"No Qualifiers" dis-allowed on PSA subs

[55koufax]

Anyone else getting this feedback from PSA? Apparently there is a "moratorium" on specifying No Qualifiers on a PSA submission these days?

What could possibly be the reason?

[CardPadre]

Here's the whole story....
https://blog.psacard.com/2021/06/24/...lifier-policy/

[bnorth]

That is interesting. This pretty much sums it up if you don't want to follow the link.

The qualifiers will be used infrequently and at the discretion of the grading staff when they feel it’s in the card’s best interest to apply a qualifier.

My opinion is qualifiers are the stupidest thing in grading by a county mile.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Here's the whole story....
https://blog.psacard.com/2021/06/24/...lifier-policy/

I think this line is adorable. "The qualifiers will be used infrequently and at the discretion of the grading staff when they feel it’s in the card’s best interest to apply a qualifier."

[bobbyw8469]

I think qualifiers are great. If I have an outstanding card that some kid marked up with a pencil, I rather it be 8 (MK) than a PSA 2. Just saying.

[Fred]

Getting back to buy the card, not the flip.

Shouldn't the grade of a card reflect the standards that are published by the TPG? Oh yeah, qualifiers... sheesh. Let's just allow the TPGs to not mean what is published by adding little letters to the flip.

[ledsters]

I think “MK” qualifiers are needed by all grading companies. I’ve bought a few cards graded by SGC in the past, where you cannot see the pen mark on the front or back of the card, because the ink or pencil lead has faded away. The indentation of the writing is there, but, you can’t see it in the scan. When I got the cards in the mail and saw the writing evidence, I was not happy.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I think this line is adorable. "The qualifiers will be used infrequently and at the discretion of the grading staff when they feel it’s in the card’s best interest to apply a qualifier."

That's great. If you are disappointed by the grade you can at least be glad it was in the card's best interest

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I think this line is adorable. "The qualifiers will be used infrequently and at the discretion of the grading staff when they feel it’s in the card’s best interest to apply a qualifier."

A noble cause to have the cards best interest in mind as they grade it. Don't want hurt the cards fee-fee's

[Vintagedeputy]

“Instead of qualifiers, all cards will be issued a participation trophy because they tried”.

[JollyElm]

Allow me to post a perfect example showing how much BS this move by PSA is.

When Bobby's group sub was submitted in 2021, qualifiers were the order of the day. If you didn't want them, you could choose "no qualifiers" and all was peachy, but if you had no problem with them (as I do) they would be applied when necessary. Then a funny thing happened. While PSA held this sub for ransom for a year and a half, they suddenly decided to CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME and leave us in the lurch.

For a moment, let's all forget that every time we say what number a card will receive, we are wrong...

I sent in this sharp cornered 1966 Topps #561 Choo Choo Coleman high number, because it is absolutely sweet, but off-centered. I fully expected and wanted it to get a PSA 8 OC (again, assume the grade guessing is correct), but in the interim PSA eliminated qualifiers, so it came back downgraded to a straight PSA 6. And here's the problem. No one will say, "Man, that card is real nice, probably an 8 that got a 6 due to its centering." Nope!! The thought will be, "Gee, that card is a 6 AND it is ALSO off-centered, so it's really nothing but a PSA 4."

That, my friends, is a screw job!!!

1966choochoo561PSA6.jpg

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And here's the problem. No one will say, "Man, that card is real nice, probably an 8 that got a 6 due to its centering. "Nope!! The thought will be, "Gee, that card is a 6 AND it is ALSO off-centered, so it's really nothing but a PSA 4."

That, my friends, is a screw job!!!

I never thought of that issue. Good point.

[puckpaul]

My favorite PSA 8 (OC) card! I don’t know what is the right way to label it. Sure looks like an 8 to me, and not terribly off center (70/30 vs 75/25 top/bottom?). The OC label bothers me a little. But it looks a lot better than a 6.

No idea how the card feels about it!

[Snowman]

I hate qualifiers on slabs. There is no such thing as a "9 (OC)" or an "8 (MC)" to me. That's nonsense. Why not a PSA 10 (BTC) for "but the corners"? If a card was cut wrong, then it is not a high-grade card. And what's with the (PD) qualifier? Seriously? ... Slabbing a card that you can't even make out the image from due to registration being off by 1/4" as a "PSA 9 (PD)" is clearly nonsense. Nobody cares if the corners are nice if they can't even make out who the player is supposed to be.

PSA is the worst...

[Lorewalker]

This thread might end up being like the one on defining what a rookie card is or what is the best way to end an auction.

One thing is 100% clear in the hobby. We do not all agree on every point or every system. It is great that we have choices. And it is great that we come here to chat about those points of view.

As for the qualifiers I never minded them. If PSA did away with them or decides they want to do what is in the best interest of the card now...AWESOME!!!! I think they have a place in the hobby but I have always made adjustments for grading services that did not use them.

Bottom line for me is that I never have bought a card based on the label. And I never will. I decide for myself if the appearance is acceptable all things considered.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I hate qualifiers on slabs. There is no such thing as a "9 (OC)" or an "8 (MC)" to me. That's nonsense. Why not a PSA 10 (BTC) for "but the corners"? If a card was cut wrong, then it is not a high-grade card. And what's with the (PD) qualifier? Seriously? ... Slabbing a card that you can't even make out the image from due to registration being off by 1/4" as a "PSA 9 (PD)" is clearly nonsense. Nobody cares if the corners are nice if they can't even make out who the player is supposed to be.

PSA is the worst...

Yeah, I've need never quite understood them either, for the exact same reason.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by ledsters

I think “MK” qualifiers are needed by all grading companies. I’ve bought a few cards graded by SGC in the past, where you cannot see the pen mark on the front or back of the card, because the ink or pencil lead has faded away. The indentation of the writing is there, but, you can’t see it in the scan. When I got the cards in the mail and saw the writing evidence, I was not happy.

I bought a PSA/DNA Rogers Hornsby cut signature with the worst description that left out the fact that other signatures had been erased. I thought it was going to be a centerpiece of my collection. It showed up and and those ghost signatures bothered me immediately. I thought I'd get over it. A year later I sold it. The MK qualifier should be mandatory.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by todeen

I bought a PSA/DNA Rogers Hornsby cut signature with the worst description that left out the fact that other signatures had been erased. I thought it was going to be a centerpiece of my collection. It showed up and and those ghost signatures bothered me immediately. I thought I'd get over it. A year later I sold it. The MK qualifier should be mandatory.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

At that point, shouldn't it just be considered altered though?

[Snowman]

One of the challenges from the TPG perspective is that the way cards have transacted over time has shifted dramatically. In the early days of PSA, most cards were still transacted in person at shows. There were major auction houses for high end stuff, but as a percentage of volume is concerned, the majority transacted in person. But now we live in a world where most transactions occur online where people upload 2D scans at best, and crappy photos at odd angles at worst. Flaws are easily hidden, and TPGs do the hobby a disservice by not calling out those flaws either on the flip or on the website when looking up the cert. I'd like to see PSA put things like creases, wrinkles, pen markings, and pinholes on their website when you look up a card's cert. It would require very little additional effort on their part to include this information. Especially with cards that are submitted at the Express level or higher. It's ridiculous that you can have a 52 Mantle in an Authentic holder and not even know what's "wrong" with it.

[glynparson]

This is how it always should have been and that Coleman wouldn’t have been an 8 oc in 2021. That looks like a 6 for at least the last 15-20 years. And I used to have plenty of mid grade 60s high numbers in that period.

[refz]

9oc

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by glynparson

This is how it always should have been and that Coleman wouldn’t have been an 8 oc in 2021. That looks like a 6 for at least the last 15-20 years. And I used to have plenty of mid grade 60s high numbers in that period.

Nope.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Snowman

..you can't even make out the image from due to registration being off by 1/4"...

Oddly enough, I really like cards like that. Not the slightly misaligned, somewhat out of focus ones; I like cards where the registration is wildly off. I wish the grading companies had a PFE (Perfect For Eric) qualifier.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Oddly enough, I really like cards like that. Not the slightly misaligned, somewhat out of focus ones; I like cards where the registration is wildly off. I wish the grading companies had a PFE (Perfect For Eric) qualifier.

Nice card, I like the ones with the bigger print offset also. Hate the ones that are slightly off.

[Eric72]

A couple thoughts:

I like having sub-grades on the flip. It's not a perfect way to convey information; however, it tells me much more than a single grade. If a card is graded a 6, why did it get that grade? If it has a low sub-grade for centering and 9+ for corners/edges/surface, that tells me a whole lot more.

In an alternate reality, imagine centering didn't factor into the final grade at all. Think about it. We can immediately see how well (or poorly) a card is centered. It doesn't matter if we're at a card show with less-than-optimal lighting. It doesn't matter (for the most part) if an eBay photo is a bit blurry, taken at a slight angle, or color-enhanced. If we can read the flip, we can see the centering. Perhaps the grading companies should focus on things we might easily miss while at a show or shopping online.

Nobody enjoys getting a card one day and then later discovering some hard-to-detect flaw. "Damn, I didn't see that when I bought the card" is something nearly all of us have said. It rarely, if ever, applies to the centering.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Nice card, I like the ones with the bigger print offset also. Hate the ones that are slightly off.

That Aaron is perfect. Awesome card.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Oddly enough, I really like cards like that. Not the slightly misaligned, somewhat out of focus ones; I like cards where the registration is wildly off. I wish the grading companies had a PFE (Perfect For Eric) qualifier.

I bet that card looks awesome with 3-D glasses!