3 weeks only PSA only $18 grading fee!!!!

[jewcer2k5]

Originally Posted by rhineland

At $199 declared value limit, it could be an upcharge trap for many.

Good to see the price come down, but at $18/card it needs to be $499 declared value to really make me feel confident in sending in a larger order. And even then I think the sweet spot will be $15/card at $499 declared value limit.

As an example: a card that would work here, and that I'm looking to grade, is a 1987 Leaf Greg Maddux rookie. It has a really great shot at a 10, but could get a 9. A 9 sells for ~$100 and a 10 sells for ~$1000. If I hit my low grade, I make money, and if I hit my high grade I don't mind the upcharge. If I hit an 8 for some reason, I may break even.

There aren't many cards that meet this set of criteria, and it's the scenario I've outlined above that makes sense at this price and value limit combination. For that reason, I don't have 20 cards to grade that I'd consider for this special.

This special will eat up a bunch of demand, and it'll elongate PSA's need to reduce pricing further in the near-term (for the remainder of this year), but beyond that I don't see it solving for the inevitable need for price and value limits to find their proper balance. My opinion on that is $15/card at $499 declared value.

If you choose your cards right an upcharge only means you are making money. In your example, even if the limit is $499, you are STILL getting upcharged for a $1000 card.

[rhineland]

Originally Posted by jewcer2k5

If you choose your cards right an upcharge only means you are making money. In your example, even if the limit is $499, you are STILL getting upcharged for a $1000 card.

The example that I chose is an example that works in this current combination. So my issue isn't with that particular card; it's with a wider range of cards that I would like to grade still.

If you focus only on the upside case of a scenario, which you've conveniently chosen to do here, then sure it's all great. But when you're assessing potential value it's good to have a range of bear, base, and bull outcomes in mind. Because you don't gem on every card.

My point is that when you add an extra $300 to the value limit it opens up a wider range of potential cards to grade and reduces the amount of risk that you take on as the person paying the money. That should be obvious to anyone.

If your primary objective is to grade cards that you plan to collect forever, then none of the above is relevant. You can probably tell that I'm not talking about that, though.

[jewcer2k5]

Originally Posted by rhineland

The example that I chose is an example that works in this current combination. So my issue isn't with that particular card; it's with a wider range of cards that I would like to grade still.

If you focus only on the upside case of a scenario, which you've conveniently chosen to do here, then sure it's all great. But when you're assessing potential value it's good to have a range of bear, base, and bull outcomes in mind. Because you don't gem on every card.

My point is that when you add an extra $300 to the value limit it opens up a wider range of potential cards to grade and reduces the amount of risk that you take on as the person taking on that investment risk. That should be obvious to anyone.

If your primary objective is to grade cards that you plan to collect forever, then none of the above is relevant. You can probably tell that I'm not talking about that, though.

Yes that is obvious, but I was only using the example you gave because you gave it.

I guess it comes down to how confident you are in the grade, usually I submit based on my worst case scenario. If I think there is a chance that said Maddux gets a 7 or 8 I just won't send it no matter what. If I think a card is between an 8 and a 9 I'll send at the lower level and be OK with any upcharge no matter what because I know a 9 or a 10, while it eats the profit, is still profit.

[tyrith]

jewcer's point is that you can use the lower levels to mitigate risk. A card that's under 199 as a 9 but between 199 and 499 as a 10 can be sent at the 199 level and you save $9 in your fail case. Most of the time if you gem you should be winning at any realistic level. Only issue is how long this new level is actually going to take to process.

[TSonn]

Awesome news but I hate the $199 DV.

[rngrdanny22]

I'll be taking full advantage. Been waiting for a sub-$20 level.

Probably submit a 200-card order this weekend and another 200 or 300-card order later in the month to spread them out a bit.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by tyrith

Only issue is how long this new level is actually going to take to process.

They're suggesting 150 days which would get an order done around Christmas. I suspect it won't take quite that long, especially if you get stuff out this week.

[zdawgs]

Despite still having 3 orders still in the backlog, this is good news. I definitely will be sending in some cards at this level.

[RufussCkingston]

Everyone complaining about the $199 limit is looking at it wrong. The good in this, as Jewcer has pointed out, the entry price to "gamble", that is to grade a card and hope for a good grade is now less. If you lose that bet, you have paid at least $12 less to grade. If you win the bet, PSA will either let it slide, or up charge you, but you are being upcharged on a guaranteed win.

[bloodwings19]

I was tempted for $30, this is a no-brainer for me. Too bad my hockey ePack cards may not make it.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by tyrith

jewcer's point is that you can use the lower levels to mitigate risk. A card that's under 199 as a 9 but between 199 and 499 as a 10 can be sent at the 199 level and you save $9 in your fail case. Most of the time if you gem you should be winning at any realistic level. Only issue is how long this new level is actually going to take to process.

I think the problem is that for a growing number of cards that people would like to submit for grading, a 9 is a break even at best. At least that’s the case for me, coming from Canada. So you’re really banking on the profitability of the submission coming from the 10s. But if the DV is $199 for a 10, and the 10s you hope to get would be a DV of more than $199, then this isn’t really a “special” deal at all if you just get upcharged to the regular price on all the 10s you hit. The deal is basically to mitigate losses on your 9s, rather than to increase the profitability of your 10s. There’s some value in that, just not a lot for me, personally. I’d rather wait for the inevitable move to a $15-$18/card price level and a DV of $499, especially since we’re in a declining market and the likelihood that the cards will be worth less when they come back from PSA is quite high.

[jewcer2k5]

Originally Posted by TBT

I think the problem is that for a growing number of cards that people would like to submit for grading, a 9 is a break even at best. At least that’s the case for me, coming from Canada. So you’re really banking on the profitability of the submission coming from the 10s. But if the DV is $199 for a 10, and the 10s you hope to get would be a DV of more than $199, then this isn’t really a “special” deal at all if you just get upcharged to the regular price on all the 10s you hit. The deal is basically to mitigate losses on your 9s, rather than to increase the profitability of your 10s. There’s some value in that, just not a lot for me, personally. I’d rather wait for the inevitable move to a $15-$18/card price level and a DV of $499, especially since we’re in a declining market and the likelihood that the cards will be worth less when they come back from PSA is quite high.

When did you start submitting cards to then sell the cards for profit?

[TBT]

Originally Posted by jewcer2k5

When did you start submitting cards to then sell the cards for profit?

I don’t mean that my goal is to sell all the cards. My goal is to be able to submit cards for grading, and come away from the experience with cards that are collectively worth more graded than they would be if I had kept them all raw and not paid PSA to grade them. Meaning the submission was a profitable investment of my money, insofar as my asset value increased. What I’m trying to avoid is an experience in which I’ve paid PSA money but the value of my asset (in this case, the collection of cards submitted) has not increased. The DV plays a big role in that equation for me as it pertains to this particular limited time offer. It’s a step in the right direction of the cost-per-cards, but not quite the right market entry point in my situation.

[jjcan]

At $18 and even DV199 this is a no brainer, especially for Goats, 2021-22 Rcs, also the rush to send in Marvel/Star wars Non Sport and new modern Pokemon again will probably be 2+ million cards.

Even if you hit above DV199 its worth the gamble for upcharge is not much of a risk, PSA was slabbing the common 1990 marvel universe base and the PSA 10s were not up charging then.

Worth the gamble for sure. I deleted my CSG pre holds at 10.80/rate. Better use of grading money ($18/per) on the Non-Sport/Pokemon "set asides" for me. I am hoping they take drop off at San Diego Comic Con for the member accounts.

[nick7777]

Question for folks as I haven't submitted to PSA a million times... Let's say I have 15 cards that are definitely below DV199 and 5 cards that are probably above DV199 (not ridiculously above, but let's say closer to DV499). Is a good strategy to just send in all 20 and accept the upcharges if and when they come, in order to meet the 20 card minimum? Is there any downside in doing this other than the cards aren't coming back for a while?

[CheapThief]

Originally Posted by jewcer2k5

When did you start submitting cards to then sell the cards for profit?

I was wondering the same thing.

Just a public service announcement to anyone who got into grading during COVID-- the ability to recoup the grading fees on 9s, much less profit from them, has historically not been a component in the grading equilibrium. If your model requires you to make money on 9s then the chances are very, very high that moving forward you will need to build a new model.

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by CheapThief

I was wondering the same thing.

Just a public service announcement to anyone who got into grading during COVID-- the ability to recoup the grading fees on 9s, much less profit from them, has historically not been a component in the grading equilibrium. If your model requires you to make money on 9s then the chances are very, very high that moving forward you will need to build a new model.

Correct. Making money on those UM 9s was pure icing in 2019/2020

[rhineland]

Originally Posted by CheapThief

I was wondering the same thing.

Just a public service announcement to anyone who got into grading during COVID-- the ability to recoup the grading fees on 9s, much less profit from them, has historically not been a component in the grading equilibrium. If your model requires you to make money on 9s then the chances are very, very high that moving forward you will need to build a new model.

You'll agree that the market is different today than it was before COVID.

You'll also agree that there are more cards today where a 9 yields a solid profit than in the past.

Now that we've removed that straw man from the discussion we can get back to the topic at hand. This is good news and a positive move. But it the pricing and DV combo isn't quite where it needs to be to justify submitting a bulk order.

And I'm suggesting that should be the case for folks who can be patient and whose primary source of income doesn't depend on grading and flipping cards.

[TBT]

Originally Posted by CheapThief

I was wondering the same thing.

Just a public service announcement to anyone who got into grading during COVID-- the ability to recoup the grading fees on 9s, much less profit from them, has historically not been a component in the grading equilibrium. If your model requires you to make money on 9s then the chances are very, very high that moving forward you will need to build a new model.

I’m merely saying that I’m inclined to wait until the value proposition of a PSA submission investment is more attractive. I don’t ever expect it to be as attractive as it was at the start of the COVID boom. But I do expect it to become more attractive than this offer. If the DV was $499 - and really, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be - then I’d be in. It’s not, so I’ll wait until PSA is forced to be a bit more reasonable on the DV front. Shouldn’t take very long at all at this rate.

[Above the Rim]

$18. I am in. Doubt it goes significantly lower any time soon.

This weekend do a scrutinize session, get ready the cards with best shots at GEM 10. And even if 9's I am good with break even on those.

Most of what I will send are Derrick Henry cards - RC's & Numbered cards. I acquired a bunch thinking he could have another 2,000 yard season, but no, sigh. Maybe get them back by near end of football season - just about the time King Henry wraps up another NFL rushing title - fingers crossed.

Upcharges - give me the "10" and I have no problem with potential upcharge.

[MavsRChamps]

Question - if psa can’t find a comp for a psa 10, say because the card is serial numbered low like under 100, do they EVER upcharge? Are they even allowed to?

Like say for example a card raw sells for $120, psa 9 comp at $150 even … would they assume the psa 10 version is over $200 , or do they never assume that without concrete proof of a sale?

[rngrdanny22]

You guys are WAY too worried about an upcharge.

In the THOUSANDS of cards I've sent in the past, I've been upcharged exactly once.

[oddstuff]

Don't like the price or the DV, just keep waiting. There are people who will be sending most of their cards at this price level/DV because for some, time is money. Sure the price probably can get a few dollars lower, but you'll also be waiting in line behind all the people who are submitting their cards now. The value pricing is really more for the grinders and cards who won't change a ton in value over a 6-10 month period...not for the flippers (unless you have a crystal ball and able to predict the economy and market conditions 6-10 months from now). Need a quicker flip or higher DV now, pay for a higher service.

PSA also being strategic in how they formulated this offer. How the submitters response will dictate their next move. If the response is overwhelming to the point where they're getting more cards than what they will need as inventory for the next few months/rest of the year, then they will extend the offer...there is no reason for them to go lower or increase the DV.

[TSonn]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

You guys are WAY too worried about an upcharge.

In the THOUSANDS of cards I've sent in the past, I've been upcharged exactly once.

Congrats! That's your experience. I haven't subbed a ton with PSA over the last year (maybe 35 cards) but I've received 5 upcharges - 2 that had recent comps underneath the DV I subbed at and 1 that got upcharged 2 service levels above when there were only comps 1 service level above. The other upcharges had zero recent comps (6 months+) so I have no idea where they established the current FMV.

I was able to work through my group submitter on one upcharge to get it changed because they incorrectly used a Ja Morant base galactic as the comp when I sent in the Rookie Revolution insert galactic.

They've been all over the place with grading on my last 2 economy orders - on the first order I went 5/5 on 10s when I only expected 1 or 2 and on the second I went 0/5 on 10s and got two 8s when I expected a few 10s. Tough to do some pre-grade estimates for the DV when that's happening.

[CheapThief]

Originally Posted by TBT

I’m merely saying that I’m inclined to wait until the value proposition of a PSA submission investment is more attractive. I don’t ever expect it to be as attractive as it was at the start of the COVID boom. But I do expect it to become more attractive than this offer. If the DV was $499 - and really, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be - then I’d be in. It’s not, so I’ll wait until PSA is forced to be a bit more reasonable on the DV front. Shouldn’t take very long at all at this rate.

Well, sure-- that's your prerogative, and there's nothing wrong with that. I certainly wouldn't tell you to do otherwise. I think the larger point is that you said:

"I think the problem is that for a growing number of cards that people would like to submit for grading, a 9 is a break even at best. At least that’s the case for me, coming from Canada. So you’re really banking on the profitability of the submission coming from the 10s."

And to that, my point was that a '9 is break even at best' is more-or-less the way things have always been, and (IMO) likely will be again very soon, so if you're waiting for a deal from PSA where you'll do BETTER than break even on 9s you should probably reconsider that.