proudly presents...
The PSA SUCKS Page!!!
***Funny, but we thought the "Foundation of All Great Collections" is the CARDS
themselves!
themselves!
WELCOME to Nowbatting19's exciting new PSA SUCKS Page! First I would like to say that my title for this page ("PSA SUCKS Page") is a bit harsh. But it did get your attention,
did it not? PSA is considered by many to be the top of the grading service companies. Maybe this is because they have been around the longest, or maybe because they graded
and slabbed the most expensive baseball card in existance, the T206 Honus Wagner which was once owned by Wayne Gretzky. I really don't know that all this worship about PSA
is warranted. Sure they have been around the longest, but so has McDonald's, and do they make the best hamburgers (or food for that matter)? I think not. And while they did
grade that T206 Wagner (which last sold for 1.3 million dollars), so what! I bet if they were to regrade that card it would come back a NM 7, certainly not a NM-MT grade. Oh wait,
PSA's reputation would be at stake so I am sure it WOULD be regraded NM-MT, or maybe even GEM MINT 10 to give themselves even more publicity. While I do consider PSA one
of the "reputable" grading services, I also would send my cards to SGC or BVG before I would send a card to PSA or GAI. Why? Primarily because of PSA's inconsistancy and GAI's
affiliation with PSA (see the WE GRADE 'EM Page where we grade the grading companies). I also don't believe in PSA's policy to have yearly membership dues, which does include
"free grading" but essentially it is a way to insure PSA is raking in the green. With SGC or BVG you do not have to pay membership dues and you can send cards in anytime you
like! So, we will present evidence on this page why we think that bowing down and praising the mighty PSA is a bunch of horse poop.
did it not? PSA is considered by many to be the top of the grading service companies. Maybe this is because they have been around the longest, or maybe because they graded
and slabbed the most expensive baseball card in existance, the T206 Honus Wagner which was once owned by Wayne Gretzky. I really don't know that all this worship about PSA
is warranted. Sure they have been around the longest, but so has McDonald's, and do they make the best hamburgers (or food for that matter)? I think not. And while they did
grade that T206 Wagner (which last sold for 1.3 million dollars), so what! I bet if they were to regrade that card it would come back a NM 7, certainly not a NM-MT grade. Oh wait,
PSA's reputation would be at stake so I am sure it WOULD be regraded NM-MT, or maybe even GEM MINT 10 to give themselves even more publicity. While I do consider PSA one
of the "reputable" grading services, I also would send my cards to SGC or BVG before I would send a card to PSA or GAI. Why? Primarily because of PSA's inconsistancy and GAI's
affiliation with PSA (see the WE GRADE 'EM Page where we grade the grading companies). I also don't believe in PSA's policy to have yearly membership dues, which does include
"free grading" but essentially it is a way to insure PSA is raking in the green. With SGC or BVG you do not have to pay membership dues and you can send cards in anytime you
like! So, we will present evidence on this page why we think that bowing down and praising the mighty PSA is a bunch of horse poop.
Exhibit A- 1952 Topps #311 Mickey Mantle "Authentic"
PSA Certificate number #90361904
This card was seen on March 3, 2005 on ebay. The seller, is 707 Sportscards, who happens
to be a "PSA Authorized Dealer." This card is not graded by PSA, but was slabbed and
labeled "Authentic," as it IS in fact an authentic 1952 Topps #311 Mantle. We have no qualms
with this. What we DO have problems with is that fact that PSA according to their own policies
does NOT grade or encapsulate "trimmed" cards. Even hand-cut cards like the Post Cereal or
Bazooka issues that were cut from boxes will not be encapsulated if the cuts are deemed "too
short." I personally have had cards returned, unslabbed, as being "trimmed," even cards that
were factory miscut. Exhibit A to the left is NOT even a factory miscut. The bottom border is
completely missing, probably it was trimmed to make the card appear nicer than it actually
was. This is called "deceptive trimming." If PSA can encapsulate this trimmed card, then they
should encapsulate EVERY trimmed card they receive, regardless of how much the card is
"worth." Either that or not encapsulate ANY card that shows evidence of trimming.
This is highly unethical in our opinion. Our case rests.
PSA Certificate number #90361904
This card was seen on March 3, 2005 on ebay. The seller, is 707 Sportscards, who happens
to be a "PSA Authorized Dealer." This card is not graded by PSA, but was slabbed and
labeled "Authentic," as it IS in fact an authentic 1952 Topps #311 Mantle. We have no qualms
with this. What we DO have problems with is that fact that PSA according to their own policies
does NOT grade or encapsulate "trimmed" cards. Even hand-cut cards like the Post Cereal or
Bazooka issues that were cut from boxes will not be encapsulated if the cuts are deemed "too
short." I personally have had cards returned, unslabbed, as being "trimmed," even cards that
were factory miscut. Exhibit A to the left is NOT even a factory miscut. The bottom border is
completely missing, probably it was trimmed to make the card appear nicer than it actually
was. This is called "deceptive trimming." If PSA can encapsulate this trimmed card, then they
should encapsulate EVERY trimmed card they receive, regardless of how much the card is
"worth." Either that or not encapsulate ANY card that shows evidence of trimming.
This is highly unethical in our opinion. Our case rests.
1952 Topps #311 Mickey Mantle PSA (TRIMMED)
Exhibit B- Just got this Stan Musial card on ebay (see card to right). It is
graded by PSA as EXCELLENT (PSA EX 5) yet it has crease that runs from
the left side of the card (see arrows #1 & 2) all the way up to above Stan's
hat in the larger picture. I couldn't pick up the entire crease on the scanner,
but if I can see it with my eyeballs with no magnifier why did PSA not see it
with supposedly THREE graders? Also note the arrow (#3) which is pointing
to a spot of missing paper in the lower left corner of the card. I won't even
mention the scuffing/ wear to the right of that missing paper on the bottom
border. If it had just the scuffing, I would say yeah PSA is right giving it a 5.
But with a crease that would knock it down to a VG/EX at best, and the
missing paper even further (PSA 2 GD?) And PSA gives this a 5 EX grade?
PSA should change it's name from "Professional Sports Authenticator" to
"Pretend Sports Authenticator" because it sure seems they are pretending
to grade cards over there.
graded by PSA as EXCELLENT (PSA EX 5) yet it has crease that runs from
the left side of the card (see arrows #1 & 2) all the way up to above Stan's
hat in the larger picture. I couldn't pick up the entire crease on the scanner,
but if I can see it with my eyeballs with no magnifier why did PSA not see it
with supposedly THREE graders? Also note the arrow (#3) which is pointing
to a spot of missing paper in the lower left corner of the card. I won't even
mention the scuffing/ wear to the right of that missing paper on the bottom
border. If it had just the scuffing, I would say yeah PSA is right giving it a 5.
But with a crease that would knock it down to a VG/EX at best, and the
missing paper even further (PSA 2 GD?) And PSA gives this a 5 EX grade?
PSA should change it's name from "Professional Sports Authenticator" to
"Pretend Sports Authenticator" because it sure seems they are pretending
to grade cards over there.
1960 Topps #250 Stan Musial PSA 5 (Certification # 90301917
Exhibit C- PSA graded this card as "5 EX." A shadow obscures the grade, but the certification number is 30763599 if you don't believe me. However
notice in the top left-hand corner, along the top edge and you will see a crease (highlighted in red). There is also another crease on the upper right edge
of the card but regardless someone at PSA should have seen this as I can see it right through their holder. So who in the hell is grading over there? The
3 Blind Mice??? I have a very nice 1956 Topps #135 Mickey Mantle graded PSA 6 EX-MT and the ONLY reason it wasn't graded NM 7 was because of a
tiny 1/16" paper "wrinkle" that you needed a magnifying glass to see. PSA felt that this was significant enough to warrant an EX-MT grade. Then I get this
card with a crease that looks like the Colorado River compared to the paper wrinkle on the Mantle. Gee PSA, get it together for chrissakes!
notice in the top left-hand corner, along the top edge and you will see a crease (highlighted in red). There is also another crease on the upper right edge
of the card but regardless someone at PSA should have seen this as I can see it right through their holder. So who in the hell is grading over there? The
3 Blind Mice??? I have a very nice 1956 Topps #135 Mickey Mantle graded PSA 6 EX-MT and the ONLY reason it wasn't graded NM 7 was because of a
tiny 1/16" paper "wrinkle" that you needed a magnifying glass to see. PSA felt that this was significant enough to warrant an EX-MT grade. Then I get this
card with a crease that looks like the Colorado River compared to the paper wrinkle on the Mantle. Gee PSA, get it together for chrissakes!
EXHIBIT D - 1948 Swell Sport Thrills #20 Rifle Arm (Carl Furillo) PSA
5 EX. Check out the back of this card. Notice anything? Like a big stain
of some sort (water perhaps?). Clearly not a wax stain which would be
fairly common on bubble gum cards. This my friends is a STAIN. PSA
usually marks cards that have heavy wax stains as having a "qualifier,"
namely "(ST)" for stain or staining. In this case, the card was simply
labeled "EX" with no "(ST)" qualifier. How could the professionals at
PSA miss this stain? Do YOU see it? I sure as hell see it. It only takes
up about half the card! So keep in mind that while PSA does a "fair"
job, usually, on grading, this by NO MEANS MAKES THEM THE BEST!
There are collectors (mostly PSA authorized dealers) who swear that
PSA is God's gift to mankind. And then there are some collectors who
have seen enough discrepencies with this company to KNOW PSA is
certainly not anywhere near the best. You be the judge. Don't take our
word for it. Don't take PSA's word for it. See for yourself. Also see our
WE GRADE "EM Page where we grade the big four sportscard grading
services.
5 EX. Check out the back of this card. Notice anything? Like a big stain
of some sort (water perhaps?). Clearly not a wax stain which would be
fairly common on bubble gum cards. This my friends is a STAIN. PSA
usually marks cards that have heavy wax stains as having a "qualifier,"
namely "(ST)" for stain or staining. In this case, the card was simply
labeled "EX" with no "(ST)" qualifier. How could the professionals at
PSA miss this stain? Do YOU see it? I sure as hell see it. It only takes
up about half the card! So keep in mind that while PSA does a "fair"
job, usually, on grading, this by NO MEANS MAKES THEM THE BEST!
There are collectors (mostly PSA authorized dealers) who swear that
PSA is God's gift to mankind. And then there are some collectors who
have seen enough discrepencies with this company to KNOW PSA is
certainly not anywhere near the best. You be the judge. Don't take our
word for it. Don't take PSA's word for it. See for yourself. Also see our
WE GRADE "EM Page where we grade the big four sportscard grading
services.
1948 Swell Sport Thrills #20 Carl Furillo PSA 5 EX
1974 Topps #207 Strikeout Leaders (Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver) PSA 8 NM/MT
EXHIBIT E - I know this is a poor scan, but check out this card. Then look at the grade. Do you see anything wrong with this picture? Yes, the card does appear NM/MT but there
is an obvious printing defect in "Strikeout Leaders" above the player's pictures. Do you see it now? There are a series of print "bubbles" that reside in some of those letters. It kind of
looks like someone scribbled smal circles in the letters "E" in "Strikeout," and the letters "L," "E," E," "S" in "Leaders." Now PSA says in their Sports Market Report (SMR) that a PSA 8
NM/MT card "may have a MINOR print defect." I used to be a printer and we printed Direct Mail (ie. JUNK MAIL) and if we were to catch this "minor" print defect, we would $#$%can
the bad forms. PSA supposedly has 3 professional graders who inspect carefully each card and if those 3 graders call this a "minor" print defect, what the hell is a MAJOR print
defect??? Keep in mind, this is the same company who will label a card with minor gum stains as being "stained" (PSA uses a "(ST)" qualifier for stains and "(PD)" for cards with print
defects. So what happened with this card? What this tells me is that either 3 PSA graders did NOT look carefully at this card, or PSA feels this is "minor" and as such did not deserve
a qualifier. This card has been misrepresented and as such is very much OVERgraded.
is an obvious printing defect in "Strikeout Leaders" above the player's pictures. Do you see it now? There are a series of print "bubbles" that reside in some of those letters. It kind of
looks like someone scribbled smal circles in the letters "E" in "Strikeout," and the letters "L," "E," E," "S" in "Leaders." Now PSA says in their Sports Market Report (SMR) that a PSA 8
NM/MT card "may have a MINOR print defect." I used to be a printer and we printed Direct Mail (ie. JUNK MAIL) and if we were to catch this "minor" print defect, we would $#$%can
the bad forms. PSA supposedly has 3 professional graders who inspect carefully each card and if those 3 graders call this a "minor" print defect, what the hell is a MAJOR print
defect??? Keep in mind, this is the same company who will label a card with minor gum stains as being "stained" (PSA uses a "(ST)" qualifier for stains and "(PD)" for cards with print
defects. So what happened with this card? What this tells me is that either 3 PSA graders did NOT look carefully at this card, or PSA feels this is "minor" and as such did not deserve
a qualifier. This card has been misrepresented and as such is very much OVERgraded.
1958 Topps #47 Roger Maris RC PSA 7?
EXHIBIT F- Check out the centering on this 1958 Topps Roger Maris rookie card. This is one of PSA's biggest inconsistencies; centering issues. While this
particular card does not have an off-center qualifier (OC), it certainly should have received one, even according to their "standards." I am going to post a picture of a
1957 Topps Rocky Colavito PSA 8 (OC) card next to this one and you are going to wonder why PSA gave the Colavito card an (OC) qualifier in the first place. Which
is my main gripe with PSA; the inconsistency of their grading, which is average at best! So what exactly makes them the number one grading service out there? By
the way, most knowledgeable collectors wary of PSA's grading would take the centering into consideration when purchasing or selling this particular card. While
graded by PSA an unqualified 7 NM, chances are the card would sell for much less than PSA's Sports Market Report (PSA's own monthly price guide) price for an
unqualified 7 NM Maris rookie.
particular card does not have an off-center qualifier (OC), it certainly should have received one, even according to their "standards." I am going to post a picture of a
1957 Topps Rocky Colavito PSA 8 (OC) card next to this one and you are going to wonder why PSA gave the Colavito card an (OC) qualifier in the first place. Which
is my main gripe with PSA; the inconsistency of their grading, which is average at best! So what exactly makes them the number one grading service out there? By
the way, most knowledgeable collectors wary of PSA's grading would take the centering into consideration when purchasing or selling this particular card. While
graded by PSA an unqualified 7 NM, chances are the card would sell for much less than PSA's Sports Market Report (PSA's own monthly price guide) price for an
unqualified 7 NM Maris rookie.
EXHIBIT G - PSA's top grade is a "Gem Mint 10." These
cards are supposed to be the perfect specimens, and most
desirable or vintage cards graded a PSA 10 fetch ridiculous
amounts. I seem to recall PSA stating in an advertisement
"Who Says It's Mint?," referring to the fact that you cannot rely
on anyone's word but PSA as THE final authority on a card's
grade. But is this really the case? Check out the 1986 Topps
Traded Barry Bonds RC PSA 10 to the right. Yes, at first
glance it appears very nice, and actually it is a nice card but is
it REALLY a "GEM MINT" card? Check out the left edge of
the card to the left of the "P" in "Pirates." Do you see some
white "specks" on the left edge?
cards are supposed to be the perfect specimens, and most
desirable or vintage cards graded a PSA 10 fetch ridiculous
amounts. I seem to recall PSA stating in an advertisement
"Who Says It's Mint?," referring to the fact that you cannot rely
on anyone's word but PSA as THE final authority on a card's
grade. But is this really the case? Check out the 1986 Topps
Traded Barry Bonds RC PSA 10 to the right. Yes, at first
glance it appears very nice, and actually it is a nice card but is
it REALLY a "GEM MINT" card? Check out the left edge of
the card to the left of the "P" in "Pirates." Do you see some
white "specks" on the left edge?
The black edges are very condition sensitive and show the slightest bits of wear (which show up
as white specs). If you look at the top and upper right edges you will see no hints of wear and
those edges are what a GEM MINT 10 should look like. But the left edge DOES show wear, and
if you can see it with my lousy scan and through PSA's holder, how come PSA's graders did not
see it? Or did they see it and just slab it as GEM MINT anyway? This is the kind of thing that
drives me nuts. If I send this card to SGC or Beckett's this card would probably get a NM-MT
grade which would substantially lower it's "value" but the card would be more accurately graded.
Professional grading services cause just as much confusion as BEFORE there were grading
services. What it comes down to is someone's opinion. If I saw this card unslabbed I would
probably grade it NM-MT because of the edge chipping. That is my opinion, and a free one at
that. PSA's opinion is that this card is GEM MINT 10 and their opinions are not free. It probably
costs $10 (including shipping fees) per card for PSA's opinion. So there you have the difference
between a knowledgeable collector and a million dollar company's opinion; one is free and the
other is taking your hard-earned money and sticking it to you. So consider this before sending in
your cards to PSA or before spending large amounts of cash for a PSA GEM MINT 10 example.
as white specs). If you look at the top and upper right edges you will see no hints of wear and
those edges are what a GEM MINT 10 should look like. But the left edge DOES show wear, and
if you can see it with my lousy scan and through PSA's holder, how come PSA's graders did not
see it? Or did they see it and just slab it as GEM MINT anyway? This is the kind of thing that
drives me nuts. If I send this card to SGC or Beckett's this card would probably get a NM-MT
grade which would substantially lower it's "value" but the card would be more accurately graded.
Professional grading services cause just as much confusion as BEFORE there were grading
services. What it comes down to is someone's opinion. If I saw this card unslabbed I would
probably grade it NM-MT because of the edge chipping. That is my opinion, and a free one at
that. PSA's opinion is that this card is GEM MINT 10 and their opinions are not free. It probably
costs $10 (including shipping fees) per card for PSA's opinion. So there you have the difference
between a knowledgeable collector and a million dollar company's opinion; one is free and the
other is taking your hard-earned money and sticking it to you. So consider this before sending in
your cards to PSA or before spending large amounts of cash for a PSA GEM MINT 10 example.
1986 Topps Traded #11T Barry Bonds PSA 10???
1948 Swell Sport Thrills #19 Bob Feller PSA 7 NM
EXHIBIT H. This is an interesting story. I purchased this exact card from a reputable dealer, who also happens to be a "PSA Authorized Dealer." I bought this card ungraded for $60
or $65. Anyway the card appeared nice but having been burned before on trimmed cards, I compared this one to several other ungraded 1948 Swell cards I have. This card definitely
came up short on the top edge. So I sent the card back and to the dealers credit, I was promptly refunded. About a year later I get an email from the dealer who had just sent the card
to PSA and it came back as NM 7. Now this is how things work in PSA's evil world. If you are a PSA Authorized Dealer and you send in hundreds of cards monthly, you have a far better
shot at getting a card to come back in a favorable grade. The 1948 Swell Sport Thrills cards are pretty tough to acquire in high grade, and this Feller graded by PSA is the highest
graded example (so far). If I had sent it in I am damn sure it would have returned unslabbed as being "TRIMMED." PSA blows. Btw, this card was listed on eBay and it sold for over
$250. Whoooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Speaking of trimmed cards, I just received the June 2007 SMR (PSA's Sports Market Report). Here is what President Joe Orlando has to say about how their graders tackle this tough
subject: "When a card is evaluated by a grader, they may or may not choose to physically measure the card...Graders will measure the card if they think the card needs to be actually
measured. Their eyes, due to their experience, are much more crucial than a ruler." Later, on whether magnifyers or loupes are used to grade cards, the amazing Mr. Orlando says
"the vast majority of cards are graded with the naked eye." Excuse me, but I have been collecting cards since 1968 and I have been stung before by trimmed cards. Your eyes don't
always detect trimming, no matter how much "experience" you have. Now I know why this Bob Feller card got the grade it did. PSA did it with the NAKED EYE! So what I want to know
is, what exactly are we getting by sending cards to PSA for grading? A naked eye examination? That's what I am paying $7-$10 a card for? I can do that myself and slab it and it might
cost me a dollar. PSA does it and charges you $10 a card. Multiply that by a million suckers and you have just given PSA a cool ten million dollars! Is it any wonder that PSA is a hugh
money maker?
or $65. Anyway the card appeared nice but having been burned before on trimmed cards, I compared this one to several other ungraded 1948 Swell cards I have. This card definitely
came up short on the top edge. So I sent the card back and to the dealers credit, I was promptly refunded. About a year later I get an email from the dealer who had just sent the card
to PSA and it came back as NM 7. Now this is how things work in PSA's evil world. If you are a PSA Authorized Dealer and you send in hundreds of cards monthly, you have a far better
shot at getting a card to come back in a favorable grade. The 1948 Swell Sport Thrills cards are pretty tough to acquire in high grade, and this Feller graded by PSA is the highest
graded example (so far). If I had sent it in I am damn sure it would have returned unslabbed as being "TRIMMED." PSA blows. Btw, this card was listed on eBay and it sold for over
$250. Whoooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Speaking of trimmed cards, I just received the June 2007 SMR (PSA's Sports Market Report). Here is what President Joe Orlando has to say about how their graders tackle this tough
subject: "When a card is evaluated by a grader, they may or may not choose to physically measure the card...Graders will measure the card if they think the card needs to be actually
measured. Their eyes, due to their experience, are much more crucial than a ruler." Later, on whether magnifyers or loupes are used to grade cards, the amazing Mr. Orlando says
"the vast majority of cards are graded with the naked eye." Excuse me, but I have been collecting cards since 1968 and I have been stung before by trimmed cards. Your eyes don't
always detect trimming, no matter how much "experience" you have. Now I know why this Bob Feller card got the grade it did. PSA did it with the NAKED EYE! So what I want to know
is, what exactly are we getting by sending cards to PSA for grading? A naked eye examination? That's what I am paying $7-$10 a card for? I can do that myself and slab it and it might
cost me a dollar. PSA does it and charges you $10 a card. Multiply that by a million suckers and you have just given PSA a cool ten million dollars! Is it any wonder that PSA is a hugh
money maker?
1977 Venezuela Topps Stickers #176 Carl Yastrzemski
See if you can spot the "goof" on this one... Yes, this is a Venezuelan Sticker. It's not really a "Venezuelan League" sticker as Yaz never played in the Venezuelan league. But that is
close enough. But check out how PSA spelled "Yastrzemski" in their label. Are you telling me that after the thousands of Yaz cards PSA has graded and slabbed, they still can't spell
"Yastrzemski???" Common PSA, do the little things right. I would expect some rinky dink, third rate grading service to do this, but PSA? Supposedly THE leader in card grading?
Gimme a break. Btw, you might find some misspellings on my website, but I am not charging you to view it either. So cut me some slack. Thanks.
close enough. But check out how PSA spelled "Yastrzemski" in their label. Are you telling me that after the thousands of Yaz cards PSA has graded and slabbed, they still can't spell
"Yastrzemski???" Common PSA, do the little things right. I would expect some rinky dink, third rate grading service to do this, but PSA? Supposedly THE leader in card grading?
Gimme a break. Btw, you might find some misspellings on my website, but I am not charging you to view it either. So cut me some slack. Thanks.
1967 Topps Venezuela Topps PSA graded lot (back view)
Here is a lot of PSA graded 1967 Venezuela Topps "Retirado" cards. They are all graded PSA PR-FR (Poor to Fair) 1, except one, card #149 Mel Ott (PSA 4 VG-EX). Check out
the back of the Ott card. There is either a large piece of paper missing on the back, or there is glue and paper residue from being pasted in a scrapbook or album. Either way, there is
no way this card should have been graded a PSA 4 VG-EX. It should have graded much lower. It should be noted that any Venezuela Topps cards are tough to acquire in high grade.
This is because of the common practice in Venezuela to glue or tape cards to albums and scrapbooks. So even in lower grades, these cards are desirable. However there is no excuse
whatsoever to have given this 1967 Venezuela Topps #149 Mel Ott such a generous grade.
the back of the Ott card. There is either a large piece of paper missing on the back, or there is glue and paper residue from being pasted in a scrapbook or album. Either way, there is
no way this card should have been graded a PSA 4 VG-EX. It should have graded much lower. It should be noted that any Venezuela Topps cards are tough to acquire in high grade.
This is because of the common practice in Venezuela to glue or tape cards to albums and scrapbooks. So even in lower grades, these cards are desirable. However there is no excuse
whatsoever to have given this 1967 Venezuela Topps #149 Mel Ott such a generous grade.
1966 Topps #1 Willie Mays PSA 3 VG (front view) (back view)
(closer view)
I almost laughed out loud on this one. Just got it yesterday (2-19-08) from an eBay auction. I won't complain about the price ($20 including shipping) but do you agree
with this grade? Check out the back corner by the card number (1). The top layer of paper is torn off, exposing the gray cardboard underneath. And PSA calls this VERY
GOOD??? How, in good conscious, could I ever sell this card as being "Very Good" is beyond me. I would have to mention the back and the missing paper. Oh, but PSA
is supposed to take all that guessing out of the equation. So take PSA's word for it- this IS a VERY GOOD card! I can see why PSA does not have a guarantee like
Sportscard Guarantee Company (SGC) has...they'd be out of a lot of money buying back overgraded cards.
This 1966 Topps #1 Willie Mays card is one of only 2 regular Topps cards to feature him with a fielding glove. Mays was just as adept at fielding as he was at hitting and
running. The only other regular Topps card to feature him with a glove is 1953 Topps #244.
with this grade? Check out the back corner by the card number (1). The top layer of paper is torn off, exposing the gray cardboard underneath. And PSA calls this VERY
GOOD??? How, in good conscious, could I ever sell this card as being "Very Good" is beyond me. I would have to mention the back and the missing paper. Oh, but PSA
is supposed to take all that guessing out of the equation. So take PSA's word for it- this IS a VERY GOOD card! I can see why PSA does not have a guarantee like
Sportscard Guarantee Company (SGC) has...they'd be out of a lot of money buying back overgraded cards.
This 1966 Topps #1 Willie Mays card is one of only 2 regular Topps cards to feature him with a fielding glove. Mays was just as adept at fielding as he was at hitting and
running. The only other regular Topps card to feature him with a glove is 1953 Topps #244.
1976 Isaly's Discs Steve Carlton PSA 9
I'm not going to say anything about this 1976 Isaly's Disc Steve Carlton. See if you can spot the mistake.
Earlier this year (2008), PSA began using in-between grades or half grades. Why they waited over a decade to do this is anyone's guess, but I will say this is a brilliant
money making strategy concocted by PSA's powers that be. You, the average "Joe Schmo" has invested at least a hundred (probably more) dollars in having some
cards graded by PSA's old 10 point scale. But wait! Now PSA is assigning half grades so maybe now your card can get a possibly higher grade! Which equates to more
monetary value to your cards. So now you can just send in those old PSA graded cards and get the new and improved PSA grades! Whoopee! Yippie Yowszer!!! Of
course PSA will not do this for free; you can bet on that. So go ahead and send in all of your old PSA graded cards. The shareholders are counting on you.
About the new labels. I have seen some of the new PSA graded cards on eBay and they are very similar to the old labels with the exception of the in-between grades.
One the newer labels the grade assigned appears below the grade. For instance, where the old labels would say "MINT 9," the new ones say "MINT" and below that will
be the number grade. There is not much of a difference. I will post a newer PSA graded example soon.
Earlier this year (2008), PSA began using in-between grades or half grades. Why they waited over a decade to do this is anyone's guess, but I will say this is a brilliant
money making strategy concocted by PSA's powers that be. You, the average "Joe Schmo" has invested at least a hundred (probably more) dollars in having some
cards graded by PSA's old 10 point scale. But wait! Now PSA is assigning half grades so maybe now your card can get a possibly higher grade! Which equates to more
monetary value to your cards. So now you can just send in those old PSA graded cards and get the new and improved PSA grades! Whoopee! Yippie Yowszer!!! Of
course PSA will not do this for free; you can bet on that. So go ahead and send in all of your old PSA graded cards. The shareholders are counting on you.
About the new labels. I have seen some of the new PSA graded cards on eBay and they are very similar to the old labels with the exception of the in-between grades.
One the newer labels the grade assigned appears below the grade. For instance, where the old labels would say "MINT 9," the new ones say "MINT" and below that will
be the number grade. There is not much of a difference. I will post a newer PSA graded example soon.
1968 Topps Milton Bradley #177 Mets Rookie Stars (Jerry Koosman, Nolan
Ryan) PSA 6 EX-MT
Ryan) PSA 6 EX-MT
1968 Topps Milton Bradley #177 Mets Rookie
Stars (back view)
Stars (back view)
Now, how in the hell can supposedly the best grading service in the hobby not know the difference between a regular 1968 Topps
and 1968 Topps Milton Bradley card? After grading & slabbing millions of cards, even the mighty PSA doesn't have the expertise to
distinguish an ordinary card from a rare one. Not to say the regular 1968 Topps #177 Mets Rookie Stars (Jerry Koosman, Nolan
Ryan rookie card) is an "ordinary" card, on the contrary. The Ryan rookie is a very desirable card, but very plentiful and not at all hard
to find. The 1968 Topps Milton Bradley #177 Mets Rookie Stars (Jerry Koosman, Nolan Ryan rookie card) card (above) is an
entirely different matter and PSA should sure as hell know this by now. The difference is the card backs; while the regular Topps
cards have a "dirty" or brownish-yellow back, the 1968 Topps Milton Bradley cards have a very clean and bright yellow (see right)
back. How many other 1968 Topps Milton Bradley cards have they simply labeled as regular "1968 Topps?" It's lucky the seller of
the above card knew the difference and stated as such in his eBay item description; otherwise instead of selling this card for about
$250-$350, he got a well deserved $1,280.76 for it (May 2008). So good going for that knowledgeable collector (no thanks to PSA).
Maybe PSA should hire collectors like that who are familiar with cards to do their grading and authenticating instead of hiring guys
who don't know a rare card from a "common" one.
P.S. Note the right edge of the Ryan card above. A good case could be made for a miscut qualifier (MC) don't you think?.
and 1968 Topps Milton Bradley card? After grading & slabbing millions of cards, even the mighty PSA doesn't have the expertise to
distinguish an ordinary card from a rare one. Not to say the regular 1968 Topps #177 Mets Rookie Stars (Jerry Koosman, Nolan
Ryan rookie card) is an "ordinary" card, on the contrary. The Ryan rookie is a very desirable card, but very plentiful and not at all hard
to find. The 1968 Topps Milton Bradley #177 Mets Rookie Stars (Jerry Koosman, Nolan Ryan rookie card) card (above) is an
entirely different matter and PSA should sure as hell know this by now. The difference is the card backs; while the regular Topps
cards have a "dirty" or brownish-yellow back, the 1968 Topps Milton Bradley cards have a very clean and bright yellow (see right)
back. How many other 1968 Topps Milton Bradley cards have they simply labeled as regular "1968 Topps?" It's lucky the seller of
the above card knew the difference and stated as such in his eBay item description; otherwise instead of selling this card for about
$250-$350, he got a well deserved $1,280.76 for it (May 2008). So good going for that knowledgeable collector (no thanks to PSA).
Maybe PSA should hire collectors like that who are familiar with cards to do their grading and authenticating instead of hiring guys
who don't know a rare card from a "common" one.
P.S. Note the right edge of the Ryan card above. A good case could be made for a miscut qualifier (MC) don't you think?.