Latest PSA Grades of CJ's

[Donscards]

I just got 15 graded Cracker Jack cards back from PSA--is it my imagination, or is their grading kind of tough--I was at least hoping for 3's--Just me complaining!!

[nsaddict]

Not your imagination, recently got my 30 business day (took 47) submission back and thought the same. The majority would have graded 1/1.5 higher if submitted just 2 years ago. I see many cards on the bay with old labels and wondered how they got those grades?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

Not your imagination, recently got my 30 business day (took 47) submission back and thought the same. The majority would have graded 1/1.5 higher if submitted just 2 years ago. I see many cards on the bay with old labels and wondered how they got those grades?

Well I mean, the ones a couple of years ago were more accurate, no?

[swarmee]

Cards have great eye appeal, but the pictures aren't close enough to detect the issues that led to their technical downgrades. And yes, most of the time they're tougher right now, but with millions of cards graded a year, many overgraded cards still slip through. Like ones that have obvious marker or stains on them that I've gotten back with straight 5 and 4 grades this past year.

[RedsFan1941]

if you choose to play a game whose rules are unclear -- and you know those rules can be arbitrarily applied -- you shouldn't be surprised when the game gives you puzzling results.

[guy3050]

They want people to resubmit !!

This Jackie recently got a 3 , it looks just as good then most 5

s-l1600 by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

s-l1600 (5) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr
s-l1600 (4) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

s-l1600 (3) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

s-l1600 (2) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

s-l1600 (1) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

[3-2-count]

The grading criteria in place used by Psa when grading Cracker Jacks has always been an inconsistent farce.

It's even worse on 1914's.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

if you choose to play a game whose rules are unclear -- and you know those rules can be arbitrarily applied -- you shouldn't be surprised when the game gives you puzzling results.

tru-dat! what a joke psa has become...a big moneygrab!

many early psa's are terribly overgraded...now the opposite...it's an inconsistent clusterf$ck!

[Johnny630]

That Jackie is screaming for a new holder!! Get me outta there I’m much better then a 3!

[Bigshot69]

I would speculate they are hitting the Jackie for what appears to be a horizontal crease through his name. Sharp card though!

I agree with Don the bottom 2 CJs look 4ish.

[glynparson]

Honestly judging cards as being to harshly graded based on scans is kind of useless. Often minor issues are not easily detectable from the scans. Also we are only seeing the fronts of these cards (cracker jacks) the backs also matter in technical grade.

[3-2-count]

Hi Glyn. Can only speak for myself, but my comment wasn't solely based on Don's post from his recent submission, but rather the 100's that I've handled or owned through the years.

If you ask any Cracker Jack collector in the hobby which include many on this forum you will find that they would all agree that Psa is all over the map with their assessment when it comes to grading CJ's.

Staining in my opinion seems to be their biggest inconsistency when coming up with a final grade.

[glynparson]

I agree they are mad inconsistent on cracker jacks but criticizing these cards based on those pics is laughable. Hell if they have some adhesive residue on the back or something similar it would easily explain grades. My response was more to the op than to you. As for sgc being more consistent of course they are they have 2 graders psa has like 20 simple logic will tell you the same guys will be more consistent than a variety of people.

[CrackaJackKid]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Hi Glyn. Can only speak for myself, but my comment wasn't solely based on Don's post from his recent submission, but rather the 100's that I've handled or owned through the years.

If you ask any Cracker Jack collector in the hobby which include many on this forum you will find that they would all agree that Psa is all over the map with their assessment when it comes to grading CJ's.

Staining in my opinion seems to be their biggest inconsistency when coming up with a final grade.

It still boggles my mind that PSA docks for staining, at least harsher than they used to. I can completely see why it would pertain to the 15s with lots being sent to customers with never being in a box. But for the 14s it makes no sense to me.

Isn’t it true Psa overlooks the PB T206s(Stains) and T201 Double Folders(Fold Crease)?

[swarmee]

I know that on cards that were produced with factory packer back stamps (like the T51 set), PSA no longer gives those cards MK designations. I had a lot of 8 old flip cards with MKs sent back and "reholdered" with them no longer having the MK qualifier.

[yanks4]

Brake them out and send them to SGC.....If you get silly grades like that from SGC at least you won't be contributing to a company that doesn't care , is extremely inconsistent and frankly obnoxious...Besides they will look better in SGC slabs IMHO.....Good Luck.....

PS. I will agree that you can't see everything in these scans but this is their recent MO for whatever reason?

[rainier2004]

My theory is PSA grades overly hard to try to "build their brand" as they adjust standards all the time. I was the previous owner of those CJs and can assure you everyone there is no glue residue or hidden flaws in them as I went through those cards so many times. IMO, PSA simply doesn't know how to grade.

[Donscards]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

My theory is PSA grades overly hard to try to "build their brand" as they adjust standards all the time. I was the previous owner of those CJs and can assure you everyone there is no glue residue or hidden flaws in them as I went through those cards so many times. IMO, PSA simply doesn't know how to grade.

Thanks Steve---I was just trying to make a point on the harder standards that PSA uses now---the cards look like 4's in person--my scans are not the best, but these cards shouldn't be 2.5's--but again, PSA has raised their grading the last few years--they don't like to give high grades.

[3-2-count]

Originally Posted by Donscards

but again, PSA has raised their grading the last few years--they don't like to give high grades.

More so when it applies to Cracker Jacks, especially 1914's.......

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by Donscards

Thanks Steve---I was just trying to make a point on the harder standards that PSA uses now---the cards look like 4's in person--my scans are not the best, but these cards shouldn't be 2.5's--but again, PSA has raised their grading the last few years--they don't like to give high grades.

why don’t they want to give high grades? and if you know that, why submit cards to them?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

why don’t they want to give high grades? and if you know that, why submit cards to them?

I believe it to be part of the business model:

-rewarding early adopters by keeping pops low on uber high grades

-creating shareholder value by encouraging re-submissions

This is just my opinion.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I believe it to be part of the business model:

-rewarding early adopters by keeping pops low on uber high grades

-creating shareholder value by encouraging re-submissions

This is just my opinion.

This ^ to a certain degree and for CJ's in particular PSA changed the way the addressed stains a couple years ago now grading them far more harshly creating a real mess

[mark evans]

There will never be consistency in grading as the process is fraught with subjectivity. Not only will there be variations from one grader to the next, but I'm sure that the same grader may well grade the same card differently from one review to the next.

Having said that, I continue to believe that TPG is a benefit to the hobby, if only to facilitate internet transactions. What continues to baffle me is the wide disparity in values from one grade to the next, especially at the high end (8 v. 8.5, for example). I should think that the subjectivity inherent in the process would have the effect of limiting these disparities.