PSA reholder issues - warning to submitters

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Flintboy

I wonder if they ever increased the grade? Seriously doubt that…

I doubt it too, but at the same time if these are older slabs, the cards are more probably overgraded relative to today's standards.

[Tabe]

Does PSA disclaim liability if card is damaged during a reholder? Are they actually regrading the card or just validating there was no damage and then lowering the grade if there was?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I doubt it too, but at the same time if these are older slabs, the cards are more probably overgraded relative to today's standards.

Agree with Peter. It seems the grading standards are more strict today. I submitted a 1952 Topps Campos red star/black star for re-holdering and had no issues. Same grade.

[Yoda]

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

If someone submits a card for a reholder and there is no damage to the holder, PSA does not review the card. If the holder that is submitted has damage they will inspect the holder more closely and if they see no evidence of it being resealed will reholder the card without reviewing it. If they find the damage is possibly from a reseal they will review the card. If this is not being done this way, I would need to see evidence. Not some guy posting on this forum saying he knows of 3 instances and then refuses or is unable to provide a single detail of any of the 3 instances.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

Based on the email quoted in post #8 above, it seems clear that their current policy allows for this exact scenario.

[gonefishin]

I have a very similar situation with Beckett. A couple of years ago I purchased a BGS graded 6.5, 1948 Carl Braun rookie (picture attached). Back in Oct/Nov 2022 time frame I was looking at the card and decided to check the population. When I entered the serial number it didn't come up in the pop report. I did some extensive research and came to the conclusion my card was graded in 2002 and that both the bar code and serial number were in error. The case had never been tampered with and is in excellent condition. After several attempts I got a CS person (Jay Donayre) on the phone. He explained to me that at some point Beckett had a problem with the system crashing or something similar and they had to re-input the compromised data, and my label issue probably stemmed from that.

He sent me a form and told me to complete the form he sent me and return to Beckett for re-slabbing and label correction. He also told me the card would be graded to verify the assigned grade. This happens to be the highest graded 48 Braun in Beckett. Needless to say, I still have the card and have decided not to send it back.

I intend to sell it at some point in the future, but have concerns since the assigned serial number doesn't appear in the pop report. So, I guess I'm in a quandary - damned if you do - damned if you don't!

[Zach Wheat]

In my case with the 1952 Topps Campos, PSA considered it incorrectly labelled since it did not note the red star/black star variation. They did not change the grade and they did not charge me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I have a very similar situation with Beckett. A couple of years ago I purchased a BGS graded 6.5, 1948 Carl Braun rookie (picture attached). Back in Oct/Nov 2022 time frame I was looking at the card and decided to check the population. When I entered the serial number it didn't come up in the pop report. I did some extensive research and came to the conclusion my card was graded in 2002 and that both the bar code and serial number were in error. The case had never been tampered with and is in excellent condition. After several attempts I got a CS person (Jay Donayre) on the phone. He explained to me that at some point Beckett had a problem with the system crashing or something similar and they had to re-input the compromised data, and my label issue probably stemmed from that.

He sent me a form and told me to complete the form he sent me and return to Beckett for re-slabbing and label correction. He also told me the card would be graded to verify the assigned grade. This happens to be the highest graded 48 Braun in Beckett. Needless to say, I still have the card and have decided not to send it back.

I intend to sell it at some point in the future, but have concerns since the assigned serial number doesn't appear in the pop report. So, I guess I'm in a quandary - damned if you do - damned if you don't!

That actually sucks. THEY have a problem and create an error/situation that you had nothing to do with, and now compromises your potential ability to sell the card. And then THEY dictate to you that in going to fix it, they can re-assess the card and harm your value, maybe significantly, and there's nothing you can say or do about it? That is so wrong!!!!

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by BobC

That actually sucks. THEY have a problem and create an error/situation that you had nothing to do with, and now compromises your potential ability to sell the card. And then THEY dictate to you that in going to fix it, they can re-assess the card and harm your value, maybe significantly, and there's nothing you can say or do about it? That is so wrong!!!!

Most of the companies now have this, because they've all now been sold over time and have different ownership groups. So they are absolving themselves of the liability of cards graded by previous administrations.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Based on the email quoted in post #8 above, it seems clear that their current policy allows for this exact scenario.

I don't think so. The TPG will look to see if the damage to the slab also damaged the card, and only then will they regrade. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

1973schmidtrc615PSA8PD:STbeforeafter.jpg

[Fred]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

Attachment 551803

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

[55koufax]

AGREED!

I recently sent in one card for a label correction. Came back to me within about two weeks. Corrected and of course n/c.

I have done dozens of re-holders over the years mostly for damaged cases. Never one single issue. Obviously, they can not change the grade on a re-holder order, only a review, and it can only stay the same or go up. Doesn't everyone know this?

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

Attachment 551803

is it just me or does the PD version of this look better?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I don't think so. The TPG will look to see if the damage to the slab also damaged the card, and only then will they regrade. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Al, now that is a rational reason for a downgrade in a card. If the slab was damaged or shows signs of abuse, then it's possible the card could have sustained a little damage. I think the cards are protected fairly well, but I can see that as a reason for a downgrade if there's obvious damage caused by a slab being abuse.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I don't think so. The TPG will look to see if the damage to the slab also damaged the card, and only then will they regrade. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was:

"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5"

They are saying that due to the slab damage they will review the card to look for damage to the card AS WELL AS review it to confirm it meets the current grading standards for a PSA 1.5.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was:

"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5"

They are saying that due to the slab damage they will review the card to look for damage to the card AS WELL AS review it to confirm it meets the current grading standards for a PSA 1.5.

That wording isn't very clear or insightful, although it does seem to imply that PSA's grading standards have changed over time. Otherwise, why include the word "current"?

Here is what their website says about their reholdering service.

"All items will be automatically reholdered UNLESS (1) the sonic weld on the PSA case shows signs of tampering or (2) the PSA case is fractured over the item itself. If the case is fractured over/near the item, it will be examined raw to ensure it has not sustained damage and that the original grade is still valid."

Obviously damage to the card could invalidate the grade, but I guess so could changing grading standards or outright mistakes.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

The way people look at slabs these days, I think the pretzel logic is that the condition of the plastic slab must be taken into consideration when re-grading/reviewing the card for re-holdering.

For those that didn't get it, this was an attempt at very poor sarcasm. However, think about it. People could now provide a picture of a slabbed card and also give the condition of the slab. A 10 would be a pristine slab with no scratches or frosting of the edges. If there are the typical scratches and a few other "plastic" inclusions (you know, like diamond grading), then the slab could fall into a 6 rating. A heavily scratched slab could be a 3 or 4 and if the edge has frosting, the it could drop it all the way to "PA" or potentially altered...

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Agree with Peter. It seems the grading standards are more strict today. I submitted a 1952 Topps Campos red star/black star for re-holdering and had no issues. Same grade.

Hi Mike, was this sent in for review, reholder, or CrC? (Label correction)

This might be the issue.

Since shipping sucks, I sent in a card for "review" that was mislabeled. I figure let me get a bump and a new holder. Currently says crc assembly, so I believe they would not review it in the mislabeled slab. Hopefully they wont charge me! It will be tied for highest graded copy as is, a .5 will be highest, any lower and I'm looking for boku bucks

[jimq16415]

[QUOTE=Republicaninmass;2329494]Hi Mike, was this sent in for review, reholder, or CrC? (Label correction)

I have a newer Clemente card that I think is overgraded, it was also mislabeled. I sent it in to have the label corrected and it came back with the same grade. Maybe they don't re-grade the CRC cards?

[Republicaninmass]

[QUOTE=jimq16415;2329533]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Hi Mike, was this sent in for review, reholder, or CrC? (Label correction)

I have a newer Clemente card that I think is overgraded, it was also mislabeled. I sent it in to have the label corrected and it came back with the same grade. Maybe they don't re-grade the CRC cards?

That's my guess. Mine I had sent specifically for review...with the notation to relabel correctly and I was moved from review to crc

[G1911]

Still awaiting evidence that PSA is lowering grades on cards when people are using the reholder service.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by G1911

Still awaiting evidence that PSA is lowering grades on cards when people are using the reholder service.

I know there are some on this board that are doubting this, but I know for a fact this has happened, especially recently. I never said all, just that there are examples and that it can happen.