Видео

Thanks for watching and paying attention to details! I believe I made the video before eBay changed the condition description requirements a little while back. And you are correct - 'see scan' won't work any more. So being a little bit conscientious of what the condition of your cards are, you now need to populate the top row (the parent item) column for 'CD:Card Condition - (ID:40001)' with one of the accepted condition values. They should be: Near mint or better - (ID:400010) Excellent - (ID: 400011) Very good - (ID: 400012) Poor - (ID: 400013) I believe that this is a field where you only need to populate the top row, but if you try this and it doesn't work, then fill it in for all the variations. I hope this helps!

@@jbscardshow I appreciate the response unfortunately when I run add verify it gives me a lot of errors. One day when you have time maybe make an updated video. Maybe just me but seems like quite a few things are different but I’m gonna try it again thank you.

I basically will only do BGS with subgrade now or PSA with graders notes. At least you aren't guessing wtf mood grader was in

thanks for watching and glad that it helped!

Fair point! Thanks for wathcing!

Thanks! Held that one for a while and it was totally worth it!

Definitely a believer that they control the pop on certain cards - I remember watching a video a while back on a guy that analyzed the 93 SP Jeter count. I've got mixed feelings on AI, but am definitely a believer in some sort of technology aided grading.

Don't forget 6 to 8, lol!

Hard to argue against that sentiment. Their grading system is intentionally subjective, though. Part of the game 😕

Thanks!

Can't argue with that sentiment! Thanks for watching - hope you enjoyed!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching! Hopefully I'll have a little more time over the summer to get some more out.

LOL - consider me more educated now. I knew the name, didn't know all that, though! I think he got that specific card as a gift when he was younger (sentimental value), and on the fly I wasn't sure if that was Rocky's RC or not. Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for the sentiment! Hope you watched the later video where I re-submitted some of the cards.

All good, brother! I've got some footage I'm slowly working on for a couple more vids. I've just been super busy with my 9-5 and kids' sports teams, lol. Hopefully soon!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching, and really appreciate the comment! I just try to have fun and enjoy.

I love the old BVG labels - I can't recall when they eliminated subs off the vintage stuff. While Beckett might not grade as harsh on the vintage, I honestly think that they might be the most accurate. A 5 should be a 5, not a 4. I don't hesitate to grab BVG labels for my PC. For that matter, I also like the original GAI stuff too...

@@jbscardshow Late 2005 they quit using sub grades. I have a 71 Pete Maravich card graded by BGS in 2000 which was two years before BVG. A Staubach rookie in a BGS 8 recently sold for just 1200 bucks. What a steal that was. Before BVG Beckett was notoriously tough on cards.

@@landanwoodard7569 Awesome - thanks for the info! 100% agree

Thanks for watching! Really appreciate the feedback and opinions as well. I definitely am guilty of rushing sometimes (though I don't hesitate to admit it!). I've found that most of the time I'm off with my grade it's a straight up miss or a subjectivity issue (ie: "I saw that corner, I just thought it made it a 7, not a 5" lol). If I were to be more serious, I'd definitely look at getting a setup like yours. At this point I've just got one of those magnifying glasses with an LED light on it. And that only gets used some of the time...

It's a hard pill to swallow for sure. Interesting news recently with Beckett dropping their pricing.

Hard to argue against some days...

None whatsoever - many folks' biggest criticism of the industry in general.

@@jbscardshow they actually are going to now... only on the upper tiers. Regular bulk and on specials,,, NO But they will be giving grader notes for the premium tiers.

@@williampotts7205 Thanks for the update - definitely an interesting development!

This is it. How they get away with not doing this makes me question why people pay them for their "opinion". The problem is that it is an opinion and there is no way for PSA to know if the slab was cracked and resent for regrading. It's all too subjective for me.

@@spmacdonald precisely why I don't and wouldn't ever collected graded cards. the same cards graded a 10 that sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars you can find the same looking card for 5 or 10 bucks lol.well some maybe 20 or 30 bucks depending on which card. now I will say you may have to spend some serious time going through tons of listings inspecting everything but perfectly centered raws are out there for cheap with perfect sharp corners. and from an eye appeal looking at the card standpoint there is NO difference from the 5 dollar raw on ebay to the 900 dollar "PSA 10" ... this is the reality. I have bought plenty of perfectly centered with sharp corner raws on ebay for dirt cheap where the "PSA 10" sells for 100x more.

Thanks for sticking it out! This was an earlier video of mine - still figuring things out on it. Hopefully I've gotten better already (check out some of my more recent reveals!) but I know I'll always have room to improve. While I try to make things flow a little better, one thing I'll always probably end up doing is talking about the cards, though - that's just me. Oh also - all my reveals are blind so sometimes the order of them is just what it is.

Thanks for watching and really appreciate the insight on the Bourque! It is not a card I am terribly familiar with (now if you'd like to discuss the 1982 Donruss Cal Ripken Jr - that's a different story, lol). Where on a sheet was Ray at? Typically, cards that have centering issues were near corners (1979 Ozzie Smith for example). We are in agreement on the Pete!

@@jbscardshow well I finally broke down sent in two submissions at 14.99. to think I used to get bulk rates at 7.99. between the two submissions it's 158 cards total virtually all vintage hockey and most of them commons. I'm talking 62 through 79. Mostly 69 through 74. I shudder to think what I might get under this new regime however historically I have had good luck picking cards out to be graded.

@@garygor1960 Best of luck!!!! Man, I remember those good old days. When I started subbing, Beckett came to my LCS and it was $7/sub given to them right there.

@@jbscardshow I was just looking through my old submission history I had one submission of 350 cards and many over 200 cards. Some awesome stuff. All vintage.

On this one I actually did look at a lot of them under magnification, though I generally just eyeball them. I've been subbing for 13 years, and typically do ok IF I take my time. I obviously miss some things like we all do, but most of my misses fall into a subjectivity argument. That being said my real loose rule of thumb is that I break even on value if the card gets the lowest grade I think possible. On this sub for example, 8s might just cover grading, 9s I was in the black and 10s solid wins. Additionally, I think I've only spent more than $20/card on a sub once or twice - I sub cheap. I am not sweating needing a 10 on a $100 sub to make value. Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching and subscribing. Best of luck on your cards!

@@jbscardshow thanks! 🤞

I couldn't believe when they stopped taking submissions - million+ card backlogs. I've been subbing for 13 years and couldn't wrap my head around the volume, and like you said - what folks were sending in. I've picked up collections that have cards that were actually sent back to customers because of the price increases - and seriously tons of stuff not worth grading.

My biggest criticism ... And FYI I think that the root of the problem is the baked in subjectivity of grading scales. Solution would be clearly defined and objective grading aspects along with technology aided grading (I'm not sold on complete AI or computer grading) Thanks for watching!