight grade. Is that PSA 7 a 'natural' 7, or is it a PSA 9OC that was numerically demoted by a check of the 'no qualifiers' box?? There's no way to know.

(I would absolutely prefer the card on the right, because they are basically carbon copies of each other, so the 9 tells me it's perfect in every way, save for centering. The PSA 7 begs the question above to be asked.)

Attachment 461149

If you're viewing them on-line, there's no way to really tell unless there's big-time magnification available to study the corners, focus and such. Of course, if you're buying cards in person you can judge all of these factors for yourself, but the vast majority of purchases are done over the web, so (let the PSA jokes and insults fly) you have to have some faith in the actuality of the grade on the label.

That Clemente 9 (OC) looks trimmed. Look closely- I wouldn't trust it.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by perezfan

That Clemente 9 (OC) looks trimmed. Look closely- I wouldn't trust it.

I shared your same concerns before I bought the card, Mark, because it's a hair short, but I went right down the line looking at every one of the past sales on the PSA site, and found a pretty decent percentage of them were a bit short top-to-bottom in varying degrees. Not crazy or anything, but not quite hitting both bumpers either. (Of course, virtually every single card sold by the card doctors at PWCC was short. It was a given. SMH.) In the end, I believe the glass to be half full and maybe it was just how they were printed, since one of the positions his card occupied was on the bottom row?

1969-topps-uncut-sheet-aaron-clemente.jpg

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Putting sub-grades on the flip and listing specific qualifiers both slow down the process and also provide additional insight by PSA as to how they came up with the numerical grade. Neither of which are in PSAs vested interest at this time.

Giving a single numerical grade with no other information is the fastest and least accountable way to get a card in and push it out in a plastic tomb.

I think we all know how the grades are determined for most of us who aren't high volume submitters or card alterers.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I used to like sgc slabs for this reason just grade the freaking card. Now they have shifted to psa like, where a mint card 90/10 is an sgc 3. I dont get it

SGC sometime around 2 years ago suddenly became centering fanatics. I had vintage cards that would have been 7's or higher with PSA come back SGC 5's only due to centering. Whatever, but given that SGC is still somewhat more lenient than PSA on corners, the whole thing kind still seems kind of random and doesn't make a ton of sense. Another huge problem is that they seem to get it wrong frequently, and have graders who don't know how to properly compute centering ratios.

[jchcollins]

Forgive me if I missed this in the earlier comments, but how do we know about this change from PSA? Was there an announcement, or did their submission forms just change and people noticed it?

Given how many people hate qualifiers and have for decades, can't say I'm upset, but it is an interesting development. If this would lead to sellers being more descriptive in listings across the board, I'm all for it.

[Johnny630]

I'd be pleased if with the new AI Computer Assisted Grading at PSA if they would be able to pick up alterations especially trimmed/re-colored cards.

I could care less what the hell they do with qualifiers.