 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
07-13-2019, 07:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Four phrases I have coined that sum up today's hobby: No consequences. Stuff trumps all. The flip is the commoodity. Animal Farm grading. 
|
|
#3
07-13-2019, 08:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Coming soon to a grading competition near you.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes.
|
|
#5
07-16-2019, 01:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
One. That's it. And PSA has graded a total of 121 Mickey Mantle New York Journal Americans since opening their doors in 1991. 121 examples in about 28 years. That's a little over 4 examples, on average, they grade per year. Not one that comes across their desk(s) all that often, agreed? They keep population data, which is made public. Surely, they must keep more information in house to help guard against fraud, right? These cards have a unique, factory printed numerical identifier at the bottom. If I'm a grader for PSA, and this card comes to me for grading, this card that PSA gets every three months, on average, I'm documenting that factory printed numerical identifier in our database, so the next time that another example of the card comes in, that database can quickly be referenced. "This Mantle with serial number 290586 came through two years ago and was graded a 6. I'm about to give it a 9. Maybe I need to take another look, because either Stevie Wonder graded it the first time, or some card doctor has altered this card to receive a higher grade." Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Or, am I crazy? If they're keeping any kind of data on the cards they grade beyond the final 1-10 designation, how does this happen?
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd.
|
|
#6
07-16-2019, 05:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually, Joe Orlando has stated in the past that every card coming into PSA gets a fresh look, even if it is a 1/1 superfractor, when resubmitted raw or for crossover/review. If they only get ~30-50 seconds to grade a card in the first place, do you think they're going to voluntarily spend an additional 30 seconds to query their database for possible previous grades of the same card?
Should they? Yes. Do they? No. There are a lot of their processes that they've promoted over time that they should be fixing at this point. One of which is to reject all submissions by known card doctors, which includes Brent.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes.
|
|
#7
07-16-2019, 05:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would imagine that a lot of their revenue comes from crack out and resubmits. I doubt they want to discourage that in any way.
__________________
Four phrases I have coined that sum up today's hobby: No consequences. Stuff trumps all. The flip is the commoodity. Animal Farm grading.
|
|
#8
07-16-2019, 07:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
