Has your PSA 10 Gem rate for modern bulk submissions changed dramatically this year?

[MyckKabongo]

Originally Posted by BeerDawgs

I am late to this topic, but wanted to share my 2025 results compared to 2024.
All are Ultra Modern cards, with 100+ cards per submission
- 2024: 62% PSA 10, 31% PSA 9, 7% PSA 8, 1% PSA 7 or lower
- 2025: 37% PSA 10, 42% PSA 9, 15% PSA 8, 5% PSA 7 or lower

I assure you that my card review skills did not change, and most were pack fresh sleeved immediately. The most alarming part of my 2025 submissions is that pack fresh 2024 bowman draft refractors were getting 5 and 6's. That's never happened to my cards before. I am going to crack a few of the 5's and 6's because I did not see any imperfections and I am curious if PSA dinged the on their side, or if they are purposely giving low grades on these. I also am going to cut back on submitting any lower valued cards as its a waste of money until I see a course correction.
My 2025 submissions were sent in January and March, and popped in March and June.

Pretty similar to how my results have changed. Its not just the centering as I rarely pushed it past 55/45 before the change. The next sub will be my last for a while, until I see Gemrate data showing a major rebound in ultra modern sports gem rates.

[hausem06]

Originally Posted by MyckKabongo

Pretty similar to how my results have changed. Its not just the centering as I rarely pushed it past 55/45 before the change. The next sub will be my last for a while, until I see Gemrate data showing a major rebound in ultra modern sports gem rates.

What you said is exactly what I was thinking. Not worth my time to grade when the cost to grade and the results are where they currently are for me and others like yourself. I’ll just sell the cards raw and move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mc1]

Originally Posted by TeeBee12

Old days yes. Today? Automated systems prevent that. Upcharges too. You probably can’t even get the Jordan to enter the sub at Value level these day, right?

Most aren’t subbing an ‘86 Jordan at the 10 level, $5k service fee regardless.

Yeah, cards like the Jordan Fleer RC will not let you advance at the lower service level.Their system forces you to submit at the right price.

[oddstuff]

Since I was headed down to SD comic con, did the in-person Wednesday drop-off at PSA HQ (3 value bulks and 2 value subs). Will report back my personal "gem" experience (as I have not submitted this year due to the big price increases year to year and especially the inconsistencies shared by everyone on this thread) by end of the year lol. In the past, typically got 65-80% gems on 2017-2019 Topps/Bowman paper/chrome. I applied the same pre-screening steps used in the past to this lot of 205 modern/ultra modern cards (a lot of oversized odd stuff that I never got around to sending, along with stuff that I rejected sending previously as they would only 9'd but now it's worth a 9 at the bulk rate)...all baseball so no prizm. Measured each card front top/bottom (eyeballed back) with ruler for centering, examined front/back corners/edges for whiting with 15x mag and looked for surface issues under a bright light.

[yoyosh]

Originally Posted by oddstuff

Since I was headed down to SD comic con, did the in-person Wednesday drop-off at PSA HQ (3 value bulks and 2 value subs). Will report back my personal "gem" experience (as I have not submitted this year due to the big price increases year to year and especially the inconsistencies shared by everyone on this thread) by end of the year lol. In the past, typically got 65-80% gems on 2017-2019 Topps/Bowman paper/chrome. I applied the same pre-screening steps used in the past to this lot of 205 modern/ultra modern cards (a lot of oversized odd stuff that I never got around to sending, along with stuff that I rejected sending previously as they would only 9'd but now it's worth a 9 at the bulk rate)...all baseball so no prizm. Measured each card front top/bottom (eyeballed back) with ruler for centering, examined front/back corners/edges for whiting with 15x mag and looked for surface issues under a bright light.

I genuinely wish you good luck. This is how I examine cards prior to submitting and I've been crushed this year

[oddstuff]

Originally Posted by yoyosh

I genuinely wish you good luck. This is how I examine cards prior to submitting and I've been crushed this year

Thanks...I am genuinely scared because a lot of grading veterans have shared here how their subs have gone down dramatically. I also can't see any dramatic sports specials lowering bulk cost due to the spike in Pokemon volume (saving one way shipping to PSA was a small positive in getting me to sub again as the Ohtani stuff in the lot I can't see going down in value, only up and some may end up costing me even more in grading fees the longer I wait). Guess I'm rolling the dice and will see for myself what happens. Appreciate all those that have shared their experiences already.

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by oddstuff

Since I was headed down to SD comic con, did the in-person Wednesday drop-off at PSA HQ (3 value bulks and 2 value subs). Will report back my personal "gem" experience (as I have not submitted this year due to the big price increases year to year and especially the inconsistencies shared by everyone on this thread) by end of the year lol. In the past, typically got 65-80% gems on 2017-2019 Topps/Bowman paper/chrome. I applied the same pre-screening steps used in the past to this lot of 205 modern/ultra modern cards (a lot of oversized odd stuff that I never got around to sending, along with stuff that I rejected sending previously as they would only 9'd but now it's worth a 9 at the bulk rate)...all baseball so no prizm. Measured each card front top/bottom (eyeballed back) with ruler for centering, examined front/back corners/edges for whiting with 15x mag and looked for surface issues under a bright light.

We share a similar method for scrutinizing cards, and it hasn't seemed to make a difference. Some subs I get solid results while some are nightmarish despite all of the measures that I take to check cards before submitting them.

[thenightman]

“That cracked ice looks like it has a surface scratch.”

“Are you sure that’s not just one of the “cracks”?”

“Who gives a crap?”

PSA 6

[Earlsnake07]

12 card sub (pretty happy overall, although the biggest card got the 8)

PSA 10 - 8
PSA 9 - 3
PSA 8 - 1

[anusinha]

Originally Posted by thenightman

“That cracked ice looks like it has a surface scratch.”

“Are you sure that’s not just one of the “cracks”?”

“Who gives a crap?”

PSA 6

That's happened to me before on a Chrome Sapphire card, resubbed and it got a 10.

[Blake050]

Interesting experiment from Geoff Wilson grading the same cards at the National with the different grading companies. TLDR; BGS, SGC, and CGC were pretty consistent with each other, while PSA gave lower grades.

Although they were touching the surface of the cards with their bare hand while they were cracking the slabs and putting the cards in new penny sleeves. They may have left some nice fingerprints on there for PSA.

https://youtu.be/tRKQKMnrgVw

[KeltonB]

Originally Posted by Blake050

Interesting experiment from Geoff Wilson grading the same cards at the National with the different grading companies. TLDR; BGS, SGC, and CGC were pretty consistent with each other, while PSA gave lower grades.

Although they were touching the surface of the cards with their bare hand while they were cracking the slabs and putting the cards in new penny sleeves. They may have left some nice fingerprints on there for PSA.

https://youtu.be/tRKQKMnrgVw

Yeah, I was cringing watching the BCW guy putting the cards in the penny sleeves (those are cool though with the pull tab).

Interesting the other three graded the cards exactly the same aside from the .5 bump from CGC on the Ted Williams.

Great video!

[Boostedwrx]

Geoff might want to do the test again, with some different cards, but send to PSA first instead of last. I also saw the surface touching etc.

Someone should open a channel that ONLY does this LOL.

[inaka]

This guy from CardsHQ did the same thing as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHHZm9kV0Uk

Without spoiling the results, this is why I grade with SGC, especially for vintage, and I don't have a lot of faith in the other grading companies for the time being.

[Scottish Punk]

Originally Posted by KeltonB

Yeah, I was cringing watching the BCW guy putting the cards in the penny sleeves (those are cool though with the pull tab).

Interesting the other three graded the cards exactly the same aside from the .5 bump from CGC on the Ted Williams.

Great video!

Ha ha, I enjoyed the gaslighting for PSA. "This is why PSA is the leader, they grade tougher than everybody else". Accuracy, meh. I want to see more of these videos. We need bigger sample sizes. Collectors need to see that grading is just an opinion for a grader on a specific day. Don't take the number as gospel.

[Blazed]

Originally Posted by Blake050

Interesting experiment from Geoff Wilson grading the same cards at the National with the different grading companies. TLDR; BGS, SGC, and CGC were pretty consistent with each other, while PSA gave lower grades.

Although they were touching the surface of the cards with their bare hand while they were cracking the slabs and putting the cards in new penny sleeves. They may have left some nice fingerprints on there for PSA.

https://youtu.be/tRKQKMnrgVw

Good video

It's pretty obvious that PSA just slaps grades on stuff at this point

I won a card on eBay and had it sent from AG to grading

Seller had it listed as near mint or better. AG agreed and sent it to grading

It came back a 5 lol, pretty big flaw was missed apparently

Either AG is a joke or PSA is a joke (same company doing both jobs which makes it even more funny)

[oddstuff]

Sounds great on paper but would never use that service of buy/AG straight to PSA grading. Passing AG does not guarantee even a minimum PSA 8. Have to self examine every raw card bbefore forking over more dollars to PSA.

[schmerik]

Well, I guess it’s time for me to add in my 2 cents.

30 card bulk order. All cards were prepped for grading, pre graded in hand and through AI with high resolution scans with my Epson V600. I am very tough with what I send in and don’t just spray and pray.

8 PSA 10
17 PSA 9
5 PSA 8 (2 vintage cards that I knew wouldn’t gem to be fair)

While the gem rate is atrocious in itself, here’s the craziest part: of the PSA 10’s, 4 were cracked out, including 2 that were previously PSA 8’s that I could tell from photos were way off the first time around. Those were the only cards I cracked.

There’s literally no rhyme or reason to bulk grading right now. My theory is that the majority of bulk orders are going to New Jersey or being graded by less experienced graders who are grading way too conservatively. I get that PSA has crazy volumes right now, but something needs to change. I can already tell that if I resubmit all of my 9’s that most of them will likely gem the 2nd or 3rd time around.

PSA really needs to invest resources into properly training new graders who get assigned to bulk. I’m not one to assume a 100% gem rate, but like I said, I know what I’m doing, typically have high gem rates (70%+), and this was the first bulk order of the year. After this experience, my ones in queue might be my last until they get their stuff together. If I’m BGS or CGC, I would be trying to capitalize on this as much as possible

[Wolverine011]

Time for me to post.

I've submitted 6 cards this year so far, in separate 2-card batches with my LCS. They go through my standard screen which I feel is pretty comprehensive. These are all ultra modern cards.

Batch 1
- (1) PSA 10
- (1) PSA 9

Batch 2
- (2) PSA 10

Batch 3
- (1) PSA 9
- (1) PSA 6

Both of the cards from batch 3 were cracked from SGC 10. I guess I ran into the grader of death for that one

[Cracktoast]

I've done 1 sub in the last 2 years that just popped and had a 50% Gem Rate. The 7 and 5 were both expected due to the design of the cards one a black border and the other was a siler pack/Mega Box Design.

10 card order


5- 10's

3- 9's

1- NM 7

1-EX 5

[mikejones]

From 2018-2021, my gem rate was around 80%. Just sub a few cards this year and I'd say my gem rate is at around 40%. I feel like I know what I'm doing. Any little flaw, im not subbing. I got a 6 on one of my cards??? Doesn't make sense. Won't be subbing for awhile.

[Scottish Punk]

I wonder how much of the grading volatility is a slow transition to AI/automated grading? The algorithm would need to be constantly tweaked to get things in balance. I am sure humans are still checking things in this scenario. Maybe, they are doing spot checking or faster reviews. PSA is focused on throughput and locking in grading card life cycle more than anything. From a business standpoint that makes sense and gets the most money and builds a moat.

Here is a question for those with sporadic grades. Is there a difference with your modern grades if you have a mixed order with older stuff rather than fully ultra modern?

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by Scottish Punk

I wonder how much of the grading volatility is a slow transition to AI/automated grading? The algorithm would need to be constantly tweaked to get things in balance. I am sure humans are still checking things in this scenario. Maybe, they are doing spot checking or faster reviews. PSA is focused on throughput and locking in grading card life cycle more than anything. From a business standpoint that makes sense and gets the most money and builds a moat.

Here is a question for those with sporadic grades. Is there a difference with your modern grades if you have a mixed order with older stuff rather than fully ultra modern?

My orders are always specifically 80s and early 90s. Some orders go well, and some are highly questionable. I don't know that it matters, at least in my case, if the orders are mixed or more homogenous. I feel like it just depends on the ability/mood of the grader. I'm very tempted to crack and re-sub a stack of 9s just to prove a point, but there are so many examples of that being a legitimate experience. I feel like it just proves how inconsistent the grading game is at times.

[RKH916]

Originally Posted by Scottish Punk

I wonder how much of the grading volatility is a slow transition to AI/automated grading? The algorithm would need to be constantly tweaked to get things in balance. I am sure humans are still checking things in this scenario. Maybe, they are doing spot checking or faster reviews. PSA is focused on throughput and locking in grading card life cycle more than anything. From a business standpoint that makes sense and gets the most money and builds a moat.

Here is a question for those with sporadic grades. Is there a difference with your modern grades if you have a mixed order with older stuff rather than fully ultra modern?

This is what I have suspected. I would say that they're slowly introducing AI for lower end submissions to expedite backlog issues. This would explain the seemingly random and inexplicable 5's and 6's getting thrown into orders. I've seen a lot of this popping up in grade reveal videos from seasoned submitters, and they all seem equally baffled.

Automation is the most likely explanation.

I always scoffed at the amount of people who thought "AI" grading was a good idea

[The_Reverend]

I have has some atrocious returns. I send mostly TCG and will not be sending any vintage to PSA. I AM also going to hold up sending anything to them for a bit, especially with the holiday approaching. Bulk submissions in September are definitely destined for 2026 returns.