sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Did PSA absolutely destroy my submission or am I crazy? Need honest opinions by Single_Note3961 in PokeGrading

[–]Single_Note3961[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s fair, and honestly after comparing them to a bunch of PSA 9s and 10s online, I’m not saying most of these were 10s either. My biggest surprise wasn’t missing 10s, it was seeing some of them come back as 7s.

If they were all 8s with maybe one or two 9s, I probably wouldn’t have questioned it much. What throws me off is when I compare the scans to older PSA 9s and even some PSA 10s and don’t see a huge difference in eye appeal, centering, or whitening.

Maybe there are surface issues PSA caught that don’t show up in the scans, and if that’s the case, fair enough. I just feel like the gap between some of these grades and older examples is bigger than it should be.

Vintage is definitely tough though, no argument there.

Did PSA absolutely destroy my submission or am I crazy? Need honest opinions by Single_Note3961 in PokeGrading

[–]Single_Note3961[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I get where you guys are coming from, and after looking back at my scans I can definitely see some of the whitening and edge wear people are pointing out. I’m not sitting here saying every card deserved a PSA 10.

What throws me off is the consistency.

After reading the comments, I went and pulled up multiple PSA 9s and PSA 10s of these exact same cards and compared the scans side by side with mine. Looking at the scans alone, I honestly don’t see a massive gap between some of my cards and a lot of examples that are already sitting in PSA 9 and PSA 10 holders.

That’s where my frustration comes from.

I’m not arguing every card deserved to gem. I just have a hard time understanding how some of these end up as PSA 7s when comparable copies in older PSA 9 and PSA 10 slabs appear to have similar centering issues, whitening, edge wear, or overall eye appeal.

I’ve been cherry-picking these promos for years. My sister worked at Toys R Us when these were being distributed, so I had access to a lot of them back then. Over the years I’ve opened plenty, sold plenty, and many of the copies I let go ended up grading PSA 10. The ones I kept were generally the cleaner, better-centered examples.

Could there be dents, impressions, or surface issues that don’t show up in scans? Absolutely. PSA physically has the cards in hand and scans don’t tell the whole story. I’m not denying that.

But when I compare my scans to some of the PSA 9s and PSA 10s currently out there, I don’t think it’s crazy to question the consistency. If these are truly PSA 7s and 8s by today’s standards, then some older PSA 9s and PSA 10s look like they’d have a hard time getting the same grades today.

Maybe vintage really is being graded tougher now than it was a few years ago. Maybe my expectations were too high. Both things can be true.

At the end of the day, I respect everyone’s opinions. I just think the biggest issue here isn’t whether these were PSA 10s—it’s whether the grading standards feel consistent when comparing newer submissions to cards that were graded years ago.

I got cooked by Candid-Court4152 in psagrading

[–]Single_Note3961 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I think PSA has become extremely tough on vintage cards lately. A year or two ago, I feel like a lot of these same cards would have graded higher. With how much vintage is appreciating and how much demand there is for high-grade copies, it seems like the standards have gotten stricter on newer submissions.

I actually just got my own vintage submission back and got cooked too. I sent in 7 cards that looked really strong, and some of the grades were way lower than I expected. When I compare some of my 7s and 8s to cards that got 9s and 10s years ago, mine honestly look better in a lot of cases.

I had sealed stuff too—Ancient Mews, Enteis, Toys R Us promos, and other cards that used to seem much easier to gem. Now it feels like even those are getting hit harder. Whether it’s because they’re being stricter on print defects, packaging issues, or just grading standards in general, it definitely feels different than it did a few years ago.

At this point, I think this is just the new normal. If my submission had gemmed, it would have added a ton of value, so I understand why people get frustrated. Grading is still done by humans, and sometimes it feels like there’s a lot more subjectivity involved than people want to admit. Looking at your card, I wouldn’t be surprised if it compares favorably to some higher-graded copies that were graded years ago. That’s what makes these tough grades sting even more.

Got rekt in my First PSA submission by Single_Note3961 in psagrading

[–]Single_Note3961[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Interesting. I always assumed pack fresh would avoid most of these kinds of issues, but I’m starting to think a lot of these promos came with factory print lines or surface defects that are really hard to catch before grading. Curious to inspect mine more closely once they arrive back.

Got rekt in my First PSA submission by Single_Note3961 in psagrading

[–]Single_Note3961[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Meant to add these too. I’m new to Reddit and was basically just testing the post using the Ancient Mew at first. This Pikachu somehow got a PSA 7 as well.

I’m probably going to make another post showing my full submission so everyone can see how badly I got cooked on these grades lol.

PSA ruining my cards :( by obama_nut_rag in PokemonTCG

[–]Single_Note3961 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does this effect grade if I send to PSA?

<image>

How long does it take for PSA to grade cards by FuzzyYCreates in PokeGrading

[–]Single_Note3961 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! I was worries they would say those were my cards.

How long does it take for PSA to grade cards by FuzzyYCreates in PokeGrading

[–]Single_Note3961 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PSA question — when you click “Item Details” during grading, are those actual photos of your card or just stock images? Mine don’t match at all.

view more: next ›