PSA slabbing story....

[ehazuka]

So a month or so ago we got a $19/card Value Bulk (1979-Older) submission back from PSA. There were 133 cards in the sub.

Here are the two WORST examples of cards from that sub. I'm not knocking their grading, rather, look at these two SLABS.

Both cards can slip and flop around in these holders, and the Perkowski is just RIDICULOUS in that monstrous holder. So we went to their Request Center and opened two "Quality Assurance" cases. Both cards were "Accepted" for return, sent BACK in to PSA for holdering into the CORRECT sized slabs, and both cards came BACK A WEEK OR TWO LATER, IN THE SAME HOLDERS! Of course, there was no explanation. So I followed BACK up with them, and this is the reply I got from one of their Customer Relations Specialist:

"Good Morning Ed,
Thank you for taking the time to follow up.

I completely understand how important it is to have your collectible encapsulated to your preference. Unfortunately, we’re unable to accommodate specific holder requests, and the items are not approved to come back in for CRC Reholder.

Our Sealing Team carefully selects the holder they feel offers the safest and most secure fit for each item, ensuring its protection during and after encapsulation.

For your CRC order # 25340485 with certs 114216012 and 114215944, our sealing lead reviewed both and confirmed they were correctly holdered.

Our encapsulation process is designed with your item’s long-term safety in mind.

Kind Regards, "

This is after they've ALREADY been APPROVED, and PSA even sent us the FedEx label to return the two cards on their dime. And seriously, "my preference"??? How about the sealer call down for another dolly full of CORRECT SIZED SLABS????

Would anyone else out here feel like they got porked, especially with this Perkowski being holdered in something used for Postcards or Topps Giants or something else pretty oversized!?? Not that it matters, but all cards were pre 1958.

The '52T Perkowski was the ONLY card that came back in that GIANT holder, though several of the '57Ts came back in what appear to be the CORRECT slabs for our '52Ts and flop around as well. We just returned the Spahn from the '57Ts as I wasn't nearly as upset about the '57Ts as I was with this one, single, black-eye of a '52 Topps card. Who's going to want it in such a monstrous holder? You can't STORE it. You can't STACK it. Maybe just someone who will some day write a book about the insanity that is card grading.

Opposing views are welcome. Thanks in advance for your honest opinions and/or remarks.

-Ed

[swarmee]

I had a '52 that was put in the same holder like 8 years ago. Yours is probably slightly oversized for the issue, and therefore will not fit in their standard size holder without crushing an edge.

[ehazuka]

John, thanks for that insight. That just may be it and if it is, it makes me wonder why we've gotten dozens and dozens of cards back over the years that were ever so slightly tall or short, or wide or thin and they returned them in a CS1 with a MINSIZE sticker and not charged a grading fee. For the sake of consistency, I'd have expected the same kind of treatment here. We have NEVER gotten a 1952-1956 Topps card back in something so enormous, and I bet we've submitted 20,000 of them from that 5-year span. Anyways, thanks again for taking the time to quite possibly talk me off the ledge here! -Ed

[gonefishin]

Ed, Jim here. I am in total agreement with you. PSA definitely has slabs to fit the early Topps cards properly. It's hard to believe they initially told you to return them for proper fit and then send them back in the same slabs.

Recommend you escalate your concerns, or maybe just break them out and send to SGC.

[JollyElm]

Look what PSA does with 1967 Laughlin World Series cards.
It looks like Gertrude Ederle swimming around the vast expanse inside the slab.

Since they own SGC now, couldn't they knock on the door and ask to borrow some of their beautifully-snug slabs??

1967LaughlinWithAddressGradedPSASGCcomparison.jpg

[jchcollins]

Unfortunately this has long been an issue at PSA, and as is their MO with anything else not directly related to them raking in more cash - if they can get away with it and not lose business, they don't give the first flying f---.

I've seen situations where supposedly slightly oversized 1957 and later cards get the 1956-and-earlier Topps slab, but have never seen an oversized Topps vintage (2" 5/8 by 3" 3/4...) card in such a huge oversized case as the one pictured. Honestly, that's asinine.

But again - it's a sporadic issue, likely not reported that often, and not a ton of people actually care - so PSA isn't going to do anything about it. To me, this is where we as collectors have to differentiate the usefulness of the opinion / holdering services - and where in many cases the fraudulent / ridiculous factor can creep in. I'd bust those cards in a heartbeat and put them in Card Savers if for my own PC.

[Kutcher55]

You've seen it all when it comes to PSA slabs, John. Weren't you the guy who had the '63 Mantle with the Immaculate Pube?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

You've seen it all when it comes to PSA slabs, John. Weren't you the guy who had the '63 Mantle with the Immaculate Pube?

Good memory. Yep, that was me - although "Pube Mantle" was actually in an SGC slab, not PSA.

Once I calmed down, I sent the card back to SGC and had them remove the offending piece of detritus (which I think may have been a shaving from the black SGC insert gasket - not actually a pube...but calling it a pube made for a better story...) and reholder the card. I then later downgraded that example to a lower grade PSA '63 Mantle - which is the one currently in my set.

[esehombre]

Oh I love it - i can assure you, your concern was never addressed and this order was assigned the same concern that any vintage cut and paste faux concern would dictate...