PSA pop's - accuracy ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Parmentier

I look at the PSA population figues and can't help but think,

"How many have been cracked out resubmits that have received same grade?"

Are there really 38 T206 Cobb greenies in PSA 5, or are there maybe 30 with 8 people thinking they had a chance at a 6, crack, resubmit?

For major preWWI HOFers in the kinda spendy category ($500-$5000) - Perhaps a count - anyone ever much crack/resubmit much hoping for the grade bump?

Or does most everyone take what they have and not roll the dice - could come back unholdered?

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Permits you can attempt to calculate a percentage. Out of 10 PSA graded cards, how many do you resubmit?

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Also out of 10 PSA cards how many are resubmitted to another grading co.?

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gil

When it is worth the risk, the chance will be taken many times.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

New questions - same subject matter:

What is the greatest number of times you have submitted and resubmitted a card in order to get a better grade?

Did you ever get the grade you wanted on a resubmission? How many attempts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bobby Binder

There is another big problem they have and that is properly labeling the cards. Yesterday there are 2 new listings for T206's the Meyers card labeled wrong. Both are marked as the Meyer when one is Myer (Batting) and the other Myer (Fielding). So this added 2 cards to the wrong cat in the PSA Pop report.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark T

I am not out to bash PSA, i use them and generally like them but the population #'s don't add up...literally... for example: i check the population of a card that PSA says total 15, but when i add up all the grades it equals 13!!!!

can they add correctly or is it software?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Mark - I believe that is due to the issuing of the 'A' grade which wouldn't total in the population.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark T

That would explain it....they should at least have the AUT. before the PSA 1-2...i know SGC does.

thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: Bobby Binder

What percentage do you think the Pop reports are accurate? I would think 75-80% maybe lower.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark T

As for people cracking out the H.O.F trying to get a little better grade....i would say 30%-40% are actual, maybe even lower.

As for commons, i would say 85% are correct.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Number I Have Had Graded--23,000(est)

Number resubmitted-0.

That ought to bring down the percentages.

Overall number has to be less than 5%.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark T

Jim, you have had 23,000 graded!!!!

thats amazing...i don't suppose PSA or USPS lost any of those in the process of shipping.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Most of them I give to dealer friends who submit at very low rates per card. None have ever been lost.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Jim - submitting that many, I would think you would get as low a rate as possible; PSA actually charges the dealer less then they would charge you?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Matt,

For certain large submitters--yes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"large submitters" - that's not you with 23k submissions??

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

Giving merit to all opinions, I can reasonably assume 10-20%, give or take, PSA pop numbers are off by too much.

In preWar, PSA 4 and 5's may be most wrong - folks are looking for the 5 or 6 instead. If you have a 3, why bother - it will never be a 5 where the bigger money starts. And would you bust out a 6 or 7 looking for a 7 or 8? Not me, I be happy with the 6 or 7.

Post war Topps - I bet a helluva lot of 7's are busted out looking for 8's - probably the #1 bust and resubmit grade.

I kinda boil it down to this (just my guess) - T206 Cobb greenie in PSA 5, not 38, maybe 30-32

I like the dudes response that said, "...the chance will be taken many times." Then other people claim not at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Matt,

Maybe if I would have submitted them all under my name initially but in starting out I gave them do dealer friends so by the time I submitted some under my own name it was a bit higher.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

A question is is how accurate is PSA in updating the numbers. I know that PSA/DNA hasn't always promptly updated the databases as a LOA was issued. Meaning, though the LOA is legitimate, if you type in a serial number hasn't always been entered into the online database. In PSA/DNA's defense, I've heard of similar online database issues with Steiner, UDA and MLB.com, and I believe MLB.com's authentication process involves Deloitte and Touche.

PSA's population reports can't be more accurate than the proficiency of the company at entering and uploading the information, and it's a fair guess the latter isn't perfect.

Other than knowing what has yet to be entered and uploaded from that month, is there any way for PSA to verify or even check that the information they entered say two months ago was entered accurately?

What is PSA's opinion on the accuracy of the data? If PSA would tell you to take the report with a grain of salt, we can hardly blame PSA that collectors and dealers use it as the gospel according to dollar bill. People sometimes blame PSA for the ridiculous price paid for a PSA9, when PSA had nothing to do with the price. PSA only gave the grade, it was buyer who was ridiculous. If a grading company says their grading is 90 percent accurate, and collectors take the grade on the label as 100 percent accurate, the fault with be with those collectors.

Of course the grading companies are far from perfect, but I think a lot of what the hobby blames on the grading companies should be blamed on the users of the grading companies. For example, if collectors and dealers take a database too seriously, and in fact more seriously than the publisher said anyone should, the fault would lay with those who take it too seriously. If a grading company says their grades are 95% accurate, and collectors bid as if the grade on the labels are 100% accurate, the fault would be with those collectors.