Has your PSA 10 Gem rate for modern bulk submissions changed dramatically this year?

[FT35]

Originally Posted by Scottish Punk

And you can probably take 40 of the 9's and get back another 15 10's on a 3rd try.

You’re probably right. But what do you think this is saying? That PSA is wrong 60% of the time or just following an internal initiative to not go over a certain gem % on any given sub? I’d almost prefer incompetence, but sadly, I think it’s the later—I think they are intentionally capping the gems on subs and I think the proof is in the somewhat SUDDEN drop-off in 10’s—and those same cards getting 10’s on retries—as long as they are in different subs and the gem rate “threshold” “resets,” and more importantly, you pay twice.

PSA’s true motive remains to be identified, but this video (and others like it) is hard proof that it’s intentional. It started off on certain key cards (Jeter SP), then certain players (Jordan), then certain eras (Modern)—now it’s on most subs.

[YeahBuddy]

Originally Posted by waytoomanycards

This doesn't directly fit the thread topic, but it's pretty funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMV0ki2GZwU

And he's screwed now as PSA will see the cert #s know which is his account and flag his account for the future.

imho

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by YeahBuddy

And he's screwed now as PSA will see the cert #s know which is his account and flag his account for the future.

imho

Actually PSA is probably happy with this. Crack more 9's and send them back at $20 a piece. The more times a card is graded the better for PSA. Could be an infomercial paid by PSA.

[Snowcat]

Come on, AI. Make card grading great again!

[The_Reverend]

Just had a TCG order ultra modern 17/31 with 10/31 9’s. I will take plus 50% on orders now.

[bcubs]

Received a 26 card TCG order of Bo Jackson Battle Arena on April 5th. 17 10’s and 9 9’s. 3 other orders in 2025 have been pre 1980 and mostly what I expected. 2 more in assembly and 2 modern in order prep so I’ll see how those fare against expectations.

[MyckKabongo]

2020s Sports PSA Gem Rate:
July 2024: 53.8%
April 2025: 43%

[nabzy28]

What's the general consensus on the highest you're going to get on a refractor/prizm type card with a print line if everything else (edges/corners/centering) is '10' quality? An '8'?

[bojesphob]

Originally Posted by nabzy28

What's the general consensus on the highest you're going to get on a refractor/prizm type card with a print line if everything else (edges/corners/centering) is '10' quality? An '8'?

Print line like a scratch across the card from printing, or a print line in the design like the Mosaic/Power type prizms?

[nabzy28]

Originally Posted by bojesphob

Print line like a scratch across the card from printing, or a print line in the design like the Mosaic/Power type prizms?

Print line in the design.

[bojesphob]

Originally Posted by nabzy28

Print line in the design.

I think that's dinged less than a print scratch. I don't think it would get a 10, but maybe a 9? Maybe someone else would have more of an idea.

[aggie4ever]

Originally Posted by nabzy28

Print line in the design.

A refractor line is not actual damage, so PSA usually doesn't hammer you for it. If it's unobtrusive, it can still get a 10. If it's in an obvious spot and hurts the eye appeal, I would expect a 9.

BGS of course hammers refractor lines, so wouldn't expect more than an 8 from them.

[mc1]

Last two orders in a row only 5-6% gems. 35-40% before that. Same batch of cards that I inspected and set apart for grading at same time.

[FT35]

Originally Posted by mc1

Last two orders in a row only 5-6% gems. 35-40% before that. Same batch of cards that I inspected and set apart for grading at same time.

I think it’s because of their recent change in how they grade. A 10 used to be a card that met a particular level of criteria that was communicated and understood by most in the hobby. Now a 10 is “whatever PSA feels like it should be at any given moment.”

We’ve gone from determining factors of “corners, centering, edges, surface,” to “name of submitter & size of their customer account, number of gems from a particular era already assigned that day, whatever the grade needs to be to force the submitter to resubmit and pay again, and most importantly, whatever grade we arbitrarily feel like putting on the slab.” And of course the new method costs double what the old method cost.

“Never get cheated.”

[waytoomanycards]

One sign of grader incompetency is called dumping. That's gravitating toward the most common score point for a given population. Basically being overinfluenced by expectations.

In cards, a grader (or graders) doing that would have an exaggerated tendency toward giving a 9 to, say, an early 2000's chrome card and a 10 to a typically clean newer set like 2024 optic preview.

Overall, his score distribution might look normal, but if broken down by set the issue would be obvious. Whether PSA examines data like that I have no idea, but that could be a reason for submitters sometimes getting virtually all 9's on otherwise gem worthy cards in certain modern sets.

[The_Reverend]

But will it change where people send their cards? It is not likely until vendors/platforms/flippers stop giving PSA a pass. It is not likely to ever happen for PSA not to be #1, but do they deserve the pass they are getting?

[FT35]

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

But will it change where people send their cards? It is not likely until vendors/platforms/flippers stop giving PSA a pass. It is not likely to ever happen for PSA not to be #1, but do they deserve the pass they are getting?

I do not think people will change. Even a class action lawsuit would come up short because PSA literally sells subjectivity.

What I would hope for is that they become a little more objective in how they grade. Take some of that subjectivity and market manipulation out of the process. Recognize that heavily-scrutinized brand new cards are coming in a a higher than 70% gem rate. Modern cards are not that far behind. Average Joe should get the same look as 4SC and so on.

[Cards and 401K]

Yes, PSA sucks, crappy graders QA sucks, plus they tend to ruin great cards by damaging them. Why send in the same cards twice to get it graded correctly. Had 1,000+ graded from 2019 to 2022… since zero again because they suck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SLGSports]

Originally Posted by MyckKabongo

2020s Sports PSA Gem Rate:
July 2024: 53.8%
April 2025: 43%

I'm curious where you got this data from.

[Raleigh504]

Hard to justify sending in anything and even renewing my subscription when there haven't been any good specials for a few months. The value isn't there anymore like it used to be.

[MyckKabongo]

Originally Posted by SLGSports

I'm curious where you got this data from.

GemRate

[kipgen]

Originally Posted by FT35

I do not think people will change. Even a class action lawsuit would come up short because PSA literally sells subjectivity.

What I would hope for is that they become a little more objective in how they grade. Take some of that subjectivity and market manipulation out of the process. Recognize that heavily-scrutinized brand new cards are coming in a a higher than 70% gem rate. Modern cards are not that far behind. Average Joe should get the same look as 4SC and so on.

The objectivity is what companies like Tag offer (visibility into that objective process is of course needed), especially since their grading process is automated and all defects are recorded and shown to you on an individual report

The issue is overcoming the massive deficit they have in market share and brand perception since their slabs sell for less than PSA ones

As it stands now PSA has no reason to improve the service they offer because people just keep submitting cards anyway as a PSA slab provides the greatest potential return based on the grade you get

[jbettis32]

I usually do group sub for my PSA submission, and got back a sub recently for over 80% gem rate which I was expecting for, as I did inspect my cards before sending in, and know the PSA standard though.
For my recent sub, I also checked for the cards in front and behind of mine (use PSA cert #), they were supposedly graded by the same grader with the same lot, and I found those cards were getting <50% gem rate. Therefore, for the lower overall gem rate, will it be due to those beginners for sending the cards thru Game stop or other group sub that they don't have a clue about the PSA standard for grading? I know you still have a chance of getting a crappy grader, but I don't really think the PSA standard in general have been changed too much.

[inaka]

Originally Posted by jbettis32

I usually do group sub for my PSA submission, and got back a sub recently for over 80% gem rate which I was expecting for, as I did inspect my cards before sending in, and know the PSA standard though.

For my recent sub, I also checked for the cards in front and behind of mine (use PSA cert #), they were supposedly graded by the same grader with the same lot, and I found those cards were getting <50% gem rate. Therefore, for the lower overall gem rate, will it be due to those beginners for sending the cards thru Game stop or other group sub that they don't have a clue about the PSA standard for grading? I know you still have a chance of getting a crappy grader, but I don't really think the PSA standard in general have been changed too much.

Personally, I think the part in bold is an assumption that is likely incorrect. Cert numbers, like PSA order numbers, are sequential. So it would be really odd if the cert numbers right after yours from a different order are from the same grader.

If a grader is given your order, and completes it, it seems more likely that the next cert numbers issued would likely be from a different grader who just completed their order by and so on. If sequential cert numbers from different orders were all from the same grader, it would then mean that all grades are completed and then submitted as a batch dump at the end of their shift. That would make no sense to me, and the graders likely just click the grades on a screen card-by-card, and then complete each order-by-order.

I've already seen enough examples from YouTube PSA reveals from very experienced graders that most definitely shows that PSA grading has become far more inconsistent and especially tough on 80s/90s cards and vintage.

[seanbros55]

Originally Posted by Raleigh504

Hard to justify sending in anything and even renewing my subscription when there haven't been any good specials for a few months. The value isn't there anymore like it used to be.

Yeah, but there are those great magazines that I dont even rip the plastic off of before dumping into the recycle bin...