PSA Strikes again!!!!

[cammb]

Leach by Tony Biviano, on Flickr

Cracked this out of PSA slab and sent to SGC for regrade. Comes back as Too small. Way to go you two bit cheap grading service.

[Leon]

Probably shouldn't have cracked that one, says the guy with 20-20 hindsight.

Originally Posted by cammb

Leach by Tony Biviano, on Flickr

Cracked this out of PSA slab and sent to SGC for regrade. Comes back as Too small. Way to go you two bit cheap grading service.

[CMIZ5290]

I agree, card looked accurately graded from PSA to begin with...

[sb1]

That does not mean it's trimmed or anything else, it did not meet their minimum size requirement. Should have left it in the PSA holder, the card is fine.

[pclpads]

Did you really, really think SGC would give it a higher grade?

[Bill77]

Even Tommy looks sad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

One card proves a whole hell of a lot. I know guys who have cracked out numerous SGC cards to have them not regrade. What's your point?

[cammb]

Originally Posted by pclpads

Did you really, really think SGC would give it a higher grade?

T

On the contrary, I asked for a vg (40) grade.

[KCRfan1]

Any opportunity to resubmit to PSA with the label and ask for a new slab?

[Piratedogcardshows]

i just had a similar 3.5 from the other company grade short with SGC as well. No more cracking for me im sending in with a crossover/minimum grade from now on.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I agree, card looked accurately graded from PSA to begin with...

I second that...I think PSA nailed it and SGC flubbed it.

[Gradedcardman]

We all should know by now it is a gamble to crack and resubmit. We have read about it time and again. I have had similar experiences but with some much larger dollar cards. It pains me to see the grade come back as authentic but I know after a couple of more tries it will be back to a numeric grade.

[mrvster]

are blind!!! I can see from the scan a mile away the card is short! DUH!

at least sgc knows their shit, they might miss a card, but psa doesn't know a blue old mill from a brown old mill

you have to "know" what you are grading.....you need to understand the set, especially accurate labeling....

hire someone with PASSION PSA!!! WTF

[benjulmag]

"A" grades can come about with no evidence of trimming or other alteration, other than the size of the card itself. For my tastes, I would value an undersized card with nothing else wrong with it higher than a card (undersized or not) with clear evidence of trimming. I would like to see the "A" grade amplified, by specifying the basis for the designation. That way the market will have more information to determine the card's value. I would also like to see the grading companies take provenance into account in deciding whether to grade an undersized card an "A". I know of instances of cards that came from collections where there was no reasonable likelihood of trimming (e.g., postwar cards Lionel Carter got straight out of the pack), that received "A" grades solely because they were undersized. In those instances, I think it would be okay for the grading company to give such cards numerical grades.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by mrvster

are blind!!! I can see from the scan a mile away the card is short! DUH!

at least sgc knows their shit, they might miss a card, but psa doesn't know a blue old mill from a brown old mill

you have to "know" what you are grading.....you need to understand the set, especially accurate labeling....

hire someone with PASSION PSA!!! WTF

Just because a card is short doesn't mean it was trimmed. Plenty came short from the factory, just as others were cut with large borders (and sometimes two names) from the factory.

[mrvster]

t206 cards do fall out of the parameters of 1 7/16 " by 2 5/8 " occasionally, but more probability correlates to trimming....psa graders are blind! they are just starting to understand the set, where as sgc has always been ahead of the curve......4 to 1 misgrades to sgc on average

GET THEM SOME EYEGLASES!

[cammb]

Originally Posted by Gradedcardman

We all should know by now it is a gamble to crack and resubmit. We have read about it time and again. I have had similar experiences but with some much larger dollar cards. It pains me to see the grade come back as authentic but I know after a couple of more tries it will be back to a numeric grade.

I understand the gamble but the card is short having measured it against others. I dont think anyone who crosses expects this or a trim. You can assume a half grade or more either high or low.

[mrvster]

btw...not you to get glassespsa graders to get glasses....I see so many obvious mistakes on psa t206 holders, it's ridiculous....

usually 1/16" deviation from standard parameters is acceptable....looks like a really short top border and a relatively standard bottom border from the scan....id gamble over 1/16 " short

psa should measure the cards accurately! if it fell within the acceptable parameters, sgc would have graded that puppy even if factory cut short

most t206 I see factory cut out of standard dimensions are oversized rather than factory cut short as the norm(not like it isn't possible tho, just unlikely)

[keithsky]

It's amasing get it graded, take it out, get it regraded. Guys must like making the TPG companies rich and wasting your money. Basicly 3 grading companies out there control the whole thing and guys rely on the word as gospel. If you get it graded be happy and move on. To much time wasted and the TPG companies laughing all the way to the bank.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by keithsky

It's amasing get it graded, take it out, get it regraded. Guys must like making the TPG companies rich and wasting your money. Basicly 3 grading companies out there control the whole thing and guys rely on the word as gospel. If you get it graded be happy and move on. To much time wasted and the TPG companies laughing all the way to the bank.

When a 1 grade bump can be a quarter million or more dollars, it's not only the TPGs laughing.

.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by mrvster

btw...not you to get glassespsa graders to get glasses....

haha, I'm sure I could use them too, like when I can't find something and I complain to my wife and turns out it was right in front of my face

but back on topic, my only points were that it SGC didn't find any evidence of trimming (otherwise they would've checked the "evidence of trimming" block), that its *possible* the card came short from the factory, and that the card measured short by an amount bigger than SGC was comfortable giving a grade. Neither TPG found evidence of trimming, but SGC covered their backside.

[mrvster]

funny you should mention that.....I thought of the same thing! without seeing the edges and measuring, I would bet its trimmed....was wondering why sgc didn't check trimmed?? or altered??? but covering their butt put that ???

[robw1959]

Literally ANYTHING can happen when you resubmit cards. Here's a funny story of mine: I recently cracked out a 1955 Bowman PSA-4 card of Willie Mays that looked absolutely like an 8. I sent it to SGC, thinking PSA has severely undergraded it, but it came back as trimmed! I looked at the card very carefully, examining the edges in the light, and saw that it was indeed trimmed.

[LEHR]

Just resubmit the card and it will probably get slabbed. Back when I used to submit cards and play the grading game I once subbed a card to PSA four times to get it in what I thought was the correct holder. It came back 1. Min Size Req. 2. Min. Size Req. 3. PSA 7 and finally 4. PSA 8. And from my personal experience SGC isn't any better. This is the reason I stopped subbing cards ten years ago and now just buy cards already slabbed in the grade I want.

Good luck if you send it in again.

[cammb]

I like my collection in SGC slabs. That's the reason for cracking it out. I will never submit to PSA. I will sell the card on the board with the explanation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by LEHR

Just resubmit the card and it will probably get slabbed. Back when I used to submit cards and play the grading game I once subbed a card to PSA four times to get it in what I thought was the correct holder. It came back 1. Min Size Req. 2. Min. Size Req. 3. PSA 7 and finally 4. PSA 8. And from my personal experience SGC isn't any better. This is the reason I stopped subbing cards ten years ago and now just buy cards already slabbed in the grade I want.

Good luck if you send it in again.

I know of cards that ended up in 8s or even 9s that along the way were rejected multiple times or graded as low as 4. There's an illusion of accuracy when you see any one card at one time, but it isn't necessarily so.

[toledo_mudhen]

A bit OT - Have always wondered

If you submit a slabbed card (say PSA) and ask for a minimum cross over grade -

do they record the serial number when rejecting so that if it ever comes in again they simply look up in database and summarily reject again?

[Prof_Plum]

Is it possible SGC gave it a 'min size' because o.p. asked for a grade of 35-40 ? That is, to get that grade the card must be a certain size. A simple google/bing image search will bring up a bunch of SGC graded cards that are most certainly smaller that the one posted. Course most of the grades on those cards are 20 or lower.