Brutal PSA Poppage

[Mrvintage]

Truly some head scratchers in this submission!!!! I guess this just shows the human element in the grading game.....lol

Order #20773474 / Submission #5414731
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type
1 1 22441421 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 TOPPS 270 WILLIE STARGELL Card (PSA 9 crackout)
2 1 22441422 NEAR MINT 7 1980 TOPPS 482 RICKEY HENDERSON Card (PSA 9 crackout)
3 1 22441423 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1915 CRACKER JACK 36 ED WALSH Card (PSA 4 crackout)
4 1 22441424 GEM MINT 10 1984 FLEER UPDATE U-27 ROGER CLEMENS Card (Raw card purchase on Net 54 boards)
5 1 22441425 GOOD 2 1955 TOPPS 124 HARMON KILLEBREW Card
6 1 22441426 POOR 1 1954 BOWMAN 65 MICKEY MANTLE Card
7 1 22441427 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1990 SCORE SUPPLEMENTAL 101T EMMITT SMITH Card
8 1 22441428 MINT 9 2002 BOWMAN CHROME GOLD 391 JOE MAUER GOLD REFRACTOR-AUTOGRAPH Card (BGS 9 crackout)
9 1 22441429 MINT 9 1989 UPPER DECK 1 KEN GRIFFEY JR. STAR ROOKIE Card (BGS 9.5 crackout w/ 4 9.5 subs)
9 2 22441430 EXCELLENT 5 1989 UPPER DECK 1 KEN GRIFFEY JR. STAR ROOKIE Card (BGS 9.5 crackout w/ 4 9.5 subs) LOL
10 1 22441431 NEAR MINT 7 1983 TOPPS TRADED 108T DARRYL STRAWBERRY Card (BGS 9 crackout)
11 1 22441432 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 TOPPS 327 BO JACKSON Card (BGS 9 crackout)
11 2 22441433 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 TOPPS 327 BO JACKSON Card (BGS 9 crackout)
12 1 22441434 NEAR MINT 7 1972 TOPPS 79 RED SOX ROOKIES GARMAN/COOPER/FISK Card (GAI 8 crackout)
13 1 22441435 MINT 9 1991 PRO SET DESERT STORM 69 SADDAM HUSSEIN DESERT STORM Card
Total Items: 15
Date Received: 1/9/2014
Date Shipped: N/A
Order Status: OK

[sycks22]

I've had bad luck with crossovers with them. All but once I had them grade the SGC card "Evidence of trimming". Just a fancy way of saying "thanks for the money, but you'll get nothing"

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

Truly some head scratchers in this submission!!!! I guess this just shows the human element in the grading game.....lol

Order #20773474 / Submission #5414731
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type
1 1 22441421 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1976 TOPPS 270 WILLIE STARGELL Card (PSA 9 crackout)
2 1 22441422 NEAR MINT 7 1980 TOPPS 482 RICKEY HENDERSON Card (PSA 9 crackout)
3 1 22441423 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1915 CRACKER JACK 36 ED WALSH Card (PSA 4 crackout)
4 1 22441424 GEM MINT 10 1984 FLEER UPDATE U-27 ROGER CLEMENS Card (Raw card purchase on Net 54 boards)
5 1 22441425 GOOD 2 1955 TOPPS 124 HARMON KILLEBREW Card
6 1 22441426 POOR 1 1954 BOWMAN 65 MICKEY MANTLE Card
7 1 22441427 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1990 SCORE SUPPLEMENTAL 101T EMMITT SMITH Card
8 1 22441428 MINT 9 2002 BOWMAN CHROME GOLD 391 JOE MAUER GOLD REFRACTOR-AUTOGRAPH Card (BGS 9 crackout)
9 1 22441429 MINT 9 1989 UPPER DECK 1 KEN GRIFFEY JR. STAR ROOKIE Card (BGS 9.5 crackout w/ 4 9.5 subs)
9 2 22441430 EXCELLENT 5 1989 UPPER DECK 1 KEN GRIFFEY JR. STAR ROOKIE Card (BGS 9.5 crackout w/ 4 9.5 subs) LOL
10 1 22441431 NEAR MINT 7 1983 TOPPS TRADED 108T DARRYL STRAWBERRY Card (BGS 9 crackout)
11 1 22441432 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 TOPPS 327 BO JACKSON Card (BGS 9 crackout)
11 2 22441433 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1988 TOPPS 327 BO JACKSON Card (BGS 9 crackout)
12 1 22441434 NEAR MINT 7 1972 TOPPS 79 RED SOX ROOKIES GARMAN/COOPER/FISK Card (GAI 8 crackout)
13 1 22441435 MINT 9 1991 PRO SET DESERT STORM 69 SADDAM HUSSEIN DESERT STORM Card
Total Items: 15
Date Received: 1/9/2014
Date Shipped: N/A
Order Status: OK

if you can prove you removed a card from their holder, resubmitted it and it gets a lower grade, shouldn't they cover it for grading it wrong the first time, especially that trim job?

kevin

[pclpads]

Sir, you are a gambler cracking out 9's and hoping for 10's. Sometimes the candy, more often the wrapper.

[glynparson]

tell him what you showed us here and see if he cant have the submission reviewed for you, especially if not marked shipped yet. Even if shipped i'd contact him to see if you can get this order re-looked at.

[Peter_Spaeth]

PSA is known to be tough on third year Bo Jackson cards.

[h2oya311]

I doubt Joe O. can do much for MrVintage....unless our fellow board member works for Small Traditions.

[AMBST95]

That's pretty rough, particularly the 5. It's all a matter of luck on the crossovers, even within the same company. I rarely cross due to horror stories like this one. I don't think I'd have the stomach for it on a high dollar card.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PSA is known to be tough on third year Bo Jackson cards.

I had heard that too.

[ullmandds]

Yes...playing the "cracking" game when trying to get 10's out of 9's and 9's from 8's is a risky endeavor...when one plays with fire...well you know how that ends!

[Mrvintage]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PSA is known to be tough on third year Bo Jackson cards.

The 88 topps Bo Jackson cards are his football rookies not 3rd yr baseball cards.

[D.P.Johnson]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

if you can prove you removed a card from their holder, resubmitted it and it gets a lower grade, shouldn't they cover it for grading it wrong the first time, especially that trim job?

kevin

They'll probably say it was trimmed after it was taken out of the slab...

[WhenItWasAHobby]

This also reinforces that one should only obtain cards through raw cards purchased on Net 54 boards.

[Mrvintage]

Funny thing about the cracker jack Walsh is that they have already graded the card 3 times and SGC has graded it once as well. This was going to be my final attempt to get a higher grade on this card, but I guess they want me to sub it one more time....lol. With this particular card it is more about me being stubborn than it is about the money. It is a super sharp card that looks as good as all of the 6's and 7's I have seen. I'll probably send it back to PSA one more time and keep it for my collection because I often times toy around with the idea of starting the 15 CJ set and that card would be a great start.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

The 88 topps Bo Jackson cards are his football rookies not 3rd yr baseball cards.

To quote the Wizard of Oz: "Well, bust my buttons, why didn't you say that in the first place?"

[glchen]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

if you can prove you removed a card from their holder, resubmitted it and it gets a lower grade, shouldn't they cover it for grading it wrong the first time, especially that trim job?

kevin

PSA will say that you may have damaged the card during the crackout process or it is very hard to prove that is the same card that was removed from the original holder.

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by D.P.Johnson

They'll probably say it was trimmed after it was taken out of the slab...

yea. im referring to the fact that if you bought it as PSA 4, then cracked it out only to have them come back and say it is trimmed, meaning they missed it was trimmed the first time. im pretty sure that is what has happened.

kevin

[Mrvintage]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

yea. im referring to the fact that if you bought it as PSA 4, then cracked it out only to have them come back and say it is trimmed, meaning they missed it was trimmed the first time. im pretty sure that is what has happened.

kevin

This would be the 4th time they have graded the card and SGC has graded it also so I'm pretty sure it is not trimmed

[calvindog]

Ugh, this is how the pop reports get all screwed up -- which only causes the value of the card to go down.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

This would be the 4th time they have graded the card and SGC has graded it also so I'm pretty sure it is not trimmed

I know of many many cards that have been on similar journeys until they ended up in their optimal holder. It's pretty scary really. One grade differences on different trips are understandable, but two grade disparities are not and I have seen some as high as 4 grades, not to mention going from altered to unaltered and vice versa.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

I'll probably send it back to PSA one more time and keep it for my collection because I often times toy around with the idea of starting the 15 CJ set and that card would be a great start.

Wouldn't the card be a great start to the set no matter if it's in a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 holder? You know, because it's the same card?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

Funny thing about the cracker jack Walsh is that they have already graded the card 3 times and SGC has graded it once as well. This was going to be my final attempt to get a higher grade on this card, but I guess they want me to sub it one more time....lol.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. If you felt that PSA has got it wrong 3 times now, why do you keep trusting them to do it again?

If you took your car to the shop for a repair and they didn't get it right the first time, would you pay them again to fix it a second time? Third time? Fourth time? Maybe it's just me, but I'm funny about paying for the same service over and over if I felt it wasn't done right to begin with.

[Mrvintage]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Ugh, this is how the pop reports get all screwed up -- which only causes the value of the card to go down.

I see your point Jeff, but at the same time just because the pop report says there are X number of cards in a particular grade that doesn't mean that those cards are truly available. Shouldn't supply and demand still determine the value of cards rather than the pop report? For instance lets say that you want a particular card in PSA 9 grade. Just because the pop report says there are 15 of them and you rarely see the card available is that going to influence your buying price when one becomes available? I'm not trying to start an argument just asking an honest question?

[ethicsprof]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Wouldn't the card be a great start to the set no matter if it's in a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 holder? You know, because it's the same card?

well said,Rob.

best,
barry

[Mrvintage]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Wouldn't the card be a great start to the set no matter if it's in a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 holder? You know, because it's the same card?

Great point Rob and you are right, but it sure would be nice to have it graded as highly as possible when it comes time to sell your set.

[freakhappy]

Thanks for sharing your submission report with us...sorry about the way they turned out

All in all, if you feel like your CJ will eventually turn in a better grade, then resubmit...it is your card. But it looks like there may be a small crease somewhere if it keeps turning up in a low-mid grade holder...just something to think about. And what was up with the BGS 9.5 turning into a 5??? Maybe the card got damaged when you cracked it out or when you sent it in?

[joeadcock]

Originally Posted by ethicsprof

well said,Rob.

best,
barry

Hey Barry

Your an ethicist at heart.

[Mrvintage]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

Thanks for sharing your submission report with us...sorry about the way they turned out

All in all, if you feel like your CJ will eventually turn in a better grade, then resubmit...it is your card. But it looks like there may be a small crease somewhere if it keeps turning up in a low-mid grade holder...just something to think about. And what was up with the BGS 9.5 turning into a 5??? Maybe the card got damaged when you cracked it out or when you sent it in?

Yeah Mike maybe there is something there on the CJ that I am missing . I have no idea what happened on the Griffey that turned into a 5. I have cracked out many many cards over the years and have never damaged one. I always look them over well after the crackout before submitting them so who knows. I know that PSA has been historically tough on the hologram on the back of the 89 upper deck cards, but I checked that as well so I am truly puzzled. It's not the end of the world, but just thought I would share my frustrations with the board. I have learned a lot from this board over the years so it's always good to hear others thoughts on these matters. Thanks, Andy

[ethicsprof]

as are you, my friend.
'be ethical at all times.'

best,
barry

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

I see your point Jeff, but at the same time just because the pop report says there are X number of cards in a particular grade that doesn't mean that those cards are truly available. Shouldn't supply and demand still determine the value of cards rather than the pop report? For instance lets say that you want a particular card in PSA 9 grade. Just because the pop report says there are 15 of them and you rarely see the card available is that going to influence your buying price when one becomes available? I'm not trying to start an argument just asking an honest question?

When I was collecting high grade 50s sets, when I saw a card for sale with a pop 1 in PSA 9, I usually would spend significantly more than when the card had a pop 8 -- even if I hadn't seen it around in PSA 9 recently. I presumed that eventually the others would come about so I wouldn't spend nearly as much. And when I sold my common PSA 9 pop 1s they sold for a hell of a lot more than those which had populations of 5, 6 or 9. Not even close.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

When I was collecting high grade 50s sets, when I saw a card for sale with a pop 1 in PSA 9, I usually would spend significantly more than when the card had a pop 8 -- even if I hadn't seen it around in PSA 9 recently. I presumed that eventually the others would come about so I wouldn't spend nearly as much. And when I sold my common PSA 9 pop 1s they sold for a hell of a lot more than those which had populations of 5, 6 or 9. Not even close.

That'll learn ya for collecting high grade sets. Those 9s are probably all hacked up anyway.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PSA is known to be tough on third year Bo Jackson cards.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That'll learn ya for collecting high grade sets. Those 9s are probably all hacked up anyway.

Sadly, as long as it's in a holder does it really matter?

[j_cook]

Cracking a 9 is super risky... I'd think on a grade that high you'd be better off just leaving it in the case and paying for the re-evaluation or whatever it's called.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Sadly, as long as it's in a holder does it really matter?

Nope. Thus, the pervasive doctoring of cards.

[joeadcock]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

....doctoring....

Them darn doctors

[KCRfan1]

I believe most of us would agree that BGS does not translate well to PSA or SGC. BGS is usually overgraded and I would expect a grade drop to PSA or SGC. I would have left the Stargell and Henderson cards alone. Nothing too much wrong with a 9, and the likelyhood of 10's were slim. Too bad about the CJ, most of the 4's I have seen look pretty good. There is a lot of human element involved. Different grading companies and different graders. There is our own human element as well. Some of us believe we have better cards than we might.

[Mrvintage]

Originally Posted by joeadcock

Them darn doctors

First off let me say that I don't feel like anyone is accusing me of doctoring this card(honestly I wouldn't know the first thing about how to even do that). I saw a friend of mine at the National Convention pull a card from a pack and take it directly to BGS and did their raw card review service. We went back to pick it up the next day and it was labeled evidence of trimming so I know that these type of issues happen. I just wanted this card in the holder that I thought it deserved to be in and if it came pack a PSA 4 again I was willing to live with that. I think it would be interesting to take a card and just for research purposes sub it 25 times just to see how consistent or inconsistent they graded it. As a matter of fact I think I will pick out a few cards to send in with every submission that I do just to test them out.

[Mrvintage]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

I believe most of us would agree that BGS does not translate well to PSA or SGC. BGS is usually overgraded and I would expect a grade drop to PSA or SGC. I would have left the Stargell and Henderson cards alone. Nothing too much wrong with a 9, and the likelyhood of 10's were slim. Too bad about the CJ, most of the 4's I have seen look pretty good. There is a lot of human element involved. Different grading companies and different graders. There is our own human element as well. Some of us believe we have better cards than we might.

The VCP price of a psa 9 Stargell is $55.00 while the VCP of a psa 10 is $1245.00. I felt this card was a very strong 9 and had a pretty good shot at a 10. I felt the same way with the BGS 9 Joe Mauer gold refractor auto. The Henderson I knew was a long shot but I took a gamble on it. The PSA 5 Griffey is just ridiculous unless it was damaged in shipping or somewhere along the way.

[Rich Klein]

I never would have taken the BGS 9.5 with all 9.5 subs out of the holder.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

The VCP price of a psa 9 Stargell is $55.00 while the VCP of a psa 10 is $1245.00.

I can certainly understand your motive for trying to bump-up cards - you cite a perfect example and for this reason is why I shied away from collecting pre-1973 PSA 10s or even PSA 9s since there is so much subjectivity involved.

It's been well documented on this board that you could be paying a premium on bumped-up card simply because one or two graders were in a better mood on that particular day or were engaged in a pattern of being consistently generous to a certain submitter or for whatever reason. I find the whole "game" very disturbing since the net effect is that grading company wins by grading the same card multiple times, the seller wins with the major profit realized and the buyer ultimately looses by overpaying. The buyer's only hope is that he'll eventually find someone to pay more for that overpriced card.

[Piratedogcardshows]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

The VCP price of a psa 9 Stargell is $55.00 while the VCP of a psa 10 is $1245.00. I felt this card was a very strong 9 and had a pretty good shot at a 10. I felt the same way with the BGS 9 Joe Mauer gold refractor auto. The Henderson I knew was a long shot but I took a gamble on it. The PSA 5 Griffey is just ridiculous unless it was damaged in shipping or somewhere along the way.

Damn 1190.00 for one grade higher.That's just nuts.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I never would have taken the BGS 9.5 with all 9.5 subs out of the holder.

+1

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

I doubt Joe O. can do much for MrVintage....unless our fellow board member works for Small Traditions.

More like Make A Wish

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

I can certainly understand your motive for trying to bump-up cards - you cite a perfect example and for this reason is why I shied away from collecting pre-1973 PSA 10s or even PSA 9s since there is so much subjectivity involved.

It's been well documented on this board that you could be paying a premium on bumped-up card simply because one or two graders were in a better mood on that particular day or were engaged in a pattern of being consistently generous to a certain submitter or for whatever reason. I find the whole "game" very disturbing since the net effect is that grading company wins by grading the same card multiple times, the seller wins with the major profit realized and the buyer ultimately looses by overpaying. The buyer's only hope is that he'll eventually find someone to pay more for that overpriced card.

I agree with all of this, but at what point do we start blaming the buyers for the huge disparity in price, when they know damn well they may be buying a 10, that was a 9, just a few days or weeks ago?

.......or maybe "blame" is the wrong word, but they made their bed it seems.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Wouldn't the card be a great start to the set no matter if it's in a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 holder? You know, because it's the same card?

C'mon Rob, get with the program!

[Luke]

I don't mean any offense to the OP, but it is really sad that this is what's become of the hobby.

[Ease]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

I don't mean any offense to the OP, but it is really sad that this is what's become of the hobby.

This type of thing has been going on since the hobby was a hobby, and since grading emerged. If he wants to play the crackout game more power to him, some folks like to open packs, popping a sub is like opening a pack. Gotta find your own way to have fun with it...not sad at all.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

I don't mean any offense to the OP, but it is really sad that this is what's become of the hobby.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Originally Posted by Ease

This type of thing has been going on since the hobby was a hobby, and since grading emerged. If he wants to play the crackout game more power to him, some folks like to open packs, popping a sub is like opening a pack. Gotta find your own way to have fun with it...not sad at all.

No, it has not been going on "since the hobby was a hobby".

It has been going on since people started getting paid for their opinions, and the people paying them began collecting the opinions connected to each card, instead of the card.

If anybody finds it fun to collect those opinions, and keep paying for different (hopefully better) ones, that's good for them, and I'm glad that they are having fun.

But it's stupid.

There I said it, and I feel good about it. That's what's fun for me.

Doug

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Ease

This type of thing has been going on since the hobby was a hobby, and since grading emerged. If he wants to play the crackout game more power to him, some folks like to open packs, popping a sub is like opening a pack. Gotta find your own way to have fun with it...not sad at all.

I agree.

Hate the game, don't hate the player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk