New Member Saying Hello: Banned From PSA Forums This Morning

[npa589]

I think it's just a matter of time before PSA is destroyed by their lack of integrity. It really seems obvious what is going on, and from the standpoint of those who like engaging in "defensible" fraud, it would be easy ploy to simply be favorable with their authentications for those who they have done enormous business with, since the grades assigned are, after all, only opinions.

Now, their possible malfeasance with regard to some Wagner card is another story.

[oldjudge]

I thought the graders are not supposed to know who the submitter is. Is that not right?

[leftygrove10]

I have a question. Can somebody submit 1000 cards to PSA and tell them, "Only holder the cards that you grade PSA 10. Don't holder any of the other cards." If this is possible, then isn't it possible that the PSA 10 list provided by the OP was a result of a submission like this?

[queencitysportscards]

Once the card has been graded it will be slabbed. The process is supposed to be handled by the graders without knowing who the customer is, so there is no "bias."

Check out this video about the grading process! I just packed up some cards and I will be sending to PSA in the morning. I hope they come back 10's!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0Mqn62_LlQ

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by leftygrove10

I have a question. Can somebody submit 1000 cards to PSA and tell them, "Only holder the cards that you grade PSA 10. Don't holder any of the other cards." If this is possible, then isn't it possible that the PSA 10 list provided by the OP was a result of a submission like this?

yes that probably happened to the 16 certs for which no card appears ...

[mrvster]

welcome aboard my bro

peace

johnny v

[DavidG1966]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

yes that probably happened to the 16 certs for which no card appears ...

You can submit cards with a "minimum grade requested" which means that PSA will only holder those cards that meet the MG requested (in this case, PSA 10). My understanding is that the cert #s which have no cards next to them are the ones that did not reach the MG requested, because when you submit cards to PSA EVERY card is assigned a cert # whether it grades or gets holdered or not.

If I did the math correctly they have over a 97% 10 rate on that huge submission. Someone mentioned he thought this was an April Fools joke when he saw the list. Well this isn't April. However, there could be plenty of fools, but they aren't at PSA or at the submitter. They are clearly NOT fools.

Cha-Ching!

[oldjudge]

On 10s this is obvious. The real question is how much of this goes on making 7s into 8s and 8s into 9s. Would be great if Joe Orlando came on and stood up for his company. This is a public company and I would not be surprised if a few Net54 members were CLCT stockholders. I know I have been at times in the past, although not now.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by DavidG1966

...but they aren't at PSA or at the submitter. They are clearly NOT fools.

We raw guys disagree. We (at least I) find this thread extremely entertaining.

Doug

[CW]

Originally Posted by leftygrove10

I have a question. Can somebody submit 1000 cards to PSA and tell them, "Only holder the cards that you grade PSA 10. Don't holder any of the other cards." If this is possible, then isn't it possible that the PSA 10 list provided by the OP was a result of a submission like this?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

yes that probably happened to the 16 certs for which no card appears ...

Yes, according to one of the threads that got zapped, this seller is known for having a good eye and submitting cards with minimum grade requirements of 10. Knowing this, I think we have 3 distinct possibilities, 2 of which concern me as a collector who buys graded cards (the final two). I can't say which scenario is the truth, but all 3 are possible...

1. This seller has a top notch eye for condition and has a huge pool of cards from which to select, and only sends in the best of the best.

2. This submitter gets preferential treatment and higher grades than you or I would get for the same cards.

3. The cards being submitted are being cut from a sheet in a way that PSA can't detect or PSA no longer has the expertise or time to detect and reject. The submitter themselves may not be doing the cutting, and may have no knowledge of it.

These are not accusations -- merely discussing the possibilities. That is an amazing submission result, to say the least!

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CW

Yes, according to one of the threads that got zapped, this seller is known for having a good eye and submitting cards with minimum grade requirements of 10. Knowing this, I think we have 3 distinct possibilities, 2 of which concern me as a collector who buys graded cards (the final two). I can't say which scenario is the truth, but all 3 are possible...

1. This seller has a top notch eye for condition and has a huge pool of cards from which to select, and only sends in the best of the best.

2. This submitter gets preferential treatment and higher grades than you or I would get for the same cards.

3. The cards being submitted are being cut from a sheet in a way that PSA can't detect or PSA no longer has the expertise or time to detect and reject. The submitter themselves may not be doing the cutting, and may have no knowledge of it.

These are not accusations -- merely discussing the possibilities. That is an amazing submission result, to say the least!

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. Given how arbitrary the difference between a 9 and a 10 is, it seems hard to fathom a 97 percent rate of 10's in the ordinary course.

[DavidG1966]

Threads on that forum regarding this subject keep pooping up and getting poofed and locked. There seems to be a revolt on PSA right now.

You guys should be honored! A member over there just posted about coming over here because this is where freedom lives! That was a paraphrase. I would give the exact quote but his thread went bye-bye.

Thank you for welcoming me here and actually allowing discussions! Really!!!!!

[DavidG1966]

Originally Posted by CW

Yes, according to one of the threads that got zapped, this seller is known for having a good eye and submitting cards with minimum grade requirements of 10. Knowing this, I think we have 3 distinct possibilities, 2 of which concern me as a collector who buys graded cards (the final two). I can't say which scenario is the truth, but all 3 are possible...

1. This seller has a top notch eye for condition and has a huge pool of cards from which to select, and only sends in the best of the best.

2. This submitter gets preferential treatment and higher grades than you or I would get for the same cards.

3. The cards being submitted are being cut from a sheet in a way that PSA can't detect or PSA no longer has the expertise or time to detect and reject. The submitter themselves may not be doing the cutting, and may have no knowledge of it.

These are not accusations -- merely discussing the possibilities. That is an amazing submission result, to say the least!

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

Now that you mention this, I believe I remember seeing a very specific thread about a large submitter on the PSA boards. Numbers 2 and 3 and combinations of 2 and 3 were talked about. I don't recall option 1 being discussed at all other then in jest and a mocking manner. I seem to recall that the thread discussed a large submitter (I don't recall which one) and all the 10s they were getting at the time. A member had somehow linked them with the purchase of laser paper cutters, or something similar, which caused quite a stir. I'd go back and search for it and other related issues in the archives, but I am now banned and PSA poofed the thread I am referring to anyway. Does anyone here, also on PSA recall this?

[KingKongBundy]

I took a look at the 1970 Topps population report for PSA 10 graded cards. As of today, there are 1414 PSA 10 graded cards out of a total population of 147485 1970 Topps cards graded by PSA.

In the OP's post, I counted 52 1970 Topps cards that received a 10 and I assumed that out of the cards that didn't get assigned a 10 in the submission, 3 of those cards were 1970 Topps.

As such, it would be interesting to calculate the probability that out
of 55 1970 Topps cards submitted, what is the likely-hood that that 52 would be graded PSA 10 assuming 'everything being equal'.

(Back of the envelope calculation ~ 10^-101).

Basically, you have a better chance of winning the powerball lottery 11 times in a row than receiving the grades received in the submission for the 1970 submission alone.

Charles

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Welcome to the "I've been banned by PSA Club". My question is, what took you so long?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by KingKongBundy

I took a look at the 1970 Topps population report for PSA 10 graded cards. As of today, there are 1414 PSA 10 graded cards out of a total population of 147485 1970 Topps cards graded by PSA.

In the OP's post, I counted 52 1970 Topps cards that received a 10 and I assumed that out of the cards that didn't get assigned a 10 in the submission, 3 of those cards were 1970 Topps.

As such, it would be interesting to calculate the probability that out
of 55 1970 Topps cards submitted, what is the likely-hood that that 52 would be graded PSA 10 assuming 'everything being equal'.

(Back of the envelope calculation ~ 10^-101).

Basically, you have a better chance of winning the powerball lottery 11 times in a row than receiving the grades received in the submission for the 1970 submission alone.

Charles

I was a Math major and have always enjoyed statistics and probabilities but I was never trained in the Back of the envelope technique. The calculation looks about right to me. Nothing better then a few numbers to back up claims.

I also checked the list of 1979s and can't find Bo Derek. I believe that was the year she got her 10.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by CW

1. This seller has a top notch eye for condition and has a huge pool of cards from which to select, and only sends in the best of the best.

I can see how certain submitters have a better eye for grades. But what would the reason be to reject a "9" for these cards? Certainly worth the grading fee as well.

[lsutigers1973]

Forgot I wasn't banned form this board.....yet.

For the few that keep defending PSA, this has been going on since they opened. My first PSA ID was banned 7 or 8 years ago for a long winded post about bulk submitters.

Yes it is possible that someone sent in 10-20,000 cards and asked for only 10's to be slabbed. PSA does this all the time and sends back the ungraded cards at little or no charge. I received an order years ago from a bulk submitter who shall remain nameless and they had accidentally slipped in a copy of a lengthy PSA order similar to this one. They even requested that the non-10s be held until they had a certain amount of ungraded cards to be shipped at once. So much for anonymity.

I also do not believe anyone here has mentioned how hard it is to get a 10 on many of these cards and issues. The cached thread that went poof stated that the 74-75 hockey only had 74 PSA 10s ever before this order that had 15 out of 16 submitted receive a 10.

[jhs5120]

Here is Joe Orlando's response on the CU forum:

It has come to my attention that, over the weekend, a couple of message board users began posting conspiracy theories about a particular order, questioning PSA’s grading process and so forth.

First, we have warned message board users in the past about posting conspiracy theory-type comments and/or ones that can be construed as unfounded bashing. We will not tolerate that kind of behavior. It is unhealthy for the community and the hobby, not to mention flat out wrong.

Second, in this particular case, a user was complaining about a series of PSA cert numbers on an order and questioning how the entire series was nothing but PSA Gem Mint 10s. The insinuation was that the submitter was getting some sort of preferential treatment on the grades, resulting in the excellent results for the customer.

In other words, in the mind of the conspiracy theorist, there was simply no possible way someone could get an order like that without something fishy going on.

Here’s the deal and it’s very simple. Though rare, some customers choose to only have certain grades encapsulated and processed on large orders. For those who are familiar with the concept, you might think of this as setting a “minimum grade” for the entire order of cards.

As a result, the only cards that actually receive a cert number are the ones that the customer would want in the PSA holder. For example, if someone submitted 1,000 cards but only 213 of the graded PSA Gem Mint 10, all that is visible in the system are the 213 cards that met the minimum grade under this arrangement.

From a cert number standpoint, all you can see are 213 consecutive PSA Gem Mint 10s, but you cannot see the other 787 cards that were evaluated but didn’t make the grade or the cert stage so to speak. That is the customer’s choice, as long as they pay our required fees.

That is why the orders, from a distance, can look the way that they do.

So, once again, for those of you who want to post nonsense on our message boards, you will be removed immediately. If something comes up in the future and a person has a question about anything at PSA, I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask that you contact us so we can simply answer the question.

Most situations like this can be avoided by simply communicating before posting harmful, unfounded lies.

Our message boards were not designed to allow these types of people to act in this manner and we will defend it aggressively.

Sincerely,

Joe Orlando
President

[DavidG1966]

Originally Posted by CW

Yes, according to one of the threads that got zapped, this seller is known for having a good eye and submitting cards with minimum grade requirements of 10. Knowing this, I think we have 3 distinct possibilities, 2 of which concern me as a collector who buys graded cards (the final two). I can't say which scenario is the truth, but all 3 are possible...

1. This seller has a top notch eye for condition and has a huge pool of cards from which to select, and only sends in the best of the best.

2. This submitter gets preferential treatment and higher grades than you or I would get for the same cards.

3. The cards being submitted are being cut from a sheet in a way that PSA can't detect or PSA no longer has the expertise or time to detect and reject. The submitter themselves may not be doing the cutting, and may have no knowledge of it.

These are not accusations -- merely discussing the possibilities. That is an amazing submission result, to say the least!

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

Let's give Mr. Orlando and his posse the benefit of doubt for discussion sake. I still can't believe we are able to discuss things here! Red Rover Red Rover let the rest of the PSA membership board come over!

Anyway... Just for discussion purposess toss out all the holes and inconstancies in his post that people are talking about here for a minute. In Mr. Orlando's multi purpose post he fails to address option #3 above.

[CW]

3. The cards being submitted are being cut from a sheet in a way that PSA can't detect or PSA no longer has the expertise or time to detect and reject. The submitter themselves may not be doing the cutting, and may have no knowledge of it.

Originally Posted by DavidG1966

Anyway... Just for discussion purposess toss out all the holes and inconstancies in his post that people are talking about here for a minute. In Mr. Orlando's multi purpose post he fails to address option #3 above.

My guess is "Mum's the word" on that topic.

Specific to this option, it will be interesting to see if and when any of the OPC cards come to market. Will we see the typical rough cuts found on cards from this company (especially from early to mid-70s OPC), or will all the edges be smooth?

20813312 1977 O-PEE-CHEE STEVE CARLTON GEM MINT 10
20813313 1979 O-PEE-CHEE JOHNNY BENCH GEM MINT 10
20813316 1980 O-PEE-CHEE RON GUIDRY GEM MINT 10
20813317 1980 O-PEE-CHEE NOLAN RYAN GEM MINT 10
20813447 1971 O-PEE-CHEE RUSS NAGELSON GEM MINT 10
20813448 1971 O-PEE-CHEE BOB ROBERTSON GEM MINT 10
20813482 1974 O-PEE-CHEE GARNET BAILEY GEM MINT 10
20813483 1974 O-PEE-CHEE CRAIG RAMSAY (GRAIG) GEM MINT 10
20813484 1974 O-PEE-CHEE TOM BLADON GEM MINT 10
20813485 1974 O-PEE-CHEE NORM GRATTON GEM MINT 10
20813487 1974 O-PEE-CHEE DWIGHT BIALOWAS GEM MINT 10
20813488 1974 O-PEE-CHEE DON SALESKI GEM MINT 10
20813489 1974 O-PEE-CHEE REY COMEAU GEM MINT 10
20813490 1974 O-PEE-CHEE RON HARRIS GEM MINT 10
20813491 1974 O-PEE-CHEE DETROIT RED WINGS CHECKLIST GEM MINT 10
20813492 1974 O-PEE-CHEE GREG BODDY GEM MINT 10
20813493 1974 O-PEE-CHEE DOUG HORBUL GEM MINT 10
20813494 1974 O-PEE-CHEE LARRY ROBINSON GEM MINT 10
20813495 1974 O-PEE-CHEE BOBBY ROUSSEAU GEM MINT 10
20813496 1974 O-PEE-CHEE NOEL PRICE GEM MINT 10
20813497 1974 O-PEE-CHEE LYLE MOFFAT GEM MINT 10

[Mrvintage]

Here you go........


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1977-O-PEE-C...item35c33fdfd1

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by CW

I can't say which scenario is the truth, but all 3 are possible...

1. This seller has a top notch eye for condition and has a huge pool of cards from which to select, and only sends in the best of the best.

2. This submitter gets preferential treatment and higher grades than you or I would get for the same cards.

3. The cards being submitted are being cut from a sheet in a way that PSA can't detect or PSA no longer has the expertise or time to detect and reject. The submitter themselves may not be doing the cutting, and may have no knowledge of it.

Hmmmm. Let's think about this. Which one is most likely if PSA is deleting every thread on the subject?

Jeff Payne