Psa no longer putting qualifiers on labels

[bxb]

I also prefer no qualifiers.

I can judge for myself the centering on a card or if it is out of focus.

[swarmee]

According to the blowout post, MC and MK would still remain. I'm not a big fan of this change, and don't think it really saves that much time.
My best guess is that this is a Nat Turner-ism where he and his buddies decided to get rid of it, since the market largely ignores cards with qualifiers; at one point, they were trading around 3 grades lower than the same grade.

If they were consistent with their grading standards and gave all Mint conditioned cards with 90/10 centering on front a PSA 3 with no qualifiers, then I'll be interested in seeing how those cards are treated on the secondary market. Because the assumption on the buyer's part is that they're damaged (surface wrinkles), and the centering is incidental. However, if they got a 9(OC) they would be worth a 7 on the registry and a 6 or so in sales price.

[Republicaninmass]

I used to like sgc slabs for this reason just grade the freaking card. Now they have shifted to psa like, where a mint card 90/10 is an sgc 3. I dont get it

[Eric72]

PSA will likely never do this; however, it would be nice to see sub-grades on the flip.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Eric72

PSA will likely never do this; however, it would be nice to see sub-grades on the flip.

Putting sub-grades on the flip and listing specific qualifiers both slow down the process and also provide additional insight by PSA as to how they came up with the numerical grade. Neither of which are in PSAs vested interest at this time.

Giving a single numerical grade with no other information is the fastest and least accountable way to get a card in and push it out in a plastic tomb.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Putting sub-grades on the flip and listing specific qualifiers both slow down the process and also provide additional insight by PSA as to how they came up with the numerical grade. Neither of which are in PSAs vested interest at this time.

Giving a single numerical grade with no other information is the fastest and least accountable way to get a card in and push it out in a plastic tomb.

I completely understand. As I wrote, "PSA will likely never do this."

[JollyElm]

Here's another pair of virtually identical cards. There's a helluva lot of extra room on top of the card on the left versus the card on the right, but it received a straight grade. Is that PSA 7 a 'natural' 7, or is it a PSA 9OC that was numerically demoted by a check of the 'no qualifiers' box?? There's no way to know.

(I would absolutely prefer the card on the right, because they are basically carbon copies of each other, so the 9 tells me it's perfect in every way, save for centering. The PSA 7 begs the question above to be asked.)

1969clemente50c.jpg

If you're viewing them on-line, there's no way to really tell unless there's big-time magnification available to study the corners, focus and such. Of course, if you're buying cards in person you can judge all of these factors for yourself, but the vast majority of purchases are done over the web, so (let the PSA jokes and insults fly) you have to have some faith in the actuality of the grade on the label.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Putting sub-grades on the flip and listing specific qualifiers both slow down the process and also provide additional insight by PSA as to how they came up with the numerical grade. Neither of which are in PSAs vested interest at this time.

Giving a single numerical grade with no other information is the fastest and least accountable way to get a card in and push it out in a plastic tomb.

I think we all know how the grades are determined for most of us who aren't high volume submitters or card alterers.

[MikeGarcia]

You can still find a lot of older Beckett holders out there :

Originally Posted by Eric72

PSA will likely never do this; however, it would be nice to see sub-grades on the flip.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I used to like sgc slabs for this reason just grade the freaking card. Now they have shifted to psa like, where a mint card 90/10 is an sgc 3. I dont get it

SGC sometime around 2 years ago suddenly became centering fanatics. I had vintage cards that would have been 7's or higher with PSA come back SGC 5's only due to centering. Whatever, but given that SGC is still somewhat more lenient than PSA on corners, the whole thing kind still seems kind of random and doesn't make a ton of sense. Another huge problem is that they seem to get it wrong frequently, and have graders who don't know how to properly compute centering ratios.

[jchcollins]

Forgive me if I missed this in the earlier comments, but how do we know about this change from PSA? Was there an announcement, or did their submission forms just change and people noticed it?

Given how many people hate qualifiers and have for decades, can't say I'm upset, but it is an interesting development. If this would lead to sellers being more descriptive in listings across the board, I'm all for it.

[Johnny630]

I'd be pleased if with the new AI Computer Assisted Grading at PSA if they would be able to pick up alterations especially trimmed/re-colored cards.

I could care less what the hell they do with qualifiers.

[egri]

I'd like to be an optimist and hope that this leads to less buying the flip and not the card, though I'm not holding my breath.

[Kidnapped18]

PSA still lists 6 qualifiers on their website 2 required and 4 optional
June PSA Pop Report shows these cards were added with qualifiers:

1914 CJ #82 Cravath 1Q
1914 CJ #99 Chance 3Q

Like Packs stated in an earlier post why does a PSA 1 deserve a qualifier?

Also I never understood the Registry awarding more points for a PSA 1.5Q than a PSA 2Q
and a PSA 2Q being equal to a PSA 1Q pointswise