Was going to reply to my boy 4star on another post but figured more people would see it from a new thread.
The question is, crack and resubmit hoping for an upgrade or accept the grade you got?
First off, here’s how it works from a grading standpoint. When a card first hits the “dark room” a grader picks it up and it is a presumed 10. As defects are found, the grade gets reduced. If no substantial defects are discovered the card will remain a 10.
Hence, if you got a 9 the grader found a substantial defect. A substantial defect is defined as one that affects the grade.
Theoretically, a 10 can be a 9 (due to an oversight) but a 9 cannot be a 10.
When you purchase a 10 there’s always a chance that an oversight occurred during its initial grading. Those odds go way up when crack and submitters become an epidemic within a community.
Now let’s extend this to the ‘review’ system. In my opinion there is little difference. Rarely there’s a legit case of a new employee misinterpreting a parameter. This is rare because new graders are hired rarely and are ALWAYS double checked during the 90 day training period.
What can be done about this? Very little. I keep a list of crackers going back 15 years which I don’t share cause it’s a moral issue to me which not everybody else subscribes to…nor are they obligated to. Honestly, I don’t see them as being bad. They are normally 99% good. It’s an ideological thing.
A good example is, I’m a thing 1 but also believe you should be able to legally marry anybody you love, same or mixed sex. Obviously not a typical conservative view but that doesn’t make me any less of a thing 1. Hope that makes sense.
The biggest residual benefit to following the ‘no crack’ policy is if somebody buys, or trades for, one of your 9s they have a good chance of getting a VERY strong 9. Plus if they get one of your 10s there’s a better chance of it being a strong 10 rather than a 3 time cracked 9 that finally got upgraded. This could make them want to do business with you more often.
Again, none of this is a knock on anybody who feels differently than I do. This is just an explanation of why I feel the way I do:)
I think there’s a fine line between cracking for the purpose of getting lucky and getting a grade better than it should get and cracking because it’s on a fine line/there was an oversight. I don’t see myself ever cracking a case for the former reason as PSA should be trusted. After all, we use them over, say, Beckett as our ‘gold standard,’ so their say on a card should stand. Unless I believe there was a genuine error.
I have never cracked a 9 going for a 10. I did crack several 8.5’s that statistically made no sense. PSA had something going on in January and not only did I not like it, but it just didn’t make any sense. 8.5’s all over the place for the first time in 1,000+ cards that I have submitted across 31 orders now. I checked back for firm numbers as I think I have mentioned this a couple times already, and I cracked 12 8.5’s. 10 went to 9’s and 2 went to 8’s. All of which they deserved IMO.
I agree on the whole regrading a 9 several times going for a 10. Dishonest practice. Unfortunately the market really does call for it though, so it will never end and will only get worse with the 16k zard as well as 5k staff zard. Look at fossil and jungle $30-60 cards as 9’s are worth $200-$800. It is just nuts for what sometimes isn’t even an actual difference in card quality… Personally I don’t value 10’s nearly as highly as the market does. That is why most of mine get sold and most of my collection is comprised of 9’s or good-enough-for-the-binder raw cards.
Like I have said in other threads, the biggest issue that anyone who cracks a case and resubmits is they are throwing off the entire population and should be barred from grading again. There are multiple cards that have low populations and someone could effectively destroy the whole market for a single card by regrading it over and over. How many base set 1st Ed’s have been cracked and regraded, it might not be that many but could still have a huge effect on secondary market’s as well as others collections. PSA has no clue that your cracked 9 Charizard 1st Ed was graded 6 times and when it finally grades a 10, PSA has now entered 6 more cards for the one actual card in existence. Unless that person wants to pay a small fee and have PSA actually maintain the PSA certification number of that card, where if it is changed, they will adjust the population, cards should never be regraded/cracked. It is selfish, unmoral, and light years worse than any pack weighing could ever be. There could be multiple situations that may have different scenarios but nevertheless, cracking means population adjustments and no way I see they can ever be adjusted.
While I agree cracking PSA cases isn’t the best thing in the world, you have a very doom and gloom view. Population reports for most cards have almost no significant effect on the value imo. There are maybe a few instances with very rare cards in which that would be the case for 8s and 9s pop numbers to diminish value. Does anyone care how many 9s of an unlimited Charziard are? Or even 1st edition base set besides the big 3 in 9s? Not really, population numbers on random cards are the byproduct of people spewing their random numbers on ebay and youtube and making it seem like POP3! means anything. Just recently saw a video of someone with their PSA returns looking at the pop numbers of some random holos that no one grades and acting like a pop 2 was insane. You also assume that the card eventually gets a 10, which is not the case at all.
Is it bad? Sure, its dishonest and I have yet to get a card back a 9 that I was SO sure it was a 10 that I would crack it open. Maybe if it was a 1st ed charizard I might rethink it if I felt it was insanely minty. The main issue is 10s that aren’t strong 10s, and guess what? PSA can make that mistake the first time. The bigger issue I have is the people that crack open 6s and sell as mint raw knowing full well the card has a dent or flaw to knock it down, but that is another story entirely.
But the only possible genuine oversight error can’t be a 10. It starts as a 10 and any oversight would keep it a 10 so no reason to crack. Now if it’s a 9 it’s because there was a noticed defect that dropped it to a 9. If your 10 has a defected that was overlooked then it should have been a 9.
That is true, perhaps more in terms of the 8–>9 line or lower, but frankly I would never send in a card worth less than several hundred raw if I didn’t think it was 9/10 material. For the 9–>10 I’d do a review, especially for lower pop cards to preserve the population. For the anything–>9 range I’d crack it, send it in with a bulk lot probably for less cost. No real harm done as nobody cares about sub-9s on anything unless it’s a serious money item. If, for example, a newer full art that I sent in for the hell of it gets an 8 and I really really think it’s on the 9 line, I would crack before I formally review. I don’t have a ton of experience grading myself but this is my thought process logically and ethically.
I’m ok with cracking cases for the simple fact that PSA sometimes makes mistakes. Some graders at PSA can grade a little too harsh, often forgetting that the PSA 10 definition allows for “virtual” perfection, not absolute perfection. As @garyis2000 agrees there is no such thing as a “Perfect” WOTC holo card.
You don’t have to search long or hard to find someone who feels they’ve encountered an issue.
One example is that of the Legendary Collection reverse holos, many of which have near invisible lines in the hologram. While they’re arguably not a defect as much as they are an aspect of their manufacturing, certain graders will take exception to them and will reduce the grade. Another example is the hairline specs of white on one or two corners of the card, which are sometimes so minuscule that it hardly deserves attention. Other issues such as OC qualifiers too. For example, this mint off-center Base set 2 Blastoise card I sent in received a PSA 7 grade first and then on the second submission received a 9 grade. On both submissions I took care to denote it’s qualification for the mint 9 (OC) grade on the submission form, yet after two submissions it still wasn’t graded correctly with respect to their own grade preconditions.
I’ve been a proponent of PSA for many years now but I recognize their flaws and the inevitability of human mistakes, so I think re-submissions are not only understandable, but sometimes are fair and appropriate.
Each to their own but I know I wouldn’t be happy to pay a 9 price for a 9 that used to be a seven. Nor could I sell one like that to any of my customers unless I hated them;)
I get what you’re saying, but my point is the card was graded NM 7 as a result of their disregard for the OC qualifier. The card is virtually flawless and is Mint in every aspect.
What I mean is, as per their own precondition: “. . . a card that meets the standard for Mint 9, but has 65.35 centering would be designated Mint 9oc.”
I think @jkanly did a good job at summarizing my general position. PSA is human, we are human. Therefor, we each will make a mistake. I would assert that PSA is more accurate than your average Joe. Joe O. is more accurate than Joe Blow.
Nonetheless, there are instances when cards genuinely sit between grades. For me it is all about degrees. The firecracker’s who re-submit one card 5 times are a problem. However, I think someone who genuinely thinks a card should be higher, and occasionally cracks is negligible; especially if they send in the labels to be removed from the pop.
Realistically there will always be crackers. For me, I focus on the degree & intent. There are multiple people who do the same thing, but for different reasons. Some individuals are truly scumbags, and don’t care what they do to make a buck. However certain individuals may do something similar, but out of naivete.
I appreciate the insight. I like how they assume it is a 10 before searching for defects.
A chance, okay, understandable. It is however, PSA’s job as the professionals to make sure the percentage of oversights does not go up because of the sheer number of cards graded. Sure the overall number of oversights will rise with more volume but it is the increase in percentage of oversights that makes for an unhealthy market and opens the door for another third party grading company who is more consistent to better classify value. If we are spending hundreds or thousands on an item because it is the premium grade, we want our investment to retain the value it deserves, not be inflated by human error. This is why there is a scale with strict guidelines. Otherwise, why grade in the first place?
I can personally attest to this last part as a seller on eBay having received high 9 prices. There are the few out there with a critical eye who will pay the premium for a high end 9. This is why I have recently invested in a scanner. I want people to see the quality of my cards.
Something else to consider, a top Pokemon seller on eBay, after I condemned him for cracking, said it becomes addictive. He said he started doing it even on cheaper cards. I personally know of one card he resubmitted a dozen times before getting the upgrade.
The behavior scares me and limits the people I’ll deal with which is too bad.
Not legally allowed to work around here last summer, maybe this summer.
