Grading Service Level Confusion - Value?

[scomeau]

Steve B.

I'm a little confused about your Needham card. Does the MIS indicate a factory cut issue or are they saying it was trimmed? Looks like a nice card. If the factory cut is the issue, then 'A' would certainly have been an injustice. While 'A' means authentic, to me, it also implies tampering or some questionable aspect. The 'A' without explanation on the slab is a problem for me.

[swarmee]

On a factory miscut, PSA will either not care and holder with with a number grade, give it an MC designation on a number grade, give it an Authentic if you don't require a 1 as a minimum grade, or send it back to you without charging the grading fee. I had some T121 Sweet Cap WWI scenes returned unslabbed/no charge.
I will probably send them back in to see if they get a grade this time.

[scomeau]

Good input John. I think I always opted for the 'A' slab, but if they wave the charge below 1, that sounds like a smart way to go. Thanks.

If you want a 'cross-over', do you un-slab first or send it in as is? I wonder if it unintentionally impacts their thoughts if it already has a grade.

[swarmee]

A "review" submission is for cards already graded by PSA that you think will bump to the next grade.

A "crossover" submission you send in the other company's slab and they check it in that, and if it meets the minimum grade you request, they will break it out and put it in their slab with their new grade.

A "crackout" submission is where the owner cracks them out of the slabs and submits them raw. Some people think this is the best way to get the best grade, because they're worried that if you send it into PSA in SGC or BVG or GAI that they'll automatically downgrade it (if you request a min grade lower than those companies) or send it back in the original holder if it doesn't meet the grade you request. The crackout is also the most risky, because they card could have a number grade from a different company, and PSA may determine it to be trimmed or factory cut short and then not give it a number grade. One guy on PSA's message board did this with like 15 PSA or other 7 and 8 1950s Hall of Famers and half of them came back marked "MINSIZREQ" which means factory cut short and no longer graded unless they meet the right size for the issue. So he probably lost a few thousand in value. If he sent them in as a review sub, he would at least have kept them in their original grades and maybe got a few bumps.

[frankbmd]

Scenario #1

You have a card that you paid $1000 for, but you think it would be worth more graded. You submit it with a valuation of $1000.

It is returned in an "A" slab or worse (ungraded, not "A") with a new market value of $83.

Scenario #2

You submit a 50 card lot that you paid $1000 for and you submit them with a valuation of $1000.

Three of the cards grade very well and the overall graded value of your submission is now $8300.

It has always been my impression that the valuation you submit serves as ungraded replacement value should something happen at the grading company or in transit (insured value).

These scenarios may be extreme in the real world, but raise the following questions.

If the cards declared valuation impact grading company service level and fees,
are their fees justified in these two scenarios?

In Scenario #1 should the submitter receive a partial refund from the TPG, based on the devaluation of their submission as a result of the grading process?

In Scenarion #2, similarly, should the submitter be charged an additional fee by the TPG, based on the submitter's undervaluation of their submission?

To link valuation to TPG fees assumes that the TPG spends more time grading high value cards. Do they?

If the submitter profits from a beneficial grade above the valuation, is the TPG warranted in claiming a percentage of that gain, either before or after grading?

As previously mentioned, Beckett's service level (i.e.: turn around time) is independent of declared valuation. Whether you are submitting a Mendoza or a Cobb, and want either back in 14 days, makes no difference in their fee.

Obviously the value appreciation potential of grading a Cobb is greater than grading a Mendoza and I suppose this is justification for increased fees for grading Cobbs by SGC and PSA.

Unfortunately no matter what he did, Mendoza could never have a batting average above the Mendoza line.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

To link valuation to TPG fees assumes that the TPG spends more time grading high value cards. Do they?

Think of it more like women in line to get into a chic night club. The hot ones go to the front of the line and get in faster, while the average ones stay in queue. The hot ones valuation might be higher (as they get a more thorough going over by the eyes of the other guests), but once they're in the door, it doesn't matter to the night club owner.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by tschock

Think of it more like women in line to get into a chic night club. The hot ones go to the front of the line and get in faster, while the average ones stay in queue. The hot ones valuation might be higher (as they get a more thorough going over by the eyes of the other guests), but once they're in the door, it doesn't matter to the night club owner.

Rest assured Taylor, all my chicks are well above the Mendoza line and it isn't even close (as long as I'm sober).

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

In Scenario #1 should the submitter receive a partial refund from the TPG, based on the devaluation of their submission as a result of the grading process?

In Scenarion #2, similarly, should the submitter be charged an additional fee by the TPG, based on their undervaluation of their submission?

I have never heard of scenario 1 happening. I have heard of scenario 2 happening several times.

People have this strange idea that grading companies are here to help the card collecting hobby.LOL They are here to make cash and lots of it, it is their one and only goal, as it should be.

[scomeau]

Frank,

You bring up some good points. I have certainly had Scenario #1 experiences. I'm sure if I were smarter, I would never have purchased the cards, but the hobby used to be different and I ain't that smaht. We used to buy raw cards all the time.

If you submit the Scenario #1 card low-balling, you're inviting a low grade. It would be nice if the grader was unaware of the submitted service level, but I doubt that, because there's always a time parameter that they have to meet. At least PSA says the cards are submitted anonymously so that 'Big' or 'Small' customers get consistent treatment.

By coupling time and grade estimate, the grading companies are asking us to express our opinion, and while they might not intentionally lean one way or another, human nature is human nature.

I really don't doubt the integrity of the graders, but I know if the card is submitted as a $100 card and it's on the cusp of 6 and 7, as a grader, I would be subconsciously thinking that the submitter would be satisfied with a 6. This is why the have double blind drug studies - honest people are influenced by what they know. We all know the impact of 6 vs 7.

On the other hand, if I was hopeful on it being a 7, and submitted it s a $1,000 card, the grader knows my expectation, and might be similarly influenced to make inadvertent 'allowances'. It a very subjective thing after all.

But this is all simply argumentative, and as far as I know there is no good solution. The flat fee for grading (there could be different price levels for different sets or time periods) would remove most subjective leaning. In my mind, the grader should be taking more time looking at a Mayo Cut Plug Anson than a '33 Lew Fonseca (Sorry Lew).

I guess I'll take the hit and submit it as I see it and hope the best things happen. What's my option?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by scomeau

Frank,

You bring up some good points. I have certainly had Scenario #1 experiences. I'm sure if I were smarter, I would never have purchased the cards, but the hobby used to be different and I ain't that smaht. We used to buy raw cards all the time.

If you submit the Scenario #1 card low-balling, you're inviting a low grade. It would be nice if the grader was unaware of the submitted service level, but I doubt that, because there's always a time parameter that they have to meet. At least PSA says the cards are submitted anonymously so that 'Big' or 'Small' customers get consistent treatment.

By coupling time and grade estimate, the grading companies are asking us to express our opinion, and while they might not intentionally lean one way or another, human nature is human nature.

I really don't doubt the integrity of the graders, but I know if the card is submitted as a $100 card and it's on the cusp of 6 and 7, as a grader, I would be subconsciously thinking that the submitter would be satisfied with a 6. This is why the have double blind drug studies - honest people are influenced by what they know. We all know the impact of 6 vs 7.

On the other hand, if I was hopeful on it being a 7, and submitted it s a $1,000 card, the grader knows my expectation, and might be similarly influenced to make inadvertent 'allowances'. It a very subjective thing after all.

But this is all simply argumentative, and as far as I know there is no good solution. The flat fee for grading (there could be different price levels for different sets or time periods) would remove most subjective leaning. In my mind, the grader should be taking more time looking at a Mayo Cut Plug Anson than a '33 Lew Fonseca (Sorry Lew).

I guess I'll take the hit and submit it as I see it and hope the best things happen. What's my option?

Again, I submit at a level that recompenses me for the card pre-grade. I recently submitted a 1965 Mantle with a $250 valuation and got a NM/MT 8. I really have never noticed a correlation between my estimate and my grade.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by scomeau

Steve B.

I'm a little confused about your Needham card. Does the MIS indicate a factory cut issue or are they saying it was trimmed? Looks like a nice card. If the factory cut is the issue, then 'A' would certainly have been an injustice. While 'A' means authentic, to me, it also implies tampering or some questionable aspect. The 'A' without explanation on the slab is a problem for me.

Miscut in this case is a cut that's not normal, and odd enough that they didn't want to give it a number grade. At the time it bugged me, but over time seeing some altered cards that pass, and seeing genuine but odd cards that pass but are openly criticized as being undersize or whatever the manufacturing flaw is made me realize that some cards while legit would make the grading co look bad to many collectors if they were graded.

Here's a scan of the cut, both top and bottom are factory, but very rough. It's from the blade in the cutter being dull.



Another that won't grade but is factory. The weird top and bottom cuts are from debris in or under the stack of sheets being cut. Probably a bit of wood, as the sacrificial strip the blade went into was wood back then.
Haven't sent it in, and won't. It has a small crease at the bend, just as it should, but even if it did grade it shouldn't be much over a 30 or 35.


Steve B

[Leon]

With PSA's new $1200 price tag to grade a high value card I wonder how many of those will be submitted at lower value tiers? Twelve hundred a pop to get a grade that, from my experience is low, to get another $1200 submission, seems like a nice gig. BTW, after reading articles on ethics, even with fiduciary professionals, it is human nature to pick something that monetarily helps you. So giving a low grade to get more submissions is human nature, so it seems.