Are PSA slab "bumpers" consistent in their dimensions?

[SLGSports]

When shopping online, I'm wondering if I can rely on distance between PSA bumpers to determine dimensions of a card. Sometimes I see a card in an old PSA slab and I'm tempted to purchase and get it reholdered... but I've heard PSA checks dimensions when they do it and it may come back "min size".

[rnocards]

If you buy a card in an old PSA slab, and want to get it reholdered, I don't see how they could justify downgrading it to a minsize, if it was already previously holdered.

I've had raw cards come back as minsize, and it's frustrating, but I've never had a reholder submission come back as minsize.

[towerymt]

There are different internal dimensions across different PSA holders intended to hold the same standard size cards. You can't rely on the size of the gap between card and internal bumper, unless you can ID the code on the holder....and know how that holder is sized

[towerymt]

Here's a good illustration of the differences:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1333857

----------

I also have some personal experience with the rather large gap between the card and the internal bumper. This card was graded in the '90s and the gap was so large that the card was able to move around a lot. When I bought this PSA-9 '94 SP A-Rod, the holder was pretty beat up, cosmetically. It had been circulating around different owners, I assume.

The card was dented....you can see the raised area in the white background of the card. I think this could have easily happened just from being shipped from one owner to another. The holder wasn't chipped or cracked, but could have been dropped at some point as well.



I sent this to PSA for review -- didn't fell good about selling it as a PSA-9, but the value of a 9 at the time had gone from ~$75 when I bought this card to ~$400...so I was thinking about selling it.

PSA determined the card was damaged during the initial encapsulation (). They did not agree, nor did they state that the card was damaged because of the holder not protecting the card from movement. They dropped the grade to PSA-6 and paid me out the difference. At that time I think they valued a 9 at 375 or 400 and they valued a 6 at 25, so I got a check from PSA for the difference. I did not question their decision! Great result for me.

PSA sent the card back to me and gave me the option of receiving the card raw, or in a PSA-6 holder, so I requested for it to be holdered and that's how they returned it to me. The check followed a few weeks later.

I would not bet on this being the default outcome for a dented card like this.
I would not buy a dented card at a discount, hoping for PSA to pay out.
I would suggest looking closely at any card that shows a large gap between the internal bumper and the card, because the card might be damaged.

[rnocards]

Originally Posted by towerymt

PSA determined the card was damaged during the initial encapsulation (). They did not agree, nor did they state that the card was damaged because of the holder not protecting the card from movement.

I wonder why they've decided to use Mylar inner sleeves if they do not acknowledge that cards can get damaged due to their holders not protecting the card from movement. It appears that the use of inner sleeves is precisely to protect against such problems due to movement. It's a way to shift blame away from their holders.

But, they are inconsistent in their use of these sleeves, which apparently seems random or arbitrary. They also do not care about a side problem that I've noticed with some of these sleeves, an aesthetic public image problem, which they regard as unimportant compared to the more important physical protection that these sleeves offer.

In regards to the inconsistency, this is what I mean:

Compare these same sized cards (standard size 2.5" x 3.5", 35pt), with one graded after the other:
https://www.psacard.com/cert/123799334/psa
https://www.psacard.com/cert/123799335/psa
No sleeve was used on the Huff, but a sleeve was used on the Rodgers... Why? Also, different slabs were used... Why? It seems arbitrary, and when I brought this up to PSA, this was their response:

"The determination of the appropriate holder, as well as the application of Mylar, is based on the specific physical characteristics of the item, including its length, width, and thickness. These variations play a crucial role in selecting the best protective enclosure. Our sealing team makes the final decision on the holder type and whether an item requires Mylar."

It sounds like a nice reply, but it doesn't actually answer the question as to why the same sized cards (2.5" x 3.5", 35pt) required two different holders and two different methods of protection. If it was a clear difference in size, then that would be understandable, but these two cards are the same standard size.

In regards to the aesthetic problem, I brought this up in another thread. The back image of this card looks awful with that sleeve in place:
https://www.psacard.com/cert/123799319/psa
When I brought this up to them, they basically did not care, because they regarded the protection that the sleeve offered to that card was more important than what the public cert image showed. In my opinion, since this card is a PSA 2, there isn't much else to protect... lol . I mean, they're trying to protect it from going further down to a PSA 1, which at this point, contrary to PSA's opinion, I say the aesthetic public image of the card is more important than whatever else protection that sleeve can offer.

[Cardsandcoffee]

Originally Posted by rnocards

I wonder why they've decided to use Mylar inner sleeves if they do not acknowledge that cards can get damaged due to their holders not protecting the card from movement. It appears that the use of inner sleeves is precisely to protect against such problems due to movement. It's a way to shift blame away from their holders.

But, they are inconsistent in their use of these sleeves, which apparently seems random or arbitrary. They also do not care about a side problem that I've noticed with some of these sleeves, an aesthetic public image problem, which they regard as unimportant compared to the more important physical protection that these sleeves offer.

In regards to the inconsistency, this is what I mean:

Compare these same sized cards (standard size 2.5" x 3.5", 35pt), with one graded after the other:
https://www.psacard.com/cert/123799334/psa
https://www.psacard.com/cert/123799335/psa
No sleeve was used on the Huff, but a sleeve was used on the Rodgers... Why? Also, different slabs were used... Why? It seems arbitrary, and when I brought this up to PSA, this was their response:

"The determination of the appropriate holder, as well as the application of Mylar, is based on the specific physical characteristics of the item, including its length, width, and thickness. These variations play a crucial role in selecting the best protective enclosure. Our sealing team makes the final decision on the holder type and whether an item requires Mylar."

It sounds like a nice reply, but it doesn't actually answer the question as to why the same sized cards (2.5" x 3.5", 35pt) required two different holders and two different methods of protection. If it was a clear difference in size, then that would be understandable, but these two cards are the same standard size.

In regards to the aesthetic problem, I brought this up in another thread. The back image of this card looks awful with that sleeve in place:
https://www.psacard.com/cert/123799319/psa
When I brought this up to them, they basically did not care, because they regarded the protection that the sleeve offered to that card was more important than what the public cert image showed. In my opinion, since this card is a PSA 2, there isn't much else to protect... lol . I mean, they're trying to protect it from going further down to a PSA 1, which at this point, contrary to PSA's opinion, I say the aesthetic public image of the card is more important than whatever else protection that sleeve can offer.

I have asked Ryan Hoge about the issue with the oversized holders with mylar sheets, on vintage cards.

He told me, "if you see cards out there with the mylar sheet, it was due to operator error or we happened to be out of stock on the appropriate holder size, which is unlikely".

I was asking specifically about 1952-56 Topps baseball but he said, at no cost, "you can create a CRC request to have them reholdered".

I have yet to submit a request for any vintage I own with the mylar sheeting due to the immense backlog and prolonged wait times at PSA but this was what I was told. I hope this adds some helpful information

[rnocards]

Originally Posted by Cardsandcoffee

I have asked Ryan Hoge about the issue with the oversized holders with mylar sheets, on vintage cards.

He told me, "if you see cards out there with the mylar sheet, it was due to operator error or we happened to be out of stock on the appropriate holder size, which is unlikely".

I was asking specifically about 1952-56 Topps baseball but he said, at no cost, "you can create a CRC request to have them reholdered".

I have yet to submit a request for any vintage I own with the mylar sheeting due to the immense backlog and prolonged wait times at PSA but this was what I was told. I hope this adds some helpful information

Thanks. Do you by any chance have an online link to where Hoge said this, so that I can read the full context?

His mentioning of a no cost CRC request for reholdering seems to contradict an email response I received from Collectors Rep Jasmin, who referred to this situation as falling under a "paid reholder service", because it "does not fall under our standard Quality Assurance review".

One is saying the reholder is free, the other is saying it's not free. Perhaps, if I read the full context of Hoge's response, I can quote him back to Jasmin.

Interesting that what Hoge said about Mylar usage being operator error or out of stock on appropriate holders, was never mentioned in Jasmin's reply to me. Her response is basically that PSA determines the use of Mylar on length, width, and thickness, and not because they are in error or that they are out of stock on the right holders. And she capped her response by basically saying that PSA knows best. I got nothing but a canned response from her, and no actual engagement with my argument that the same sized cards were being holdered differently.