Latest PSA Grades of CJ's

[swarmee]

Cards have great eye appeal, but the pictures aren't close enough to detect the issues that led to their technical downgrades. And yes, most of the time they're tougher right now, but with millions of cards graded a year, many overgraded cards still slip through. Like ones that have obvious marker or stains on them that I've gotten back with straight 5 and 4 grades this past year.

[RedsFan1941]

if you choose to play a game whose rules are unclear -- and you know those rules can be arbitrarily applied -- you shouldn't be surprised when the game gives you puzzling results.

[guy3050]

They want people to resubmit !!

This Jackie recently got a 3 , it looks just as good then most 5

s-l1600 by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

s-l1600 (5) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr
s-l1600 (4) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

s-l1600 (3) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

s-l1600 (2) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

s-l1600 (1) by Guy Bourque, on Flickr

[3-2-count]

The grading criteria in place used by Psa when grading Cracker Jacks has always been an inconsistent farce.

It's even worse on 1914's.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

if you choose to play a game whose rules are unclear -- and you know those rules can be arbitrarily applied -- you shouldn't be surprised when the game gives you puzzling results.

tru-dat! what a joke psa has become...a big moneygrab!

many early psa's are terribly overgraded...now the opposite...it's an inconsistent clusterf$ck!

[Johnny630]

That Jackie is screaming for a new holder!! Get me outta there I’m much better then a 3!

[Bigshot69]

I would speculate they are hitting the Jackie for what appears to be a horizontal crease through his name. Sharp card though!

I agree with Don the bottom 2 CJs look 4ish.

[glynparson]

Honestly judging cards as being to harshly graded based on scans is kind of useless. Often minor issues are not easily detectable from the scans. Also we are only seeing the fronts of these cards (cracker jacks) the backs also matter in technical grade.

[3-2-count]

Hi Glyn. Can only speak for myself, but my comment wasn't solely based on Don's post from his recent submission, but rather the 100's that I've handled or owned through the years.

If you ask any Cracker Jack collector in the hobby which include many on this forum you will find that they would all agree that Psa is all over the map with their assessment when it comes to grading CJ's.

Staining in my opinion seems to be their biggest inconsistency when coming up with a final grade.

[glynparson]

I agree they are mad inconsistent on cracker jacks but criticizing these cards based on those pics is laughable. Hell if they have some adhesive residue on the back or something similar it would easily explain grades. My response was more to the op than to you. As for sgc being more consistent of course they are they have 2 graders psa has like 20 simple logic will tell you the same guys will be more consistent than a variety of people.

[CrackaJackKid]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Hi Glyn. Can only speak for myself, but my comment wasn't solely based on Don's post from his recent submission, but rather the 100's that I've handled or owned through the years.

If you ask any Cracker Jack collector in the hobby which include many on this forum you will find that they would all agree that Psa is all over the map with their assessment when it comes to grading CJ's.

Staining in my opinion seems to be their biggest inconsistency when coming up with a final grade.

It still boggles my mind that PSA docks for staining, at least harsher than they used to. I can completely see why it would pertain to the 15s with lots being sent to customers with never being in a box. But for the 14s it makes no sense to me.

Isn’t it true Psa overlooks the PB T206s(Stains) and T201 Double Folders(Fold Crease)?