Hard to buy that the two “QA” steps occur, at least with any consistency. Why???
the real myth is you making this thread Gary X).
all jokes aside though… Domino’s Pizza tracker is also fake as hell sooooooooo.
but i guess it gives the clients the idea that stuff is happening and moving along!
I spent more time making this than PSA spent QAing it for sure.
On a more serious note, I do think PSA have room for improvement. Of 39 graded Pichus I own, 3 of them are mislabelled: one has the wrong set, one has the correct number but is listed as a Pikachu, and the other is the one I shared in my previous post. Whilst that’s a 92% success rate, that’s also a 8% failure rate, which really isn’t good enough when a lot of these issues can be easily resolved by paying a bit more attention to each card.
My main issue with PSA’s labelling QA process isn’t the mistakes on their part, however, it’s instead the lack of uniformity surrounding certain key terms. In the PCG-P set I own 3 different cards whose labels feature different variations of “McDonald’s”: “MCDONALDS”, “McDONALDS” and “McDONALD’S”. I’d have thought that for frequently reused terms - especially company names - PSA would have some standards surrounding how the label is written, but clearly that isn’t the case:
I totally agree! They should change the text to McDoNaLd’S (or MaKuDoNaRuDo in case of Japanese cards) and just stick to it from that point onwards.
I agree with you, seems silly some of the steps that are on the new process bar. I think some of the steps are just there to make them appear more professional and thorough or in reality the steps are just there to buy more time since their biggest complaint is their inability to meet turnaround times. But implementing the bar is a step in the right direction keeping submitters somewhat in the loop about what is happening with their cards.
Normal mislabeling and inconsistency is bad enough,
Then when authenticating signatures…
Oof.
lolwhat… can’t believe that one lol…
Has anyone else experienced that PSA mix up the grades of two cards with consecutive certification number? Like, you send two cards where card #1 is like a 5-6 and card #2 is a 8-9.Then when you get the cards back #1 is graded an 8 and #2 a 6. It happened twice (or at least that’s what I think is the problem) in my last submission, where a card in poor condition gets an unreasonably high grade while the following (and seemingly close to mint) card gets a low grade.
Never got that. In fact, knowing the process, not sure how it could happen?
Well, it’s just a theory I made up 
I don’t know the process in detail and could absolutely have misjudged the cards a little bit myself. The thing is I sent the cards via Ludkins UK, and their pre-screening estimates of the grades were the same as my guesses.
Normally, I would have just accepted the lower grade on the (in my opinion) nice cards and assumed I missed some slight crease or something. But I think it is suspicious when a card directly before/after in cert number gets a grade 2-3 steps above what I (and Ludkins) expected.
Anyway, it doesn’t really matter in this case. It was just my old childhood collection and I just wanted them in PSA cases and didn’t care about the grade that much. Just wanted to see if someone’s had a similar experience/suspicion
PSA labelling is atrocious especially for promos. Also on labelling foreign set cards they often label the slabs under the English set name. 
Personally I like the new Dominos Pizza tracking system, even if it is not 100% accurate it is still better than having cards in the processing abyss
Haha until you have a one card submission entering its fifth week of “assembly”.
This card must be the hardest card in existence to slab…
Makes me think that your cards are chilling out in the open with no protection for 5 weeks waiting lol. Hopefully that isn’t the case, maybe in 2088 when cameras are so small we can film the entire process, stick the atom camera on the card 