-card CSG crack 'n cross to PSA - Ouch!

[thenightman]

Originally Posted by Bosoxfan5990

I've always wondered what thenightman looks like in real life. I assume he's a Charlie Day clone.

Not really. The most recent comparison I got was at the Dallas Card Show and a girl said I looked like Negan from Walking Dead. I'm not as tall as him, though. It's a close comparison. I've also gotten Rick for WD too. I'm sure 99% of it is the beard, lol.

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by I only pull for

Maybe it has something to do with so many people complaining and showing it on social media...
It could also do with personal experiences...
Do you think PSA earned the name Please Submit Again for its consistency?

Originally Posted by I only pull for

All this shows is the inconsistency at PSA

Please
Submit
Again

Again, how could you possibly draw the conclusion that someone cracking slabs from another company and sending them to PSA shows that PSA is inconsistent?

So if I send my HGA 10 and it doesn't get a 10 from PSA, shame on PSA for having different criteria? Got it...

[discodanman45]

A lot of the current PSA submissions I have seen are head scratchers for sure. The Parish was way over graded with CSG, but way too harsh with PSA. The problem with that 70's stuff is that there is no rule book for deductions. That red border print defect is very common, and I have seen older PSA 9 slabs with it. My 70's stuff I have submitted to PSA seems to start at a high of 8 and the majority of the stuff that is in amazing shape gets a 7 thrown on it.

My last few CSG vintage submissions were graded much tougher and on par with SGC/PSA. CSG has watched a few of my reveals, commented as well, where I criticized their vintage grading and I think my account was flagged to grade harder.

Below is my Parish rookie I got graded with SGC and it won't be cracked. :P Would it get a PSA 6/7?

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

Again, how could you possibly draw the conclusion that someone cracking slabs from another company and sending them to PSA shows that PSA is inconsistent?

PSA isn't inconsistent, they are just absolutely ridiculous right now with how they grade vintage in higher grades. If it is 80's, they start with a high of 9 and go down from that. 70's they will start with an 8. I will buy PSA new cert #'s with vintage because of this new stance they are taking, but won't grade with them. If people don't think their standards have changed recently, just look at older slabs. I would rather have a new cert PSA 6 than a old label PSA 8. It is that bad right now.

Edit: I will take back my statement that PSA is not inconsistent. Behold a PSA 6! Looks just like that Parish.

[YeahBuddy]

Originally Posted by metsandweezer

I’m honestly not shocked by those results. PSA never gives gems on 80’s and 90’s stuff.

Exactly! way less to do with CSG and more to do with PSA!

I've had 80s stuff I sent to PSA they wouldnt grade, sent it back in a year later and they graded it all. Even ones I thought would 10, knew damn well they likely would get 9 at best.

When you are grading 1million cards a month and not trying to make huge blunders you can simply 9 the great looking vintage stuff because the price difference on 9 vs. 10 is HUGE on sought out vintage.

[I only pull for]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

Again, how could you possibly draw the conclusion that someone cracking slabs from another company and sending them to PSA shows that PSA is inconsistent?

So if I send my HGA 10 and it doesn't get a 10 from PSA, shame on PSA for having different criteria? Got it...

The fact they are throwing 9's on anything 90s and 80s says it all.
I'm not only talking just about this submission, obviously.
I've talked to people who have been doing this for 20 years and they all say the same.
Even with the op's cards, do you mean to tell me neither Maddux is a gem?
OP you know the drill, crack the 9s, and submit again.
There is always a PSA apologist on here.

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by I only pull for

The fact they are throwing 9's on anything 90s and 80s says it all.
I'm not only talking just about this submission, obviously.
I've talked to people who have been doing this for 20 years and they all say the same.
Even with the op's cards, do you mean to tell me neither Maddux is a gem?
OP you know the drill, crack the 9s, and submit again.
There is always a PSA apologist on here.

Lmao @ PSA apologist. If anything, you're the one that seems to have an agenda. The OP showed cards he cracked and subbed to PSA. Because the grades weren't better, somehow that shows that PSA is inconsistent. CSG didn't give either Maddux a 10 but PSA was supposed to for "reasons" I guess.

Does PSA make mistakes? Of course. Can anything be gathered from the sub in the OP that shows inconsistencies by PSA? No

[I only pull for]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

Lmao @ PSA apologist. If anything, you're the one that seems to have an agenda. The OP showed cards he cracked and subbed to PSA. Because the grades weren't better, somehow that shows that PSA is inconsistent. CSG didn't give either Maddux a 10 but PSA was supposed to for "reasons" I guess.

Does PSA make mistakes? Of course. Can anything be gathered from the sub in the OP that shows inconsistencies by PSA? No

CSG graded them gem mint (take a look again). Why are you so emotional?

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by I only pull for

CSG graded them gem mint (take a look again). Why are you so emotional?

I'm not emotional at all. Your conclusion just makes no sense.
CSG has a 10 grade. Or are you saying that all BGS 9.5's should be PSA 10's also because they call that Gem Mint? And PSA would be inconsistent if they didn't award those grades.

[shrevecity]

All it shows is that they viewed things different most are 1 point or half a point. So nothing is really proven here either way. There are posts and threads that show just the opposite results

[mrgant]

So I sent two of them to SGC. The parish has gone from 8.5 CSG to 6 PSA to 7 SGC.
The Jackie went from 4 CSG to ungraded at PSA to 4.5 at SGC.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by mrgant

So I sent two of them to SGC. The parish has gone from 8.5 CSG to 6 PSA to 7 SGC.
The Jackie went from 4 CSG to ungraded at PSA to 4.5 at SGC.

That CSG 8.5 Parish was definitely over graded. From my CSG experience, vintage is about 1 grade over PSA/SGC for 5 to 8. However, CSG below 5 is very similar to PSA/SGC. I have a lot of early Bowman, Goudey, and T206 cards that I submitted through CSG that would most likely grade higher at PSA/SGC.

Right now PSA and SGC are way too tough on vintage cards. I have some PSA 7's that look better than PSA 9's in older slabs. If you try cross overs from CSG, I wouldn't pick any card pre 1981. I would also look hard at the corners before cracking as well. Also make sure the CSG card fits perfectly in the slab. If there is a lot of space, the card will 95% get a min size return from PSA.

[tmoore_25]

Originally Posted by mrgant

So I sent two of them to SGC. The parish has gone from 8.5 CSG to 6 PSA to 7 SGC.
The Jackie went from 4 CSG to ungraded at PSA to 4.5 at SGC.

Those two cards belonged in SGC slabs to begin with.

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by larry25

I agree 100%. I enjoy this space for the most part, mostly reading information, but the handful of times I do comment, I am almost immediately ridiculed and even bullied. This place can be toxic, no question. You can always block the clowns, but in their way they also provide good information, albeit clownish.

Yes — exactly. There really is some great info here in the Graded Section, with a large number of very knowledgeable Collectors. For whatever reason, it also ( this Graded Forum ) seems to be a magnet for a rough group of Posters - it’s not like this in other sections BTW / but ‘it is what it is’

Thanks for posting your results OP - hope it all works out for you

[mrgant]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

That CSG 8.5 Parish was definitely over graded. From my CSG experience, vintage is about 1 grade over PSA/SGC for 5 to 8. However, CSG below 5 is very similar to PSA/SGC. I have a lot of early Bowman, Goudey, and T206 cards that I submitted through CSG that would most likely grade higher at PSA/SGC.

Right now PSA and SGC are way too tough on vintage cards. I have some PSA 7's that look better than PSA 9's in older slabs. If you try cross overs from CSG, I wouldn't pick any card pre 1981. I would also look hard at the corners before cracking as well. Also make sure the CSG card fits perfectly in the slab. If there is a lot of space, the card will 95% get a min size return from PSA.

TBH, I did like the Parish a little more when the label said 8.5. Its human nature.

[mrgant]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

Yes — exactly. There really is some great info here in the Graded Section, with a large number of very knowledgeable Collectors. For whatever reason, it also ( this Graded Forum ) seems to be a magnet for a rough group of Posters - it’s not like this in other sections BTW / but ‘it is what it is’

Thanks for posting your results OP - hope it all works out for you

Well, I certainly did not make money on this whole procedure, but I wanted to do a crossover experiment. I figured it was better to post the results for all to see, even if it might make me look stupid. Who cares? I like reading what others post here, and thought I would contribute some knowledge, even if it came at my expense. Still worth doing just to know.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by mrgant

TBH, I did like the Parish a little more when the label said 8.5. Its human nature.

It is a very underrated card. In fact, all vintage basketball is underrated. Trying to find any 70's HOF RC's in 7's is very difficult. I spent a lot of time doing it! Here are some HOF RC cards I bought raw and graded. I am still looking to get a better version of Moses Malone and George Gervin. I have lower graded cards (CSG 4 and 5) of them. I like to buy raw to grade myself, it is a fun game for me!

[Svabinsky78]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

It is a very underrated card. In fact, all vintage basketball is underrated. Trying to find any 70's HOF RC's in 7's is very difficult. I spent a lot of time doing it! Here are some HOF RC cards I bought raw and graded. I am still looking to get a better version of Moses Malone and George Gervin. I have lower graded cards (CSG 4 and 5) of them. I like to buy raw to grade myself, it is a fun game for me!

I have the Dr. J in a PSA 7 and your SGC 6 looks better I would say that CSG is more generous on vintage (albeit, still reasonable....I have not seen any outrageously over graded cards by CSG....they tend to be harsher on surface and centering but softer on corners...sort of inline with BVG), SGC is the most strict (but fair, I'd say.....I have not see any grossly under graded cards....strictly graded yes, but the grades still make sense), and then there is PSA which is just unpredictable these days.......mostly on the under graded end of the spectrum...albeit, I have seen some atrociously off-center 7s....which to me appear over graded.

[Svabinsky78]

Originally Posted by mrgant

This was rough....

8.5 was more on the generous end but it if had originally gotten an 8, I don't think that would have been egregious. The PSA grade is harsh. I would put it at a 7.5.

[Dereth]

I have a card that was graded a CSG9 that is on the way back to me as a PSA8. It's a card with black borders that are notorious for chipping, but there is a very, very small amount of chipping on one edge. I thought that I might have a shot at a PSA10, and I'm shocked that I didn't at least get a PSA9 on it. I might need to try a resub.

[mrgant]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

It is a very underrated card. In fact, all vintage basketball is underrated. Trying to find any 70's HOF RC's in 7's is very difficult. I spent a lot of time doing it! Here are some HOF RC cards I bought raw and graded. I am still looking to get a better version of Moses Malone and George Gervin. I have lower graded cards (CSG 4 and 5) of them. I like to buy raw to grade myself, it is a fun game for me!

Those are nice ones! I have that Bernard King from my collection 35 years ago. The Parish has been with em for that long as well. Actually, you once posted a pic of a Pippen that you bought raw and graded, and that got me hooked on buying raw and grading for my PC. Its a fun game.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by mrgant

Those are nice ones! I have that Bernard King from my collection 35 years ago. The Parish has been with em for that long as well. Actually, you once posted a pic of a Pippen that you bought raw and graded, and that got me hooked on buying raw and grading for my PC. Its a fun game.

Love me some 1988 Fleer. I remember that 90% of the people on that thread told me it would be a 6 to 8 and laughed at me when I said it was a definite 9 with a chance at a 10.

From raw purchases on eBay/COMC I got the following from PSA from my 1988 addiction! I did get some 8's and two 7's, but almost every raw card I got was profitable and some in a big way! 1988 Fleer Stock 5 PSA 9's, 1988 Fleer Rodman 4 PSA 9's and 1 PSA 10, 1988 Miller 1 PSA 9, and 1988 Fleer Pippen 1 PSA 9. All these were raw purchases, and none cost me more than $30 raw for one card. Most of the PSA 9 Stockton's I got for about $10. I graded a CSG 9 Jordan and CSG 9.5 Stockton from that set and are really nice. Both have a chance at a 10. The Stockton would most likely get it IMO.

I still buy raw to grade and I don't play the crossover game or crack slabs. Maybe one day when 90% of cards are slabbed I will, but there are still a lot of amazing raw cards out there.