PSA reholder issues - warning to submitters

[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!

[Zach Wheat]

In my case with the 1952 Topps Campos, PSA considered it incorrectly labelled since it did not note the red star/black star variation. They did not change the grade and they did not charge me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 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!

That actually sucks. THEY have a problem and create an error/situation that you had nothing to do with, and now compromises your potential ability to sell the card. And then THEY dictate to you that in going to fix it, they can re-assess the card and harm your value, maybe significantly, and there's nothing you can say or do about it? That is so wrong!!!!

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by BobC

That actually sucks. THEY have a problem and create an error/situation that you had nothing to do with, and now compromises your potential ability to sell the card. And then THEY dictate to you that in going to fix it, they can re-assess the card and harm your value, maybe significantly, and there's nothing you can say or do about it? That is so wrong!!!!

Most of the companies now have this, because they've all now been sold over time and have different ownership groups. So they are absolving themselves of the liability of cards graded by previous administrations.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Most of the companies now have this, because they've all now been sold over time and have different ownership groups. So they are absolving themselves of the liability of cards graded by previous administrations.

I know John, and it sucks. Just like you pointed out two posts ago, the TPG calls the shots, and everything that is decided appears to be in or at "their sole discretion". The contracts and agreements many players in this industry have people/customers sign are typically slanted against the collectors/customers, it is truly sad. The TPGs are not unbiased or without conflicts-of-interest to start with, just look at the contingent fees and charges they hit you with where you pay more based on the value of the card, yet you are supposed to be getting a totally honest and independent opinion on a card's condition and authenticity, and basically the exact same service and work on every card, regardless of if it is worth $10, $10,000, or even $1,000,000 or more.

It is corporate business tactics, coupled with and using legal language, to protect TPG interests, and pocketbooks, as much as possible, and give them as much of an advantage and control over their customers in case they make a mistake and screw up, or otherwise provide or do a disservice to their customers.

For example, with regard to the issue with damaged cases somehow possibly absolving a TPG of standing by their earlier opinion and potentially harming the value of the customer's card, remember it was the TPG that created the case used to encapsulate the card and decided what materials would be used to make it and how it is designed in the first place. Now granted, someone could drop it and accidently damage the case and/or card. And in that situation, it seems that under the current types of TPG agreements and such that we're reading and learning about in this thread, that accident can possibly remove further financial liability and risk to the TPG in case of changes to the card's condition, even if the difference was a screw-up in how the TPG originally graded the card. But what is really the difference between accidently dropping a graded card, which ends up damaging the card and/or the holder, or driving an old American made car that was later found to have been made with an inferior or defective gas tank that could explode if you got into an accident? Based on what some of these TPG agreements seem to all be saying, one would think that if you applied the same logic and position to the exploding cars, the car manufacturer would not be at fault or risk at all because THEY didn't cause the accident, someone else did, so the explosion isn't their fault or financial responsibility for personal injury and property damage somehow.

And before one of the trolls or naysayers jumps on to tell me I'm crazy or how that is ridiculous, really think about it first. The TPGs decide and pick the design and materials used for these slabs, which they market and advertise as protecting the card and its grading integrity. But if you accidently drop it, which everyone knows is going to happen many times to many cards over the years, the TPGs are somehow given a free pass to decide what and how they can react, and have it basically absolve them of potential liability for any issues arising from the damaged card or holder? Maybe had the TPGs picked better materials, and/or had a better design for their graded card slabs, the potential damage to a card and its condition from being accidently dropped maybe would not have been happening, and the TPG could be held to stand behind their original grade. Gee, how did that work out in the car manufacturers situation though? They weren't responsible for the accidents that caused their cars and not-so-great gas tanks to blow up, were they? So, like a TPG, shouldn't they also not really be financially responsible for any damage or costs from gas tanks exploding from an accident that they didn't initiate or cause, right? LOL

Hopefully some people will see and realize the connection between the two situations, and how at a basic level, they really are the same thing/issue. As I said back in post #5 of this thread, if you start getting enough harmed people together, either combining cases or maybe initiating a class-action suit, you may be able to start to go back against these types of organizations in the hobby industry, and their one-sided and somewhat biased contracts and agreements, and see about getting some more fair treatment and be compensated where appropriate. At worst, it would expose more people in the hobby to the potential issues and problems they can encounter by choosing to work with/employ some of these entities and companies in the collecting industry, and bring some of these intentional disadvantages in their contracts/agreements, and the way they treat their customers, to light.

As most always seems the case though, the TPGs and their seeming control of the collectors in the hobby will likely override any real change or improvements in how hobby customers/collectors are treated in such contracts/agreements.

[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

[JollyElm]

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

1973schmidtrc615PSA8PD:STbeforeafter.jpg

[Fred]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

Attachment 551803

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Fred

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

I've heard stories about people valuing the newer slabs vs the older slabs more. I care little about the slab that it's in, and more about the eye appeal of the card. "Buy the card, not the grade." is something I've heard many times, and believe in as well.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Fred

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

It definitely could when herd mentality takes over, but collectors need to look at each card individually and make a determination for themselves. With the Schmidt rookie (stains aside), it definitely belongs in an 8 holder, IMO.

And then there's this...

401. Flipper-Swiffer
A person getting a long-ago graded card reholdered in a clean new slab, for the express purpose of tricking potential buyers into thinking it was newly graded under ‘stricter’ guidelines.

[55koufax]

AGREED!

I recently sent in one card for a label correction. Came back to me within about two weeks. Corrected and of course n/c.

I have done dozens of re-holders over the years mostly for damaged cases. Never one single issue. Obviously, they can not change the grade on a re-holder order, only a review, and it can only stay the same or go up. Doesn't everyone know this?

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

AGREED!

I recently sent in one card for a label correction. Came back to me within about two weeks. Corrected and of course n/c.

I have done dozens of re-holders over the years mostly for damaged cases. Never one single issue. Obviously, they can not change the grade on a re-holder order, only a review, and it can only stay the same or go up. Doesn't everyone know this?

I'm glad you haven't had a problem.

I've never submitted a re-holder to PSA or anyone else. However, when the CS representative at Beckett told me that my card was subject to regrading it gave me pause. My Braun was initially graded in 2002 - that's a long time ago. Why would it be subject to regrade if the case hasn't been tampered with, no sign of manipulation in any way, and it was there error in the data base compromise? Should they not have done due diligence at the initial time of grading? Isn't that why people have cards graded?

Maybe I'm missing something here. If a legitimate graded card owner simply wants to re-holder their card - which they pay for - why does it become questionable at all. Why not just simply re-holder the F'n card!

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

Attachment 551803

is it just me or does the PD version of this look better?

[bobbyw8469]

That is like grading 101 type stuff. A print defect is caused by something in the printing of the card. A stain is something spilled on the card. This is elementary type stuff and should not happen.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

is it just me or does the PD version of this look better?

It's just the scan, man, just the scan.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

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

Al, now that is a rational reason for a downgrade in a card. If the slab was damaged or shows signs of abuse, then it's possible the card could have sustained a little damage. I think the cards are protected fairly well, but I can see that as a reason for a downgrade if there's obvious damage caused by a slab being abuse.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

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

Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was:

"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5"

They are saying that due to the slab damage they will review the card to look for damage to the card AS WELL AS review it to confirm it meets the current grading standards for a PSA 1.5.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was:

"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5"

They are saying that due to the slab damage they will review the card to look for damage to the card AS WELL AS review it to confirm it meets the current grading standards for a PSA 1.5.

That wording isn't very clear or insightful, although it does seem to imply that PSA's grading standards have changed over time. Otherwise, why include the word "current"?

Here is what their website says about their reholdering service.

"All items will be automatically reholdered UNLESS (1) the sonic weld on the PSA case shows signs of tampering or (2) the PSA case is fractured over the item itself. If the case is fractured over/near the item, it will be examined raw to ensure it has not sustained damage and that the original grade is still valid."

Obviously damage to the card could invalidate the grade, but I guess so could changing grading standards or outright mistakes.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

That wording isn't very clear or insightful, although it does seem to imply that PSA's grading standards have changed over time. Otherwise, why include the word "current"?

Here is what their website says about their reholdering service.

"All items will be automatically reholdered UNLESS (1) the sonic weld on the PSA case shows signs of tampering or (2) the PSA case is fractured over the item itself. If the case is fractured over/near the item, it will be examined raw to ensure it has not sustained damage and that the original grade is still valid."

Obviously damage to the card could invalidate the grade, but I guess so could changing grading standards or outright mistakes.

The language seems clear enough to me: they will reholder the card as per the policy you quoted, and then, after that, regrade it.

[ZiggerZagger]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was:
"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5"

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Here is what their website says about their reholdering service.

"All items will be automatically reholdered UNLESS (1) the sonic weld on the PSA case shows signs of tampering or (2) the PSA case is fractured over the item itself. If the case is fractured over/near the item, it will be examined raw to ensure it has not sustained damage and that the original grade is still valid."

Think it's worth making the point that the statement made to Rad_Hazard was from a conversational e-mail with a single PSA Customer Service Rep, and does subtly differ from PSA's official, carefully crafted and vetted statement that Al referenced re: company policy on Reholders from the website.

The most parsimonious explanation is that the CSR was playing a little fast and loose with his/her verbiage -- and not that PSA has a new policy of examining every Reholder submission to see if it deserves the grade the flip carries.

At any rate, I have a PM out to the VP of Customer Experience for PSA/CU, David Sternberger, to get something straight from the horse's mouth. Hope to hear something, and will post it verbatim here if I do.
|
|

[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

[G1911]

Still awaiting evidence that PSA is lowering grades on cards when people are using the reholder service.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by G1911

Still awaiting evidence that PSA is lowering grades on cards when people are using the reholder service.

I know there are some on this board that are doubting this, but I know for a fact this has happened, especially recently. I never said all, just that there are examples and that it can happen.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I know there are some on this board that are doubting this, but I know for a fact this has happened, especially recently. I never said all, just that there are examples and that it can happen.

If you know it for a fact it should be very easy to post the evidence.

You could find a handful of people on Twitter who post that Bigfoot kidnapped their grandma. That doesn't mean anything. I have little but contempt for PSA and their incompetency, but there should be some reasonable basis here for a charge levied. I am unable to find one.