All good. But the thing is like I said in my post, post centering change doesn’t mean centering needs to be perfect. 55/45 or better and nearly all his cards were, and ironically one of the only ones that wasn’t got a 10. Just pointing out that people tend to jump to PSA’s defense either directly or by inferring that there could be issues with the submitter’s cards (like in this case centering) and I’m just kinda fatigued by it is all. Because in a case such as this, it is — unfortunately for those who still like to think PSA is reliable, consistent, what have you — a matter of them sucking. Like is so often the case with reports like this. My thesis is that for vintage, yes, they suck. Have for years.
The reality is that between the changes to the standards post pandemic and continuous onboarding of new graders and retraining of the older graders to the adjusted standards, the discrepancies and lack of consistency will become more and more noticeable with the increasing grading volume that PSA handles. It’s not just a “misgrade” by PSA out of carelessness or accident. It’s a lack of consistency at scale.
Theoretically, certain things would be more easily standardized in grading than others: front centering; severity of dings on edges/corners (like the PSA 7 Bulbasaur), etc. But as OP has noted, that inconsistency is present even in his single submission. Based on his submission, the PSA grader believes that the extra corner ding of the Bulbasaur and Squirtle is worth a PSA 7 compared to the scratches, print line, centering, and edge/corner dings on the PSA 9 Machamp (assuming there are no other hidden surface defects on the Bulbasaur that the scan didn’t show).
From my recent tests through PSA, the pinhole dents are at best PSA 8 while the corner scuffing on OP’s PSA 7 Squirtle usually receives a PSA 7 score (emphasis on usually because I received multiple PSA 10s with this type of corner both before and after the pandemic).
The argument has often been made that grading cards is inherently an art with “eye appeal” being a major factor. While I don’t disagree that eye appeal can matter in fringe scenarios, this should only occur after all other non-disputable standards are applied.
The other argument that is often made is that grading is inherently biased, which is true. But consistent bias is paramount; otherwise it is not called a standard.
cpbog1
cgc never loses
This is the issue. I imagine op sent on a lower tier which are mainly filled to the brim with graders who just look at modern cards and therefore have a bias.
Vintage absolutely needs to be looked at differently.
BGS EU also had this issue.
Sorry for your experience. @thegamingport I’m interested in buying some, if you are selling!
I dont think there can be a consistent bias unless the same few people grade cards for PSA. Whats their turnover rate even look like?
My goal is not to deny a change at PSA but I always feel with anecdotes like these people read too much into what is a single datapoint. 1 submission = 1 (maybe 2?) graders on one day at one time = 1 datapoint.
To me, it’s hard to take a datapoint and draw a trendline from it. Especially when we know PSA has a large number of employees, many who are inexperienced. For example, if you were to crack all these and resubmit them I would be truly shocked if they got even remotely similar grades - which would mean the problem is more about consistency than level of scrutiny (in this case). If you do resubmit, I’d love to see the results though.
To preempt accusations that I’m defending PSA - I always have complained about their inconsistencies and think it’s the #1 problem with grading generally and the real value proposition of a company like TAG. It’s why I basically stick to PSA 9s. The consequence falls on the customers too, not the grading company. PSA doesn’t suffer financially from an inconsistent order but the OP could be out thousands of dollars due to the lack of competency.
They’re probably just trying to streamline their grading process. Which means they can’t address issues with each set differently. For me PSA has no place in vintage anymore.
Anecdotal, from what I’ve noticed seeing new cert vintage cards on eBay and Game Stop…they appear to need a near flawless card back
Whereas PSA prior seemed to be a bit more forgiving on a tiny white dot or tiny edgewear.
For what it’s worth, there is a degree of randomness on these too.
I’m just now getting back grades for these. Sent in pack fresh 100 cards lots for grading. They all came from the same source right at release. I personally opened all of them.
Some lots got 95-98% of PSA10, some others as low as 42-45%.
On the other hand, I have also been recasing many high end vintage cards in 2025 and I’ve had multiple instances where the card no longer meet their grading standards.
Most notably, this one that went from a 10 to an 8. They paid out a substantial premium for the downgrade. While I can’t disclose the exact number (they let you sign a paper) it was an impossible to argue against offer.
Oh I was merely responding to rtas there, expressing what most graders are going to be seeing proportionate to everything else.
Definitely still wild variability even in ultra modern and Burgerchus!
I don’t get how that went from 10 to 8. It looks fine.
I do think it’s something of a Pandora’s Box with how they’re handling it.
By changing their grading standards, and openly reassessing/regrading cards upon reholdering, they’ve tacitly stated that a plethora of cards graded prior are not worthy of a 10.
Disregarding opinions on grading itself, this act casts doubt on the legitimacy of older grades and the prices they should be yielding.
Consumer confidence is important, and whilst PSA will likely always retain its majority share in the market, I’ve never seen such negativity around PSA compared to other companies as I’ve seen recently since returning. I don’t think people realise either; the more cards CGC or other companies can churn and get out into the market, the more visibility they have. Most cards you see right now for Modern are from CGC simply because of PSA turnaround times being so great. If a newer collector looks on Fanatics for a new set, they’re going to be met with CGC slabs, not PSA.
I know people here collect both PSA and CGC (or other), but I think people do appreciate uniformity. If they begin their collection with CGC, you have to wonder what the likelihood is of them switching companies later on once they’ve made their entry into the hobby. Greenies are (typically) not going to put that much research into it when they’re starting out, it’s just not realistic. They’re just going to buy what they see.
Honestly, if I were in the market for Zoroark illus. cards and had bought that, I wouldn’t be upset with it being a 10 from what I can see. It’s not absolutely perfect, but it does look clean, and PSA has never been known for their truly perfect grades. If you wanted perfect in the past, you would seek a Black Label or high sub-graded Gold Label.
I don’t really understand the attitude shift and it feels somewhat short-sighted. Their 9 prices are strikingly lower (ignoring trophies and high-tiered items), such that from a commercial stand-point there is little incentive to grade with them over other companies where lead times are much lower. Why freeze my money for 6 months at a time, knowing there is minimal chance for a 10, when I could send to CGC or ARS, pay less and have my card back sooner to put on the market for a fractional cost in sales price.
For example, I still have quite a few mint no rarities I never graded. Nowadays, I feel compelled to send them to ARS because they don’t dock for centering and the 10 from ARS probably reflects similarly to a 9 from PSA anyway, if not higher in some cases.
They might cement themselves as a company with premium grading standards, but there’s also too much variability in their grading as-is. I would very irregularly buy a PSA 10 over a BGS Black Label, and in some cases even a high sub-graded Gold Label.
Did you speak to the Cabal about Vintage Pop Control?
I had a PSA submission I received back a couple days ago, in which I received 0 10s. Never had a submission in 13 years in which I went 0 for on 10s. This is modern pack fresh cards on this sub too.
I’d be piiiisssssed. If I spent a ton of time and money tracking down a certain card in a certain grade, and they dropped the grade during reholder, I would not be happy. Even if they paid out a generous sum for the downgrade. That’s insane. I have a few cards I was planning on sending in for reholder but after hearing about this crap (you’re the third person I’ve heard of now of this happening) I think I’ll just leave them.
You’re taking it better than I would, because wow! At a glance, there’s nothing wrong with it besides some slightly off LR centering. Did they provide any reasoning as to why it was dropping two whole grades into what appears to be a misgrade? Were you allowed to refuse the regrade and get the old cert slab back as is?
I think it’s wild that PSA is basically saying that any service you paid them for in the past (the older 6-ish+ year old certs in particular) is now less valid and open to extra scrutiny. It feels surreal that people are collectively throwing up their hands and simply accepting that.
It casts doubt on the legitimacy of PSA new/old certs alike, IMO… If they can’t respect their older grades within a reasonable margin of error (obviously fringe cases where a clearly MP/HP/damaged card has been mistakenly holdered in a high grade don’t apply) then why should I expect them to respect their current grades? With how this and the entire cert debate as a whole are going, at this rate, in 5 years time we’ll be seeing 13xxx Bubble Mew 10’s getting reholdered into a 2030 era Next Gen Label PSA 7. I don’t see how any consumer that isn’t here for short-term flips or gains could be even remotely happy with the path PSA is currently on.
I just messaged PSA support seeking clarity on this specifically. I can’t seem to get a straight answer online about what actually happens during the reholder service. Dunno how helpful it’ll be, but I’m curious to see what they say.
That would drive me nuts. Imagine someone building a huge collection in PSA 10s/9s, and sending everything in for reholders… and they come back as PSA 7s and 8s. WTF???