PSA Hates Me....and I'm not too fond in return
 

My entire grading history with PSA has been pathetic. On many, many occasions, I have submitted crossovers from SGC and BVG and received significantly lower grades. I don't think I've ever had a bump, and RARELY do I get the equal grade....RARELY. On many, many occasions, I have submitted raw cards, received horrific grades, and then cracked and resubmitted the cards through dealer submissions of friends of mine. On average I'd say the grades come back 1 to 1.5 levels higher than my own submission. I know it is supposed to be anonymous, but I'm pretty sure they smell out my submissions in particular. Here's just the latest example. Feel free to share your horror stories as well.

Below we have two different O'learys submitted at the same time. The kicker -- they got the same numerical grade! Any guesses as to what that would be???

http://photos.imageevent.com/jmpkcp/...dmillfront.gifhttp://photos.imageevent.com/jmpkcp/...ldmillback.gif

http://photos.imageevent.com/jmpkcp/...0-460fac42.gifhttp://photos.imageevent.com/jmpkcp/...0fac42back.gif

Sgc 20 ?

I don't know
 

I don't want to sound condesending, but why do you keep submitting to them? If you don't like the service thay provide and you feel like they have something against you, just take your business elsewhere.

JP - the top one obviously has better eye appeal, but it has multiple major creases in it that would preclude it from grading a 2. At best, you could claim it should be a 1.5 and the other is a 1, so you're complaining that they gave you a 1 instead of a 1.5?

Also goes to the question.....why would you be grading low grade card like that. You're probably leaving money on the table. I can't see how'd youd recoup your grading fees on a card like the one on the bottom. The eye appeal of the top card looks like a 3 but I'm sure it was no where close to that.

Obviously, the top card is nicer than the bottom. This is something I have spoke to both grading companies about. If a card if lower grade (VG and below) a small pencil mark, small amt of paper loss, doesn't mean as much as as a defect at the higher levels. So, why do they immediately crucify these cards and call them poor. Years ago a poor card was one that had a large piece out of it or went through the washing machine. Look at the old price guides. Grading companies have redifined what poor is. Why should a T3/T9 that perfect with a pin hole in the top be called "poor", but one with rounded corners and a crease right through the middle be called Good. Makes no sense to me. Up until recently PSA didn't even have a grade between Poor and Good. And SGC still doesn't have middle grades at the low end. Their needs to be more work on the low end of the grading scale - especially if you collect rare cards.

I must really be blind. I see a couple creases on the top card, but why would it get the same grade as that second one, which has been played with a lot? Someone please help.:)

O'Leary PSA
 

Hi JP,
The Old Mill should get a PSA 1.5 and the Sweet Cap a PSA 1 based on my experience with PSA. The Old Mill has multiple light wrinkles so might even get a PSA 1 if the grader is strict.

Ron

Psa 4??
 

i know there are some here with more expertise. should the cards (below) be a psa 4 and 5??

If the top one isn't a 3 many 4's I have seen need to be downgraded. Also really tough to tell any difference between 5,6, or 7 they all look the same. It really makes no sense, your best judgment is to buy what looks great to you and let your own eyes be the judge since each card and grade varies so much.

Larry
 

Hi Larry,

I'd say 3.5 on Bliss and the Marquard a 4 at best because of the paper loss on back. It is overgraded IMO.

Ron R

I don't know why, but I'm not suprised about this. Try SGC JP .

Clayton

Well, to clear up any questions...

They both got PSA 1s. Yes, the top has some light creases, but eye appeal should count for something! The Old Mill is PERFECTLY centered and has no paper loss. How can it be a 1 while other cards that look like they've been crapped out of a dog can receive a 1?

In this particular instance, the grade doesn't affect me much as it isn't for a registry or any competition. These are for my back set. And since the Cycle 460 and Res Hindu I bought were both in PSA holders already, that is why I decided to get these PSA encapsulated. I use the submission service less and less each year.

Well, that's your issue - grading systems currently do not take "eye appeal" into account, other then the half grade bumps PSA offers. Whether that's how it should be or not is a topic of discussion, but that's how it is.

Either way, creases considered, it's a 3 to me.

3PG is needed for the nicer O'Leary. If it gets a 1, you now know that it has some serious wrinkles that are hard to see in a scan.

3PG is only needed for the beat up O'Leary to certify authenticity and no card doctoring.

to me
 

With the creases (and the one through his eyeballs) I would rate it a 2 to 2.5. With that many spider veins I wouldn't give it a 3. But that is just me. Still a very nice card with nice eye appeal. As Matt stated, eye appeal generally doesn't go into a grade. I think SGC does take it into account when they look at the totality of the grade. In other words if they are about to give a card a 1, but then look at it and say "this just can't be a one, even though it has those issues", then I think they will make it a 1.5 or 2. I know that is not objective, but to me, it's the right way to do it. Also, I am not positive SGC does this but I think they do. regards

Four creases/wrinkles isn't going to get a three
 

From the back scan of the Old Mill, I can make out at least four distinct creases/wrinkles. I can't imagine a card with more than one very faint crease getting a 3. That said, the 1 is a pretty harsh grade based on the visual presentation. I'm definitely surprised it didn't get bumped up at least half a grade.

To me it is counterintuitive to not consider eye appeal in a grade. After all, shouldn't a card's grade have something to do with what it looks like?

Didn't we just discuss this like 2 weeks ago? Does "something to do with what it looks like" mean "everything about what it looks like" It depends on the purpose of the grading system...yadda yadda yadda

Matt- we always speak about grading. It's a board obsession.

I think eye appeal should be a component of grading. Technical flaws are important but once they are determined, why not bump a card for nice eye appeal, or penalize it if it looks ratty? Just a not so original thought.

How many times have we seen the description, "presents much better than the technical grade"?

We're not seeing eye to eye today. Oh well. Without rehashing last week's discussion, objectivity is paramount. Eye appeal is subjective and relative.

PSA's Grading Standards
 

After reading PSAs standard, I find it hard to believe the card didn't receive a two (again, unless it was something beyond the creasing that yielded the one) which allows for multiple creases.

VG 3: Very Good.
A PSA VG 3 card reveals some rounding of the corners, though not extreme. Some surface wear will be apparent, along with possible light scuffing or light scratches. Focus may be somewhat off-register and edges may exhibit noticeable wear. Much, but not all, of the card's original gloss will be lost. Borders may be somewhat yellowed and/or discolored. A crease may be visible. Printing defects are possible. Slight stain may show on obverse and wax staining on reverse may be more prominent. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back.

GOOD 2: Good.
A PSA Good 2 card's corners show accelerated rounding and surface wear is starting to become obvious. A good card may have scratching, scuffing, light staining, or chipping of enamel on obverse. There may be several creases. Original gloss may be completely absent. Card may show considerable discoloration. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back.

PR 1: Poor.
A PSA Poor 1 will exhibit many of the same qualities of a PSA Fair 1.5 but the defects may have advanced to such a serious stage that the eye-appeal of the card has nearly vanished in its entirety. A Poor card may be missing one or two small pieces, exhibit major creasing that nearly breaks through all the layers of cardboard or it may contain extreme discoloration or dirtiness throughout that may make it difficult to identify the issue or content of the card on either the front or back. A card of this nature may also show noticeable warping or another type of destructive defect.

When I first got into the graded card game, this is one of the ones I sent in. PSA gave it a '1' due to one sole crease across the front. I thought it looked WAY better than the bottom of the rung. However, I have learned to accept that any card with a "major" flaw, will more than likely get the '1' slot....

http://images.vintagecardprices.com/...21/1561144.JPG

Eye appeal is subjective, no question about it. But so is grading. Why not look at the total picture? Seems reasonable to me.

Something to consider...if my second card was also an Old Mill instead of a Sweet Cap, and it also came back a 1, there is no question that the first would outsell the second by a large margin. So if eye appeal is important to card enthusiasts, how can it not be worth more to graders?

I once had 200 T206 cards graded by SGC in one submission. Getting them all back was awesome. And sifting through them was a great experience. I lined them all up by grade. And to tell you the truth, I now think I have a pretty good eye for what SGC grades what, at least with respect to T206 cards. Now I am very, very rarely surprised by SGCs grading.

To me, if grading really was subjective, it would be unpredictable. I think SGC is quite predictable.

Old Mill
 

Hi JP,

Based on PSA's own grading standards, the Old Mill should have received a PSA 2. The inconsistency is what drives us crazy sometimes.

Ron

SGC is pretty consistent. That's why I use them almost exclusively.

PRO is consistent, a 10 everytime!

Condolences, something is a miss on that second card grade.

Unless its a vintage trimmed card. Then it gets a 9.