PSA Stain Fail Rate: 75%

[JollyElm]

Time to vent...

EDITED TO ADD: This thread erroneously started with five cards, but it should've only been four. If there are any references to a Pete Rose card, please ignore them.

I had four relatively major cards with smallish stains on their glossy fronts, and decided it was a good move to break them out, remove the gum/wax deposits and send them back in to PSA through the 'Swinging Sixties' group sub way back when (the '68 Mays was actually sent in through a different sub of Bobby's).

To be clear, there was no damage committed during or after the breakouts. My method for gum/wax stain removal is slow and methodical, and there were zero issues with it.

So, take a look at these ridiculous results. Out of the four cards, only the 1969 Bench received the same grade it was deemed to have to begin with, and a whopping three out of four (75 frickin' percent) actually received a one point DROP in number grade!! Where in heck is the consistency?? Nothing changed except the meaningless removal of a thin, small area of gum/wax residue, yet the assessment of their grade was lowered?? Huh?? And even under the new 'no qualifiers given' approach of PSA, the centering on all four cards is fine and wouldn't merit a reduction in grade. Pathetic.

SMH.

Stainresultsbeforecorrect.jpg
Stainresultsaftercorrect.jpg


Afterthought: some people will say who cares? Even at a lower grade, they are still probably worth a little more than what you paid for them originally, but that just misses the overall point. These cards SHOULD HAVE come back with their original grades minus the 'ST.' That's the grade these cards were worthy of, said the company who graded them originally...which is the exact same company who graded them now!!

[G1911]

Grading is gambling if you're a commoner; an exercise in corruption when you're one of the favorites who get the gift grades.

[Bigdaddy]

Honestly, are you surprised? I wish someone would try the following exercise - submit the same card 10 or 15 or even 20 times to the same TPG. Then show the distribution of the grades, because they won't come back with the same number every time. Same card, same TPG.

There is an amount or randomness (+/- 0.75 pts?) in their human based grading. Why else would folks resubmit cards hoping for a 'bump'?

Nice cards, BTW.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Honestly, are you surprised? I wish someone would try the following exercise - submit the same card 10 or 15 or even 20 times to the same TPG. Then show the distribution of the grades, because they won't come back with the same number every time. Same card, same TPG.

There is an amount or randomness (+/- 0.75 pts?) in their human based grading. Why else would folks resubmit cards hoping for a 'bump'?

Nice cards, BTW.

I will give you an even better example. There are certain large PSA sellers who some think get special grades.

Randomly pick 10 numbers between 1 and 50 first. Then pull up the big sellers eBay account. Have their PSA 10 cards listed from cheapest to most expensive. Now take those 10 numbers you picked and buy those cards in order from cheapest to most expensive.

This is a fairly cheap way to prove the average person WILL NOT get the same 10 grade that the big sellers get for the same card. When I done this years ago I got more 7s back than 10s.

Hell I paid to get a card graded. Then paid again to try to get the flip corrected. After paying twice it is still mislabeled. Maybe I will pay a third time hoping they get it correct because that makes sense.

[ALBB]

Yea, this grading stuff can be a real crap shoot !

[raulus]

Hi Jolly:

I noticed that you covered the original certs. By chance were any of them early grades? I hear a lot around here how early grading was often more generous than current grading, so I’m always curious about whether that might have played a role in your experience here.

Naturally, if true, then that phenomenon is just another reason to question the legitimacy of a TPG whose results are inconsistent over time, albeit perhaps in a predictable fashion.

[Bcwcardz]

60s , they will not give anything above a seven and 70s nothing above an 8. This is the rule for the common folk and is especially true on tougher cards. It might be worse actually on tougher cards. Try sniffing above a 7 on a 1976 Brett no matter how nice you think your copy is. I’m sure once you sell it and one of the chosen ones cracks and resubmits it’s a 9. I’m just giving a random example. It does really suck though.
Bruce


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrreality68]

right to vent and great looking cards

[Zach Wheat]

Jolly,

It seems to me, a novice when it comes to grading, they are getting a little more strict on grading. It also seems they are using their new digital tech to look for different things they didn't pick up previously.

[jchcollins]

At this point, the evidence is overwhelming that if you are not willing to accept subjectivity in "professional" grading, then you should probably quit giving your money to PSA. The great con has worked on a vast majority of collectors. Grading standards that are supposed to be precise and regimented are always at the end of the day open to interpretation. I have a small handful of valuable cards in my PC that I want in slabs for one reason or another. But make no mistake - grading is a game, and always has been. You either accept the way the game is played, or you don't.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

At this point, the evidence is overwhelming that if you are not willing to accept subjectivity in "professional" grading, then you should probably quit giving your money to PSA. The great con has worked on a vast majority of collectors. Grading standards that are supposed to be precise and regimented are always at the end of the day open to interpretation. I have a small handful of valuable cards in my PC that I want in slabs for one reason or another. But make no mistake - grading is a game, and always has been. You either accept the way the game is played, or you don't.

I find it surprising just how many collectors seem to know this, that it's a game and that that game is somewhat rigged, but continue to play the game anyways. PSA has a stunningly loyal customer base, many of them aware of the shenanigans, frauds, and baloney, but still willing to pay top dollar so they can 'win' that game. I personally would think cognizance of the game would essentially make one have to conclude it's a silly game not worth playing.

[Nugen]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Jolly,

It seems to me, a novice when it comes to grading, they are getting a little more strict on grading. It also seems they are using their new digital tech to look for different things they didn't pick up previously.

I spoke to a dealer at the last Philly Show who submits a large amount of vintage and he said that AI is now a part of vintage grading as well as modern. The scanning seems to be picking up surface imperfections specifically and taking cards down a grade.

[Houseofd]

Jolly Elm,

Lots of good work, but I’ve been studying those 1969 Topps Rose cards and I think they are two different cards.
Several subtle differences, but can’t get past how much more damage the bottom left corner of the PSA 7 ST appears to show in the picture vs. the PSA 7. Also, the bottom border on the PSA 7 ST looks slightly larger than it’s counterpart. More differences within the thin inside white borders of each card, especially in top right corner.
With those soft corners, not sure how the ‘ST’ Rose card ever got a PSA 7.