Previous offenses aside, in this case I feel that the process used vindicated the seller somewhat, as he went through the ideal channel of PSA review versus cracking and regrading. Given the two choices I feel the latter is the greater of the two weevils, so to speak.
Although not perfectly ideal, the review service is the best choice we’ve got as a counter to cracking.
@jkanly I agree, better look for cardhouse. I was saying worse look for PSA though.
BGS afaik does not regrade cards. Their grades are final and to me that is a more reasonable approach than what PSA does with regrading cards in a slab. It is literally someone with less information saying that their current opinion is better than someone’s prior opinion with better information to which I cannot find a suitable analogy.
The problem with that is that if the review service was ixnayed then the only option would be to crack and resubmit. At the moment PSA may or may not crack the case for you (as a re-holder) during their review process, and it’s the same price as regular grading. And if they cracked every case then it would assume a re-holder fee due to the extra labor involved.
So assuming PSA combined the review & re-holder service, it would either cost more to the customer or more for the company (versus grading raw). If it was the latter (such as a complementary re-holder) it wouldn’t make business sense for PSA, but creates an incentive for review versus cracking. If it was the former then no-one would bother with going through review.
I’m not sure I understand. Did the person mentioned in the original post (CardHouse.eu) do something wrong? It seems the original post, and perhaps other people, are saying this is a reason “never to buy” from him?
How do we know the 10 has the same serial number?
I’ll let someone else do the explaining or linking as I don’t feel I’m credibly enough sourced to do that. I would however step right in it and go full on conspiracy theory as at least a thought to consider. But not by PSA. If PSA re-evaluates but almost always stands by the original grade, how does a more obviously flawed card grade up? I say look to the human element. In my vocation I’ve learned shady folks find each other, especially where there’s money to be made. This individual sought out or found a human connection inroad for the gold “dogs”, and I’d put my money on he’s found another. I know I’m way out there in the deep end on this, but it’s not like it’s an unreasonable thought, either—it just ends up in the weeds.
The eBay listing shows the serial, and it matches the PSA 9 picture. The PSA database now shows that serial as having a Gem Mint 10 grade.
If you enter the serial shown on the 9, it now shows as a 10:
Regrade or no regrade, 99% of people who are buying 10s are buying the PSA number only.
It’d be interesting to do an experiment by having a PSA1 condition card in a PSA10 case to see if it sells for a PSA10 price. I bet that it would sell!
I feel like sensible advice with any purchase is to thoroughly look over what you’re buying to make sure it matches your expectations. I personally don’t believe there’s anything wrong here with what the seller has done. Regrading is part of the PSA process and even if it wasn’t it’s something which will always happen. I have 2 PSA 9 Pichu cards in my collection which I’m planning on regrading as I believe they should have been 10s to begin with. If I do get these regraded and their grade does change, should I have to make it transparent that the original grade was different? I don’t believe I should.
My experience of submitting cards to PSA through Ludkins has resulted in a small number of large inconsistencies, where Ludkins has pre-screened a card as a 5 or 6 and the card in question has come back as a 9 or 10, or vice-versa where Ludkins has pre-screened a card as 9 or 10 and PSA has graded it a 6. Should I have to disclose that one set of professionals awarded this a different grade to the grade it received? Again, I don’t believe I should.
I feel like this thread is making an issue out of nothing and if anything we should be congratulating the seller for getting it successfully regraded. Is it worthy of a PSA 10 grade and a $10k price tag? Read my first sentence in this post.
Say this card has been graded once before being 10 (not cracked a million times), why is the opinion of the first grader better than 3 graders a 2nd time who all believed it was a 10?
If its regraded a 10 its still a 10? It goes through the same prosses as every other card, and as mentioned in another comments (is the first graders opinion worth more then the second?) And how many of you havent regraded when you didnt agree with the grade you got?
Because the first grader saw something that deemed it a 9. From the photos alone it looks like a 9. There was another typhlosion with a blatant Holo scratch that Psa missed.
Some people don’t care and that’s entirely the consumer choice. In general I personally don’t mind regrades if it sits between two grades. This one looks like a 9, so I wouldn’t be in the market.
Tl;dr buy the card not the grade.
I feel the seller isn’t really to blame here especially if he sent it for review thats more of a Psa problem now. Honestly its also the buyers that have been willing to pay absolutely ridiculous prices for this card that is more to blame. It pushes these owners of PSA 9s to constantly resub them to try to get that 10 for a big pay day. I mean come on spending 10k on this set card? I don’t see the value in this.
I have a PSA 10 1st ed. Base Charizard without a picture of the back to sell you for 20% off market value then.
The difference between this card and everything you provided as an example is there is a $9000 difference between a PSA 9 and a PSA 10 in this case. Personally if I was in the market for a PSA 10 Typhlosion 17, you better believe I’d be extremely picky and would like to know as much about the history of the copy as possible.
I don’t understand what I’m looking at here. Is it the same card, just regraded? I mean if they gave it a 10 they gave it a 10, that’s on PSA, not the person selling the card, right?
You’re assuming this seller is reputable. They are the furthest thing from it. In my opinion they are one of the most predatory and unethical people in the Pokemon hobby, but my personal victimization at their hands may play a role in this.
It’s well-known that this seller does things like this habitually. Whether it’s cracking and regrading or reviewing, the fact is that this card was a 9, has very clear flaws, and is now a 10. Regardless of the method, the result is the same.
Honest truth? I would buy it.