UPDATED - My turn to complain about PSA - Davidson T206

[Ludington1]

Thanks everyone for commiserating with me, I (kinda) feel better. The card does have the slight color shift or bleed along that top-right edge, but definitely no creases or other surface damage at all. I’m really disappointed with this one.

Darren

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Ludington1

Thanks everyone for commiserating with me, I (kinda) feel better. The card does have the slight color shift or bleed along that top-right edge, but definitely no creases or other surface damage at all. I’m really disappointed with this one.

Darren

If there's no wrinkle, then I don't understand the grade at all. The mildly sloppy registration issue should take it down a little bit, but not all the way down to a 2. I see worse 4's every single day, in both major grading slabs.

[perezfan]

Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.

[Ludington1]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.

Great perspective… I just recently got back into collecting when my son found my T206 cards that I collected as a kid in the late 80s. We decided that collecting the Indianapolis pre-war cards would be a great way to hunt and not get caught up in the modern madness. The Davidson is the 5th of 5 players in the T206 set for us and we’re working on the Old Judge cards now. So the grade really doesn’t matter at all. Thanks!

Darren

[Ima Pseudonym]

Meanwhile, there's stuff like this floating around out there (this was graded July 2023) lol

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.

I agree with you when it comes to modern grading vs. grading from many years ago; but for the most part, the wife and I guessed pretty accurately on most of the cards in my recent submission.

The only real exception was the 1952 Redman cards, which graded significantly below where we both thought. I was pleasantly surprised on the '55s, but my wife called those ones perfectly.

We both guessed 4 on Rucker because, after thinking about it, we figured the new grader would have the fact that PSA already graded it a 2 in the back of his mind and wouldn't go too far out on a limb to disagree with that previous grade, for fear of making a mistake.

The biggest problem with grading is that its all completely subjective, and the standards vary greatly from one grader to the next. They're like MLB umpires -- some are pretty good at adhering to the standards, while others are Angel Hernandez.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by Ima Pseudonym

They're like MLB umpires -- some are pretty good at adhering to the standards, while others are Angel Hernandez.

Too funny. I complained about Angel H. for years back when I was watching MLB games every summer night. His strike zone was arbitrary and he was a crummy base ump too. He was so bad I think I even wasted time writing MLB to complain.

[Fred]

I'm waiting for the first post that says they sent their cards to SGC for grading and they came back in PSA slabs.

[hammertime]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.

Completely agree!

[YankeeCollector]

Originally Posted by perezfan

anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to psa (and sgc) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and collectors (the company) has now dragged sgc into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the registry and pricing comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... Not a fictitious number on a slab.

100%

[Beercan collector]

The card companies are getting us trained - we’re trying to figure out why a card is a PSA 2 - light discoloration ? Tiny print dots ? Hidden wrinkles ?
Microscopic surface wear ? Imperfect centering ? registration ? These are all the things that used to be (& should be) allowed on 5s .. even 6s

[mantleman]

Here is a 1967 "Topps" Mantle graded a PSA 6 with very obvious paper loss on the reverse.

I say "Topps" because the card is actually an O-pee-chee, so it was mislabeled as well.....lol.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by mantleman

Here is a 1967 "Topps" Mantle graded a PSA 6 with very obvious paper loss on the reverse.

I say "Topps" because the card is actually an O-pee-chee, so it was mislabeled as well.....lol.

Guessing this is an old label/grade?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

The card companies are getting us trained - we’re trying to figure out why a card is a PSA 2 - light discoloration ? Tiny print dots ? Hidden wrinkles ?
Microscopic surface wear ? Imperfect centering ? registration ? These are all the things that used to be (& should be) allowed on 5s .. even 6s

The only counterpoint to this line of thinking is the frenzy that comes when a buyer around here is trying to negotiate a lower price on something in the BST. The mountain of defects they can suddenly identify in pursuit of that lower price is a real miracle to behold, even on cards that are seemingly pristine.

For that matter, a similar dynamic plays out when we are suspicious that a card has been overgraded or a submitter is getting preferential treatment from the grading companies.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by raulus

The only counterpoint to this line of thinking is the frenzy that comes when a buyer around here is trying to negotiate a lower price on something in the BST. The mountain of defects they can suddenly identify in pursuit of that lower price is a real miracle to behold, even on cards that are seemingly pristine.

For that matter, a similar dynamic plays out when we are suspicious that a card has been overgraded or a submitter is getting preferential treatment from the grading companies.

When they go to sell that same card later, I wonder how many of those defects are mentioned in the sales post.

"...see pictures for condition..."

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

The card companies are getting us trained - we’re trying to figure out why a card is a PSA 2 - light discoloration ? Tiny print dots ? Hidden wrinkles ?
Microscopic surface wear ? Imperfect centering ? registration ? These are all the things that used to be (& should be) allowed on 5s .. even 6s

Yep

[YankeeCollector]

I have come to the point that PSA should only label cards as

Authentic - Let eye appeal determine the price.
Authentic Altered
Not Authentic

Their grading 1-10 sucks and is inconsistent. Their numbers mean absolutely nothing. There are 5s that should be 2s and 2s that should be 5s. Its a joke!
When you pay so much $$ for a grade, they owe a duty to the customer to fairly assess the card. They are cocky, careless and wildly inconsistent.

And now a monopoly since they bought SGC.