Is PSA getting stricter with there grading?

[golfer59]

Curious if anyone has any experience or data that supports this. I talked to a few people who thought PSA was getting stricter on there grading. Curious what people think.

[mc1]

Theyre damaging cards so that they can give lower grades.

[FT35]

I don’t know if they are tougher or not. I do think it totally comes down to the grader. And that to me is an issue they need to deal with because there shouldn’t be a 2-grade interpretation difference in the process between graders.

I just subbed 226 cards at the modern level @$12/card. I split it into 2 orders (112 & 114 cards). Splitting orders has become an insurance policy move that I do to prevent a 226-card hack of a grading. As I feared, one of my orders went to one of “those graders.” The cards in both orders were very similar composition. Same years, brands, players. For example, if I had 8 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas RC’s—all of similar quality—I’d split them 4-cards into 2 orders. Despite the sane types of cards, my orders were graded drastically different. 1-2 grade differences across the board on the same type/quality cards. Lots of 9’s a few 10’s on the first sub and lots of 7’s and a few 8’s on the second. Same order comp. Just a totally different interpretation of the grading scale by 2 different graders.

I always went with PSA because I knew what I was getting. I knew the scale—I’d sub accordingly and grades would come back in-line with the expectation. But I’m now hesitant because I don’t know what I’m going to get with them. There are graders who interpret the scale very differently and that’s now a risk factor to consider when subbing with PSA.

[mc1]

So only one person looks at your cards and assigns grades. Right I dont believe that.

They also bump down grades at the QA stages.

[anusinha]

Originally Posted by FT35

I don’t know if they are tougher or not. I do think it totally comes down to the grader. And that to me is an issue they need to deal with because there shouldn’t be a 2-grade interpretation difference in the process between graders.

I just subbed 226 cards at the modern level @$12/card. I split it into 2 orders (112 & 114 cards). Splitting orders has become an insurance policy move that I do to prevent a 226-card hack of a grading. As I feared, one of my orders went to one of “those graders.” The cards in both orders were very similar composition. Same years, brands, players. For example, if I had 8 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas RC’s—all of similar quality—I’d split them 4-cards into 2 orders. Despite the sane types of cards, my orders were graded drastically different. 1-2 grade differences across the board on the same type/quality cards. Lots of 9’s a few 10’s on the first sub and lots of 7’s and a few 8’s on the second. Same order comp. Just a totally different interpretation of the grading scale by 2 different graders.

I always went with PSA because I knew what I was getting. I knew the scale—I’d sub accordingly and grades would come back in-line with the expectation. But I’m now hesitant because I don’t know what I’m going to get with them. There are graders who interpret the scale very differently and that’s now a risk factor to consider when subbing with PSA.

This, 100% this. Ive subbed 10000s cards over the years and you always want to avoid “Mr. Mint”.

[DetroitTN]

Their.

And yes, it definitely seems like it. So sound like a conspiracy nut for a moment, they had a massive influx of cards to grade and probably realized that they have to stop giving 10s out in exchange for money, since it devalues the market.

[discodanman45]

I wouldn't say stricter, but rather inconsistent. This is to be expected though. The more graders you have, the more variance in grades. PSA should have about 10x's the graders that SGC has. It is a lot harder to be consistent with that many different eyes looking at the cards. Plus if you have more graders, you will also have more turnover with people leaving for other jobs. It is probably real difficult for PSA to adequately train everyone properly with such a large team and huge discrepancies in experience.

The value of your card is not the condition of the card, but the grade that is given to it. I have a very similar experience with FT35. I graded about 12 Kevin McHale 1980-81 Topps and 20 Mattingly 1984 Topps rookies in different orders. These were bought in 2020 from eBay sellers from vending boxes. I also graded about 20 Topps 1992 Shaq and 20 Jordan UD SP1's.These cards were all in very similar shape. I separated this into 4 different PSA bulk submissions, keeping one of the best cards in each separate submission. However, all of the cards were almost in the same identical shape. The final grade of these cards didn't come down to the actual real condition of the card, but the graders I was assigned. The Mattingly/McHales were returned in 7/8 grades or 8/9 grades in different submissions. The 1992 Shaq/Jordan SP1's were all 8/9's in one submission or 9/10's in another.

This is why I find it truly insane for the premiums people pay for these cards. To each their own. I sold most of the PSA 10's from this era and kept one 9 from the "harder" grader that IMO was the better card.

[grade]

It does not only come down to a specific grader in a specific company. It can be the same grader on a different day under different circumstances .

Had the same grader (from one of the other popular TPG) that had totally different results from the same type of cards, same storage, same collector.

Talked to upper management about it. They said it was the same grader as my other subs of the same type of cards, They told me "MAYBE HE WAS HAVING A BAD DAY..."


WTF?

[Canthardlymiss1]

I definitely agree with changes or quality control has changed in a big way. Most of my cards I submit are for PC but I am still very selective of what cards I send in that I want graded for registry etc. I don’t care much for trying to gem with every card sent in as I mostly shoot for 8’s and 9’s. The last few orders I have had issues. One order had some very questionable grades and I actually have one of the cards in the quality control assurance department for damage. As I know for a fact I looked over this card as I know the back corners are black so would show flaws easily. When. I got it back the left corner was literally white. It still got an 8 but I thought for sure it was at least a 9 or maybe a 10 if I got lucky. I understand it’s not big difference from a 8 to a 9 but the back of the card looks presented ugly with the white corner that was not there!

The last order I just got back had a 6 and a 7. Again I shoot for 8’s and 9’s but I couldn’t find the flaw on the 7 or this 6. I’ll post a few pics below of the 6. I looked for the obvious crease or other surface but can’t find it.















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KepCards]

Originally Posted by grade

It does not only come down to a specific grader in a specific company. It can be the same grader on a different day under different circumstances .

Had the same grader (from one of the other popular TPG) that had totally different results from the same type of cards, same storage, same collector.

Talked to upper management about it. They said it was the same grader as my other subs of the same type of cards, They told me "MAYBE HE WAS HAVING A BAD DAY..."


WTF?

gosh I hope that isn't true -- any mgmt person who said that would need to be relieved of his position ASAP if that were the case

[Cards and 401K]

Had at least 40 under graded cards last order out of 225, may crack and resub. Most of my higher dollar cards were Gem Mint, and I thought a few would be 9's go figure.

[OPChockey]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

The value of your card is not the condition of the card, but the grade that is given to it.

Agreed.

Looking at the pics of the Topps Griffey above, makes me wonder what the grader was looking at. That's a gorgeous card.

Both collectors and dealers I know tell me that PSA has gotten stricter/ tougher, and much more difficult to get 9s or 10s. For vintage hockey, cards that were 9s and 10s will generally be assigned 7s and 8s. One individual who told me this is a manager at a major auction house for sports cards, and he has submitted a lot over the years (and still actively submitting) so he seems like a credible source.

A local collector who submits a lot of 90s OPC and Upper Deck referred to PSA as "those f*ckers", because he felt they would cap the number of 10s they would give him in a random or even deliberate manner. He would rip entire cases and carefully go over the cards with a jeweller's loupe, and only send in perfect examples in terms of centering, structure and surface. He was methodical and fastidious in only selecting gem candidates. He showed me some of his 9s (he would submit cards like Jeremy Roenick RCs, Jagr, and other big names if they were perfect), and I couldn't see any difference between the eight 9s and the two 10s that he got for one card - none whatsoever. He also believes in Pop control, but in terms of the consistency or accuracy of the grading he received, it was questionable.

One thing that seems certain is if you send in a batch of the same card - even if they are all superior - don't expect them all to gem. There seems to be an unconscious impulse (or maybe corporate encouragement) on the part of the grader to show restraint when giving out 10s (and maybe 9s to a lesser degree).

I have a small batch of cards to submit, but I want to hold off not only for better prices, but also more satisfaction and reports of accuracy and consistency from people who submit across the spectrum.

[golfer59]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. I have several BGS 9 and 9.5’s. I think I am going to hold off cracking them. My initial thought was if they came back 9’s and sprinkle in a 10 here and there I would be happy. But the more and more I read and ask around it seems reasonable some of these BGS 9’s could come back as 8’s. So I might sit tight for a little until I start hearing better and more consistent things coming out of PSA

[tyrith]

I'm getting destroyed on crossover attempts right now, personally. For instance, I just had a true gem+ BGS come back as a 9. It's pretty not great feeling.

[Tnooky]

Originally Posted by tyrith

I'm getting destroyed on crossover attempts right now, personally. For instance, I just had a true gem+ BGS come back as a 9. It's pretty not great feeling.

Gotta crack em out and send them for better results, graders don't like giving 10's if they're still in another grading companies slab.

[zdawgs]

Originally Posted by Tnooky

Gotta crack em out and send them for better results, graders don't like giving 10's if they're still in another grading companies slab.

And this is ridiculous. Why wouldn't they grade it like any other card? Are they that butt hurt that you submitted cards with another TPG before them?

[Tnooky]

Originally Posted by zdawgs

And this is ridiculous. Why wouldn't they grade it like any other card? Are they that butt hurt that you submitted cards with another TPG before them?

Well it is also much harder to see surface condition through the slab, so that definitely doesn't help.

[AwesomeBrian]

8/8 on 10's last sub that just came back from March of 21. 14/20 10's on another from this summer. Even got a few I didn't think deserved a 10. Every grader might be different here and there, but the conspiracy theories are hilarious.

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by Canthardlymiss1

The last order I just got back had a 6 and a 7. Again I shoot for 8’s and 9’s but I couldn’t find the flaw on the 7 or this 6. I’ll post a few pics below of the 6. I looked for the obvious crease or other surface but can’t find it.

Probably a surface indentation, line, or other flaw that you could have either missed or didn't think was an issue.

Sometimes you can see it through the holder, sometimes it's difficult, if not impossible to notice.

These are easy to spot when the light hits:

PSA-6 front:


PSA-6 back (the line next to "#TOPPS...", parallel to the edge, is a crimp/bend):


PSA-7 back, minor crimp near the corner


PSA-6, bottom edge under 'Juan', surface is damaged


We can't inspect the surface of your card, through a holder, from a blurry photo. But what is this?

[Canthardlymiss1]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Probably a surface indentation, line, or other flaw that you could have either missed or didn't think was an issue.

Sometimes you can see it through the holder, sometimes it's difficult, if not impossible to notice.

These are easy to spot when the light hits:

PSA-6 front:


PSA-6 back (the line next to "#TOPPS...", parallel to the edge, is a crimp/bend):


PSA-7 back, minor crimp near the corner


PSA-6, bottom edge under 'Juan', surface is damaged


We can't inspect the surface of your card, through a holder, from a blurry photo. But what is this?

I can assure you it was just a light glare. With the case being brand new it’s easier to see right though case. I have inspected it up and down every angle and can’t find any indentations or other marks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tyrith]

Originally Posted by Tnooky

Well it is also much harder to see surface condition through the slab, so that definitely doesn't help.

These were essentially cross at any, I just didn't want to be the one physically cracking the card, but I'm undershooting every single one right now.

[ckcardz]

I think its just who is grading the card. They had to hire much more graders with the huge influx last year and so there are more eyes making the decisions. I had a huge bulk order come back last year with about 85% gem and then my last small order i sent I went only 4/12. Many of which I cannot see why, but its the name of the game with them sometimes.

[hauntedcomputer]

The only better scam than the upcharge is the "Make 'em crack it and send it in again."

[grade]

Originally Posted by hauntedcomputer

The only better scam than the upcharge is the "Make 'em crack it and send it in again."

CSG did even better.

CSG totally changed the Label
CSG changed the numerical grading scale
CSG changed the grading standards.
CSG changed the pop report numerical grades listed that are different if you did not reslab.

[BoKnowsCards]

Originally Posted by FT35

I don’t know if they are tougher or not. I do think it totally comes down to the grader. And that to me is an issue they need to deal with because there shouldn’t be a 2-grade interpretation difference in the process between graders.

I just subbed 226 cards at the modern level @$12/card. I split it into 2 orders (112 & 114 cards). Splitting orders has become an insurance policy move that I do to prevent a 226-card hack of a grading. As I feared, one of my orders went to one of “those graders.” The cards in both orders were very similar composition. Same years, brands, players. For example, if I had 8 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas RC’s—all of similar quality—I’d split them 4-cards into 2 orders. Despite the sane types of cards, my orders were graded drastically different. 1-2 grade differences across the board on the same type/quality cards. Lots of 9’s a few 10’s on the first sub and lots of 7’s and a few 8’s on the second. Same order comp. Just a totally different interpretation of the grading scale by 2 different graders.

I always went with PSA because I knew what I was getting. I knew the scale—I’d sub accordingly and grades would come back in-line with the expectation. But I’m now hesitant because I don’t know what I’m going to get with them. There are graders who interpret the scale very differently and that’s now a risk factor to consider when subbing with PSA.

This. I did the same exact thing. I subbed two different economy submissions (although smaller at 10 each) with essentially the same exact same cards of similar quality. They just popped last week. I was expecting 8's and 9's. One grader gave me the 8's and 9's I thought I would get, one grader gave me straight 6's. There shouldn't be a 2-3 grade variance among PSA graders.

Question/comment to the community. I hear a lot of people say that PSA has more than one grader look at the cards. My understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that grader #1 gives it a grade, it gets assembled, then goes to QA1. So grader #2 is looking at the card already assembled with the grade attached to it at QA1? That's what I'm not understanding if true. So at QA1, if grader #2 disagrees with the grade, it would go to grader #3 I think and if he/she agrees with grader #2, then it would have to get cracked and assembled all over again. So it seems to me that grader #2 in the QA1 phase has incentive to just agree with the assembled grade unless grader #1 really botched it. To me, it would make sense to have QA1 happen BEFORE assembly.

If anyone knows exactly how that process works please comment.