PSA reholder issues - warning to submitters

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

In the last 3 months, three different vintage collectors (including one I know personally) have had issues reholdering their cards with PSA. Each story is a bit unique but here is the gist:

Collector has a higher dollar vintage PSA card they want reholdered. They do not want it reviewed, only reholdered. The original slabs are not damaged nor tampered with.

Collector sends the card to PSA. Collector gets the card back in a new holder but it is now a lower PSA grade. Collector is not offered monetary value for the lower grade. Of course, all three collectors are not happy.

Has any net54 members had similar experiences? With these recent issues, I would be leery of sending a card back for reholder.

How is each story unique? It seems you are omitting details here that could be relevant.

[Flintboy]

I wonder if they ever increased the grade? Seriously doubt that…

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Flintboy

I wonder if they ever increased the grade? Seriously doubt that…

I doubt it too, but at the same time if these are older slabs, the cards are more probably overgraded relative to today's standards.

[Tabe]

Does PSA disclaim liability if card is damaged during a reholder? Are they actually regrading the card or just validating there was no damage and then lowering the grade if there was?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I doubt it too, but at the same time if these are older slabs, the cards are more probably overgraded relative to today's standards.

Agree with Peter. It seems the grading standards are more strict today. I submitted a 1952 Topps Campos red star/black star for re-holdering and had no issues. Same grade.

[Yoda]

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

If someone submits a card for a reholder and there is no damage to the holder, PSA does not review the card. If the holder that is submitted has damage they will inspect the holder more closely and if they see no evidence of it being resealed will reholder the card without reviewing it. If they find the damage is possibly from a reseal they will review the card. If this is not being done this way, I would need to see evidence. Not some guy posting on this forum saying he knows of 3 instances and then refuses or is unable to provide a single detail of any of the 3 instances.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

Based on the email quoted in post #8 above, it seems clear that their current policy allows for this exact scenario.

[gonefishin]

I have a very similar situation with Beckett. A couple of years ago I purchased a BGS graded 6.5, 1948 Carl Braun rookie (picture attached). Back in Oct/Nov 2022 time frame I was looking at the card and decided to check the population. When I entered the serial number it didn't come up in the pop report. I did some extensive research and came to the conclusion my card was graded in 2002 and that both the bar code and serial number were in error. The case had never been tampered with and is in excellent condition. After several attempts I got a CS person (Jay Donayre) on the phone. He explained to me that at some point Beckett had a problem with the system crashing or something similar and they had to re-input the compromised data, and my label issue probably stemmed from that.

He sent me a form and told me to complete the form he sent me and return to Beckett for re-slabbing and label correction. He also told me the card would be graded to verify the assigned grade. This happens to be the highest graded 48 Braun in Beckett. Needless to say, I still have the card and have decided not to send it back.

I intend to sell it at some point in the future, but have concerns since the assigned serial number doesn't appear in the pop report. So, I guess I'm in a quandary - damned if you do - damned if you don't!

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Based on the email quoted in post #8 above, it seems clear that their current policy allows for this exact scenario.

I don't think so. The TPG will look to see if the damage to the slab also damaged the card, and only then will they regrade. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

The way people look at slabs these days, I think the pretzel logic is that the condition of the plastic slab must be taken into consideration when re-grading/reviewing the card for re-holdering.

For those that didn't get it, this was an attempt at very poor sarcasm. However, think about it. People could now provide a picture of a slabbed card and also give the condition of the slab. A 10 would be a pristine slab with no scratches or frosting of the edges. If there are the typical scratches and a few other "plastic" inclusions (you know, like diamond grading), then the slab could fall into a 6 rating. A heavily scratched slab could be a 3 or 4 and if the edge has frosting, the it could drop it all the way to "PA" or potentially altered...

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Agree with Peter. It seems the grading standards are more strict today. I submitted a 1952 Topps Campos red star/black star for re-holdering and had no issues. Same grade.

Hi Mike, was this sent in for review, reholder, or CrC? (Label correction)

This might be the issue.

Since shipping sucks, I sent in a card for "review" that was mislabeled. I figure let me get a bump and a new holder. Currently says crc assembly, so I believe they would not review it in the mislabeled slab. Hopefully they wont charge me! It will be tied for highest graded copy as is, a .5 will be highest, any lower and I'm looking for boku bucks

[jimq16415]

[QUOTE=Republicaninmass;2329494]Hi Mike, was this sent in for review, reholder, or CrC? (Label correction)

I have a newer Clemente card that I think is overgraded, it was also mislabeled. I sent it in to have the label corrected and it came back with the same grade. Maybe they don't re-grade the CRC cards?

[Republicaninmass]

[QUOTE=jimq16415;2329533]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Hi Mike, was this sent in for review, reholder, or CrC? (Label correction)

I have a newer Clemente card that I think is overgraded, it was also mislabeled. I sent it in to have the label corrected and it came back with the same grade. Maybe they don't re-grade the CRC cards?

That's my guess. Mine I had sent specifically for review...with the notation to relabel correctly and I was moved from review to crc

[trambo]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How is each story unique? It seems you are omitting details here that could be relevant.

+1

Not saying I don't believe it but also need a little more to go on. I've had maybe 15-20 cards reholdered w/no issue. In the instances where I've seen grades changed, there was damage to the slab.

[asoriano]

Originally Posted by trambo

In the instances where I've seen grades changed, there was damage to the slab.

this ^^^