Submitting cards for graded review at PSA

[Snowman]

I'm curious about others' experiences with submitting cards to PSA for their 'graded review' service in an effort to get a more fair/accurate grade for cards that are clearly undergraded. Has anyone here used this service in the past? I have read several anecdotal accounts about people successfully getting their undergraded cards to bump, so I know it works at least sometimes, but I'm curious if anyone here has experience using this service. I have successfully resubmitted cards for higher grades after cracking them out, but have never tried the graded card review before. Obviously, it would have to be a card that is so clearly undergraded that they'd have to be pretty darn stubborn not to give it a higher grade, but under/harshly graded cards definitely do happen, which is why this service is offered. However, my fear is that the large sample success rates might be more similar to what you'd get by submitting a card for crossover service rather than cracking it out and submitting it raw.

Normally, I would just crack a card out and resubmit it if it were graded unfairly, but with high-end cards, I'd prefer not to do that as long as the graded card review service is fair.

The card I'm wanting to have regraded is a Wilt Chamberlain RC that I recently won from Aquarian's auction. It was graded as a 7, but after examining it closely in person under 30x magnification, I am just completely baffled at how this card ever gets a 7 even on a bad day from a harsh grader. Aquarian told me that he was expecting an 8 when he sent this card in, and I definitely agree that it should have gotten an 8 at least. The only flaw on this card is the centering, and even that is 42/58 L/R and 35/65 T/B as measured digitally in photoshop (which is well within PSA's tolerance for an 8, which is stated as 70/30 or better on the front, and technically could even pass as a 9 with their 65/35 requirement, though that's arguable). The color and gloss on this card looks pack fresh. It practically glows. It has 3 sharp corners and one with just the ever so slightest touch on it. It's an otherwise beautiful card that I would expect an 8 on and could even pass as a 9, though I would give it an 8. It definitely looks better than the many of the earlier graded 9s I've seen.

Anyhow, yes, I know this is a basketball card, but the card itself doesn't really matter. I'm interested in your experiences using this graded review service with any cards, pre-war, post-war, baseball, basketball, non-sport, etc. Has anyone else used this service before? If so, what have your experiences been?

[Johnny630]

That's A Great Card Snowman!!!


I would keep it for now :-) The card looks freshly graded, put it away for a while and be happy buddy :-) you seem like a passionate card lover who is a collector, put it away knowing you have a killer card that very well could/does deserve a bump. Down the road I would def give it a go for the 7.5 review.

Johnny

[jb67]

Great looking Wilt!!! Looks like it has a chance to bump .5 and certainly would not be out the question to see it in an 8 holder.

I used to always crack and resubmit and have had decent results but decided to try the review process and see how it would go. I have actually had better results getting bumps on the review process. I have had several PSA 8's bump to 9's.

I do not submit a lot but given the amount that I have done I have had some really good success with the review process.

[Foo3112]

PSA is not a fan of bumping cards. It's not impossible but it certainly is a long shot. Its pretty much like them admitting fault and we all know how PSA runs their forums, you don't agree, you get banned. The best chance for anyone who feels that strongly that their card deserves to get a bump would be to crack out and submit raw.

[MattyC]

PSA as I understand it has greatly shifted their stance on reviews, and are no longer looking to admit they screwed up the first time. What's more, to discourage cracking and resubbing, they will run a card through a new recognition process that will tell them if it has been graded before— at which point if no doctoring is detected they'll presumably put it in the same grade it was in prior.

Apparently some of the new powers that be realized how it undermines their brand, for cards to get many different grades from the same company over the course of many resubmissions and reviews. Too bad this stance is powerless to erase the millions of times in history that millions of cards have been graded multiple times, receiving several different grades.

They can try and set their opinion is stone, as it were, but end of the day as Jeff Lebowski put it, "That's just like, their opinion, man." And opinions being like a$$holes...we all know how that saying goes. Sure, in this case their opinion can be worth a lot of money, but the good news there is that the collectors who comprise the market often now pay premiums for eye appeal, and so undergraded cards get their due.

[3-2-count]

Originally Posted by MattyC

but the good news there is that the collectors who comprise the market often now pay premiums for eye appeal, and so undergraded cards get their due.

This!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by MattyC

the good news there is that the collectors who comprise the market often now pay premiums for eye appeal, and so undergraded cards get their due.

Well, sorta. This card was probably worth about $17-18k per PSA 7 comps at the time of the sale, and while it did sell for a slight premium above that at $19.5k due to the eye appeal, it didn't approach anywhere near what it would fetch in the 8 holder it belongs in IMO. An 8 would put this card at $50k. Pretty big difference there.

[Snowman]

As far as the grade bump goes, I don't see them giving this a 7.5. It's much more likely to get an 8 or rejected than it is to get a 7.5. The .5 bumps are generally only given out for centering eye-appeal with PSA, though not always. SGC might give it a 7.5, but not PSA. Either way though, this card is as good or better than every single 1961 Fleer PSA 8 I've been able to find in my research so far of both Wilt and Oscar. I really do think they got this one wrong. They've been remarkably harsh in recent months, especially with vintage. My hope is that submitting it for review means it makes it to the desk of someone like Reza or Steve, but perhaps that's wishful thinking? I don't know.