PSA charging more based on final grade of card?

[KingPokemon]

I’d like to get Charlie’s input on this.

[KingPokemon]

@pokematt

I just got this email from PSA saying that they had to change the service level fees on a bunch of my cards because the grade they received put them over the “max value” limit on my order. For example, I sent two gold star charizards, one got a 7 ($8 to $20 fee) and one got a 9 ($8 to $75 fee). I’ve sent this exact card with these exact grades before without having to pay extra not knowing what grade I would get.

I already emailed support back in regards to this but I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this before or if this is a new practice at PSA going forward…

$2335 represents what? What was the original amount?

[smpratte]

@surfnsnow

Mint 1st Ed Zard is an interesting example. If you assume PSA 9 and declare the card value at 7k the cost to grade is $500. If the card comes back an 8 the cost to grade would have been $200 had you declared the value under 5K. Will they refund the difference? On the other hand, if the card comes back a 10 the cost to grade is 3K, and they can charge you an extra 2.5K.

I assume you’d be pretty ecstatic about the 10 so maybe you wouldn’t care

I thought the Charizard one was pretty cut and dry, as even a played copy is about $1,000. Basically that card was never $1 at any point in time.

[pokematt]

@KingPokemon

@pokematt

I just got this email from PSA saying that they had to change the service level fees on a bunch of my cards because the grade they received put them over the “max value” limit on my order. For example, I sent two gold star charizards, one got a 7 ($8 to $20 fee) and one got a 9 ($8 to $75 fee). I’ve sent this exact card with these exact grades before without having to pay extra not knowing what grade I would get.

I already emailed support back in regards to this but I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this before or if this is a new practice at PSA going forward…

$2335 represents what? What was the original amount?

$2335 was the total they want to charge with all the extra charges. It’s an extra $215 they added onto the original amount.

[pokematt]

@smpratte

PSA is becoming more aware of TCG cards. A few years ago they were clueless. They do this in other hobbies for certain items. You can’t bulk a mint prominent rookie without getting this type of email.

I am torn, as I primarily think the submitter should be able to absorb the risk. But there are some ridiculous examples in Pokemon that make me sway the other way. I remember the thread about a mint 1st Ed zard being declared at $1, which was completely ridiculous. It’s all about reasonability.

What were the other cards in the order? Basically what is the degree of under-declaration?

I would understand a 1st ed zard being sent should not be able to go through the bulk order. But these were cards I have sent in the past, have received the exact same grades with no problems and now they want to charge extra on them. I also asked if there was anywhere on the website or the submission form that gets signed stating that the graded card value can affect the service level charges and the rep could not provide that.

Some of the other cards were PSA 9 GS mudkip, PSA 9 BEWD BPT-003 (1 sold listing for $97CAD so???), PSA 8 GS torchic, PSA 9 GS mewtwo, PSA 9 pre-release charizard, PSA 7 GS charizard, PSA 10 1st ed. ho-oh neo holo, PSA 9 GS charizard.

[pokematt]

This was the response I got… Pretty much just given the run-around in my opinion and that reps SHOULD be making me aware of what happened before they started, but didn’t.

[hypernova]

I came up with this idea several months ago in discord!

You’re welcome bros!

[surfnsnow]

@pokematt

This was the response I got… Pretty much just given the run-around in my opinion and that reps SHOULD be making me aware of what happened before they started, but didn’t.

Since the maximum declared value in a bulk order is $99, would following the Rep’s suggestion require submitters to send any $100+ cards in a separate submission?

[pfm]

@hypernova

I came up with this idea several months ago in discord!
You’re welcome bros!

Honestly I wouldn’t mind as long as they were transparent and consistent about it.

[poken00b88]

This will just add even more delays. It just sounds like a clever way to extract an extra 10% out of OP.

I understand why they do this, but we all know it’s not a rule they will enforce every time.

[pokematt]

@surfnsnow

@pokematt

This was the response I got… Pretty much just given the run-around in my opinion and that reps SHOULD be making me aware of what happened before they started, but didn’t.

Since the maximum declared value in a bulk order is $99, would following the Rep’s suggestion require submitters to send any $100+ cards in a separate submission?

I asked this as I thought it is a pretty outrageous thing to have to do if that is the case because then you also have to pay full shipping on each order and may not get bulk orders/shipping rates. I also asked how they determine the value of each card and asked if I submitted a card with a higher service level thinking it would get a 10 and paid $75 but it only received an 8, would I then be compensated the difference in service levels because the PSA 8 could have been submitted at a bulk level that may have only costed $8. I didn’t get an answer to any of these questions and instead was told he would have his boss reach out to me next week regarding the whole case.

[dbmoney10]

So if I submit a base unlimited Venusaur in a bulk service and it comes back a 10, worth like $150, I’ll have to pay additional grading costs?

[surfnsnow]

@pokematt

@surfnsnow

Since the maximum declared value in a bulk order is $99, would following the Rep’s suggestion require submitters to send any $100+ cards in a separate submission?

I asked this as I thought it is a pretty outrageous thing to have to do if that is the case because then you also have to pay full shipping on each order and may not get bulk orders/shipping rates. I also asked how they determine the value of each card and asked if I submitted a card with a higher service level thinking it would get a 10 and paid $75 but it only received an 8, would I then be compensated the difference in service levels because the PSA 8 could have been submitted at a bulk level that may have only costed $8. I didn’t get an answer to any of these questions and instead was told he would have his boss reach out to me next week regarding the whole case.

Thanks @pokematt, I’m interested to know the answers if you ever get them.

[joer]

I’m curious how this affects a grading service like the one @funmonkey54 runs. Ludkins charges a set amount per card depending on submission, but I sent a shadowless charizard that may come back a PSA 8 and I have a few other high profile cards too.

Could the submission become more expensive suddenly?

[shizzlemetimbers]

Declared value*

“PSA requires that you estimate a value for each item you submit based on its condition. This “declared value” is used to determine your service level and return shipping fees. If you are not sure of the value, you may use the SMR price guide or check other trade publications, auction results, or contact a PSA Authorized Dealer.”

I wonder if this was changed recently to be based on condition or this blurb was always there they just didn’t follow up on many Pokemon cards?

[fourthstartcg]

I’m in agreement with PSA on this one. It’s certainly a pain in the ass if they come after you for more money, but the different levels are there for a reason. With less popular Pokemon/TCG cards (read: not 1st ed base) which don’t have 6 sold ebay listings a week this may be more difficult.

That being said, I’d certainly like PSA to look at fixing other problems with Pokemon/TCG before they start coming after us for underestimating value.

[gottaketchumall]

@fourthstartcg

I’m in agreement with PSA on this one. It’s certainly a pain in the ass if they come after you for more money, but the different levels are there for a reason. With less popular Pokemon/TCG cards (read: not 1st ed base) which don’t have 6 sold ebay listings a week this may be more difficult.

That being said, I’d certainly like PSA to look at fixing other problems with Pokemon/TCG before they start coming after us for underestimating value.

I kinda get it in a way. But I’d say I’m personally far from agreeing with them on it. @pokematt brought up a good point with :

I also asked how they determine the value of each card and asked if I submitted a card with a higher service level thinking it would get a 10 and paid $75 but it only received an 8, would I then be compensated the difference in service levels because the PSA 8 could have been submitted at a bulk level that may have only costed $8.

You know it would only go one way. And the dilemma that was mentioned that arises with if they’d bump more iffy borderline cards to 10 to increase revenue. Seems a dangerous lever to give them the option to pull for profits.

Fully legitimate example of why I have issues with this…
So if I come across 100 raw mint unlimited charizards how should I submit them? About 10% would be likely to get 10’s given the pop report and I have no F’ing way of guessing which. So many cards run into this issue where the 9/10 threshold is massive. I recently submitted an entire e-reader set. Aquapolis, skyridge all those are $100+ pretty much in 10’s but all 9’s are sub $100. It is such a massive pain to separate things out. Especially when I buy collections in bulk and figure something like say a flat $30 per holo. There is no way in hell they should be able to argue that I am out of line declaring them at the exact $30 per holo that I paid for them given that is their rough market value raw.

Obviously if I rob someone of a mint base 1st zard at $50 at a garage sale I can’t argue that I should be able to declare it at $50 but that would be the exception.

[KingPokemon]

Has anybody else had this happen to them this year? I’m asking in case this is a one off or is it brand new and will affect everyone from here on out.

Edit: could be a one off because I can’t find anybody anywhere else besides e4 discussing it.

[shizzlemetimbers]

@buckna

Well it seems like almost all the cards they are requiring more funds for… do not fit the bulk threshold of $99… so… what is the issue?

It seems the change is now to declared value of the graded card, it used to be the value of the raw card

[shizzlemetimbers]

@KingPokemon

Has anybody else had this happen to them this year? I’m asking in case this is a one off or is it brand new and will affect everyone from here on out.

I am interested to know too as I have a bulk sub right now where raw value is under $99 but if some cards come back as 9s and 10s would be over declared $99 value. It makes a big difference for international orders since the return shipping is minimum $55 for me in Aussieland.