PSA grading errors

[stargell1]

Has anyone ever cracked out a PSA card and sent it in to get a higher grade, and it came back un-graded due to it didn't meet minimum size requirement?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by stargell1

Has anyone ever cracked out a PSA card and sent it in to get a higher grade, and it came back un-graded due to it didn't meet minimum size requirement?

Roger- Why would you crack it out of the PSA holder when trying to get a higher grade? You can re-submit it for a grade review while it is still encapsulated....

[stargell1]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Roger- Why would you crack it out of the PSA holder when trying to get a higher grade? You can re-submit it for a grade review while it is still encapsulated....

Simple. Because you have a better chance at getting a bump if you send the card in raw. Sending already graded cards in for reviews is like giving PSA free money lol. Total waste of time.

[swarmee]

https://forums.collectors.com/messag...word1=crackout

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by stargell1

Has anyone ever cracked out a PSA card and sent it in to get a higher grade, and it came back un-graded due to it didn't meet minimum size requirement?

Send it in again to PSA for a different opinion. Maybe next time it will get past the mail room to an actual grader, not that that would be much better.

PSA makes mistakes all the time. I have a nice collection of PSA slabs that are mislabeled or contain a counterfeit card.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by swarmee

https://forums.collectors.com/messag...word1=crackout

Those are certainly some disappointing results! I would never have tried to get a PSA8 upgraded by cracking it out. That would have been one to ask for a review while the card is still in the holder I guess.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by stargell1

Simple. Because you have a better chance at getting a bump if you send the card in raw. Sending already graded cards in for reviews is like giving PSA free money lol. Total waste of time.

Not completely true. I recently sold a T206 Mathewson PSA 7 to a fellow board member, he submitted it and got a 7.5. It happens. I also know of a Net54 dealer that very recently had a 1960 Topps Mantle in a PSA 9. He submitted it for a review and got a PSA 10..

[Tom S.]

Originally Posted by stargell1

Has anyone ever cracked out a PSA card and sent it in to get a higher grade, and it came back un-graded due to it didn't meet minimum size requirement?

Yes.

[nrm1977]

I recently submitted to Beckett (actually first time I ever sent anything in, I've bought graded cards but never submitted)

I bought this Montana and I didn't believe the centering was an 8.

I compared the card to a bunch of a 1981's and some are even shorter than this card side to side. I really inspected the card with a 20x and don't see any evidence of someone trimming the card. Doesn't mean my card isn't/wasn't trimmed.

On final note, some people have said "well you shouldn't of cracked it out". I find that statement foolish as one of the main purposes of getting cards graded is the legitimacy of a card. I can understand if you break a card out to resubmit and it comes back a lower/higher grade but, to submit a card and it comes back "altered", no there is a bigger issue with the integrity of the said grading company. This concerns me with the whole grading process. It really makes me question why on earth people would pay $20,000+ for some of these cards that are graded, how many are trimmed or "doctored"? It really makes you think...

[glynparson]

I would not recommend cracking out but sending in the holder for the bump. They have also certainly tightend their minimum size. You also need to understand what you are paying for and that's an opinion. Psa has far more graders than sgc just by human nature that tells you the opinion will vary more between two totally different individuals than between the same two graders. Like I stated they are so tough now I recommend just leaving in the holder and sending in for the bump rather than cracking out. I have had some success with this route.

[botn]

It depends on the value of the card and if I actually know the history on the card as to whether I break a card out and submit it ungraded or submit it in the holder for a review. My preference is to be able to submit it ungraded whenever possible. As Glyn mentioned due to the sheer number of graders, opinions can vary but PSA is all over the place at times. Once you break out a card you run the risk of it coming back ungraded or even lower. Does not mean you cannot submit again and PSA loves it when you do.

If you are going to break out a card you had really better know what you are looking at before doing so. There are enough bad cards out there that look good that never should have graded the first time.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Roger- Why would you crack it out of the PSA holder when trying to get a higher grade? You can re-submit it for a grade review while it is still encapsulated....

It's a risky move but probably a greater chance for a bump. I would never crack an expensive card out when trying. But say you had PSA 9 Henderson that you feel could get a 10. The huge difference in value, 600 vs 30-40k, that might be worth the risk of it coming back altered or an 8.

[jhs5120]

1. Grading is inherently subjective
2. Grading standards evolve with the hobby
3. Graders can differ and often change

Many old school PSA and SGC slabs contain cards that would not be graded today; so crack at your own risk. Grading evolves with condition preferences of collectors and authenticators are much more cognizant of potential alterations or sizing issues.

[stargell1]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

1. Grading is inherently subjective
2. Grading standards evolve with the hobby
3. Graders can differ and often change

Many old school PSA and SGC slabs contain cards that would not be graded today; so crack at your own risk. Grading evolves with condition preferences of collectors and authenticators are much more cognizant of potential alterations or sizing issues.

Then how do you explain recently graded cards that are cracked out and coming back minsizereq?

Its pretty clear to me that PSA either has no clue how to grade a card, or they are ripping people off.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by stargell1

Its pretty clear to me that PSA either has no clue how to grade a card, or they are ripping people off.

All you have to do is look at post #6 in this thread and it's pretty easy to see that they have no clue how to grade a card...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=223944

[jerrys]

How about this beauty? I sent this scan to Joe Orlando questioning the high grade but I have not received a reply as yet.

dahlen150.jpg

[GasHouseGang]

If you follow the link listed earlier in this thread, one of the guys over on the CU board said something that I think sums it up rather nicely:

"I've been reading here and seen enough of these posts to know how the system works. Here it is in a nutshell: You submit enough cards in holders for review you get a bump that either just pays for the sub, or puts you slightly ahead. Everyone wins, PSA gets paid to look at cards already graded. You submit crackouts, a number will come back higher, some lower and a few will not get a grade. You will sub the min size again and most will end up in holders, some at higher grades, some lower. You will be even, a little behind or slightly ahead. PSA gets to take grading fee's on cards that were already graded, sometimes multiple times. Advantage PSA. On the odd occasion, you hit it big (see the Ryan that went from a 9 to a 10). For this reason, people will always be willing to take the risk of cracking and subbing or sending in reviews. The system is inherently inconsistent, with one constant - PSA always wins. The inconsistency is a feature, not a bug."

Originally Posted by jhs5120

1. Grading is inherently subjective
2. Grading standards evolve with the hobby
3. Graders can differ and often change

Many old school PSA and SGC slabs contain cards that would not be graded today; so crack at your own risk. Grading evolves with condition preferences of collectors and authenticators are much more cognizant of potential alterations or sizing issues.

I would also like to add. Anybody can grade a card are start a grading company, to my knowledge there are no educational courses, training and or certified courses for this subjective matter on baseball card grading. What we have here is a non regulated system and it comes down to your opinion against theirs on grading. " Opinions are like As#h%les everyone has one" just like the grading companies

Also what credentials do the graders have and or they reviewed by the owner of the said grading company to protect the owners reputation.

Ron Petersen

[Jobu]

I have long said something similar - changing standards, a small percentage of inconsistent grades, changing flips, changing holders, and slowly improving pop reports are all things to keep people sending in cards that have already been graded (whether you send them raw or slabbed).

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

If you follow the link listed earlier in this thread, one of the guys over on the CU board said something that I think sums it up rather nicely:

"I've been reading here and seen enough of these posts to know how the system works. Here it is in a nutshell: You submit enough cards in holders for review you get a bump that either just pays for the sub, or puts you slightly ahead. Everyone wins, PSA gets paid to look at cards already graded. You submit crackouts, a number will come back higher, some lower and a few will not get a grade. You will sub the min size again and most will end up in holders, some at higher grades, some lower. You will be even, a little behind or slightly ahead. PSA gets to take grading fee's on cards that were already graded, sometimes multiple times. Advantage PSA. On the odd occasion, you hit it big (see the Ryan that went from a 9 to a 10). For this reason, people will always be willing to take the risk of cracking and subbing or sending in reviews. The system is inherently inconsistent, with one constant - PSA always wins. The inconsistency is a feature, not a bug."

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by jerrys

How about this beauty? I sent this scan to Joe Orlando questioning the high grade but I have not received a reply as yet.

Attachment 237579

Not sure what's wrong. I can easily see that as a 2.5 or 3. Edge and corner wear is consistent with the grade, and a single crease away from the main features of the card isn't going to downgrade it from VG. Unless that piece is totally detached and should be poor/authentic?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

It's a risky move but probably a greater chance for a bump. I would never crack an expensive card out when trying. But say you had PSA 9 Henderson that you feel could get a 10. The huge difference in value, 600 vs 30-40k, that might be worth the risk of it coming back altered or an 8.

This is a good point....My initial thinking was T206s which is slightly different

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by stargell1

Then how do you explain recently graded cards that are cracked out and coming back minsizereq?

See points 1 and 3 to answer your question in its entirety.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Not sure what's wrong. I can easily see that as a 2.5 or 3. Edge and corner wear is consistent with the grade, and a single crease away from the main features of the card isn't going to downgrade it from VG. Unless that piece is totally detached and should be poor/authentic?

But...isn't that pen marking on the back? If so, someone has some explaining to do

[jerrys]

Originally Posted by swarmee

not sure what's wrong. I can easily see that as a 2.5 or 3. Edge and corner wear is consistent with the grade, and a single crease away from the main features of the card isn't going to downgrade it from vg. Unless that piece is totally detached and should be poor/authentic?

dahlen-clarke.jpg

vg.jpg

[swarmee]

Presuming no writing on the back, I would have expected VG-EX or EX on the other cards you showed. Obviously their eye appeal is higher. Maybe you should be angry at SGC for undergrading?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

If you follow the link listed earlier in this thread, one of the guys over on the CU board said something that I think sums it up rather nicely:

"I've been reading here and seen enough of these posts to know how the system works. Here it is in a nutshell: You submit enough cards in holders for review you get a bump that either just pays for the sub, or puts you slightly ahead. Everyone wins, PSA gets paid to look at cards already graded. You submit crackouts, a number will come back higher, some lower and a few will not get a grade. You will sub the min size again and most will end up in holders, some at higher grades, some lower. You will be even, a little behind or slightly ahead. PSA gets to take grading fee's on cards that were already graded, sometimes multiple times. Advantage PSA. On the odd occasion, you hit it big (see the Ryan that went from a 9 to a 10). For this reason, people will always be willing to take the risk of cracking and subbing or sending in reviews. The system is inherently inconsistent, with one constant - PSA always wins. The inconsistency is a feature, not a bug."

That is a cogent, insightful analysis of the PSA business model.

As for the OP, I've had it go both ways. Best crack out I ever had was a PSA 2 1954 Bowman that looked flawless. I busted it out and got a 7.

I've only tried to bump cards once. I got 2/15 bumped but they were the best two cards in the lot so go figure.

[jerrys]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Presuming no writing on the back, I would have expected VG-EX or EX on the other cards you showed. Obviously their eye appeal is higher. Maybe you should be angry at SGC for undergrading?

Writing on the back would not obtain that number grade. Angry at SGC - how foolish.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That is a cogent, insightful analysis of the PSA business model.

As for the OP, I've had it go both ways. Best crack out I ever had was a PSA 2 1954 Bowman that looked flawless. I busted it out and got a 7.

I've only tried to bump cards once. I got 2/15 bumped but they were the best two cards in the lot so go figure.

How does a card that was originally graded a 2 end up getting a 7?

Like someone has said on here, PSA stands for "Please Submit Again"

Curious, did you ever ask how it ended up getting a 7 after it was originally graded a 2?

[nrm1977]

On a related side note, I'm wondering when someone will come up with software/program that can determine counterfeits, altered cards and give more consistent grades?!

In the meantime, I ponder why these companies don't come up with some guidelines for their graders that would provide more consistent grading.

[glynparson]

This doesn't seem like a crazy amount of errors out there. Some like to make it seem like every card is a mistake. This is done by humans in a rather quick and cheap process. Honestly I see the success rate as rather impressive.

[irv]

Originally Posted by glynparson

This doesn't seem like a crazy amount of errors out there. Some like to make it seem like every card is a mistake. This is done by humans in a rather quick and cheap process. Honestly I see the success rate as rather impressive.

A 2 to a 7, imo, is a glaring discrepancy. Either the guy who graded it a 2 originally was way off side in his thinking or the guy who graded it a 7 was?

We are not talking a 2 to a 3, or even a 4, and I am no where near being a grader but I am 99% sure I can tell the difference between a 2 and a 7.

Like you mentioned, mistakes happen but I would also bet, aside from Exhibitman's example, there are many more out there that have also been grossly mis-graded.

Things wouldn't look so suspect if PSA admitted they screwed up and regraded the card for free but recharging the submitter for their glaring mistake certainly makes one question their integrity.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by irv

A 2 to a 7, imo, is a glaring discrepancy. Either the guy who graded it a 2 originally was way off side in his thinking or the guy who graded it a 7 was?

We are not talking a 2 to a 3, or even a 4, and I am no where near being a grader but I am 99% sure I can tell the difference between a 2 and a 7.

Like you mentioned, mistakes happen but I would also bet, aside from Exhibitman's example, there are many more out there that have also been grossly mis-graded.

Things wouldn't look so suspect if PSA admitted they screwed up and regraded the card for free but recharging the submitter for their glaring mistake certainly makes one question their integrity.

My guess is quarter point grades are in the future. The lemmings are lining up now LMAO.....

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Leon

My guess is quarter point grades are in the future. The lemmings are lining up now LMAO.....

I also believe that a grade above 10 is coming. The off-center PSA 10 '53 Mays from the other thread proves that PSA has left some room above Gem Mint. SGC and BGS already have a Pristine grade, so I'm sure they'll follow suit at some point.

[glynparson]

It is called a mistake. People make them everyday. i can only assume not seeing the card it was ether a data entry error or someone missed something the second time around, or thought the saw something that wasn't really there the first time. Like i said the grading is done by human beings and we make mistakes.

[bnorth]

A little off topic but does anyone else collect grading errors? Here are a couple pictures of mine.

The PSA errors left to right are Counterfeit, Black Box version not whited out, and completely wrong card.

Second picture left to right are highly altered, No F scribble not Loop scribble, and wrong year.

[GasHouseGang]

Anyone found a fake 1963 Rose rookie that ended up being graded by PSA?

[irv]

Originally Posted by glynparson

It is called a mistake. People make them everyday. i can only assume not seeing the card it was ether a data entry error or someone missed something the second time around, or thought the saw something that wasn't really there the first time. Like i said the grading is done by human beings and we make mistakes.

I agree, Glyn, and I guess Exhibitman should have questioned/called them first about it before cracking it and resubmitting it, but from what I have read on here, he most likely would have been charged again for the resubmit anyways?

When I first read his story, I couldn't help but think there is a 2 graded card out there sporting a 7?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

I also believe that a grade above 10 is coming. The off-center PSA 10 '53 Mays from the other thread proves that PSA has left some room above Gem Mint. SGC and BGS already have a Pristine grade, so I'm sure they'll follow suit at some point.

I always thought they could give a '10 Best' meaning the best example they ever graded for the card...

imagine having the best 10....they would have to keep a database of their 10s i guess to compare ...thus the best 10 will always be POP 1 but you could lose the designation if a better example comes along and you could verify which cert number is the best 10 but checking psa website with the cert lookup

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bnorth

A little off topic but does anyone else collect grading errors? Here are a couple pictures of mine.

The PSA errors left to right are Counterfeit, Black Box version not whited out, and completely wrong card.

Second picture left to right are highly altered, No F scribble not Loop scribble, and wrong year.

Thats actually pretty cool to collect that ..