I tend to agree with the other comments posted in response to this question - there is not going to be any universally agreed upon set of "top-tier" journals. But, in the spirit of the conversation…..I offer the following thoughts.
I had a student recently ask about this topic - in not so many words. I pointed out that this is going to depend quite a bit from field to field, and that it is important keep in mind that "top-papers", those that are highly cited or even cited at above average rates, can appear in any journal. With that in mind, I went on to point out that, despite problems with doing so, journal impact factor is often used as a proxy for helping to determine what is a top journal. In 2014, Journal Citation Reports gave impact factors to 11,746 journals. Only 189 had impact factors above 10.00. Towards the top of the list were many listed already in this thread - Nature, Science etc. However, when you take a step back, and look at the top 100 journals, there are some notable journals of relevance to psychology (e.g., Psychology Bulletin is in top 100, Annual Review of Psychology, top 50, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology is in the top 150).
Based on this, I would add these to the top tier journals already listed above.
Some of those listed as "solid" by the OP, might also be considered top tier - Psychological Science is in the top 250 journals, Psychological Review cracks the top 300.
Percentage wise, journals with a top 100 IF represent the top 0.85% of journals in all fields of science. Those in the top 250, represent the top 2.128% of all journals in all fields of science. The top 1,000 journals represent about 8.513% of journals in all fields of science, and this roughly corresponds to an IF of 4.00 or greater……
So, if someone were to ask me, I might suggest that following:
Top 100 to top 150 journals in all fields based on IF = elite
Next 100 to 150 (i.e., rank 101 to rank 300 or so) journals in all fields based on IF = top tier
Next group, ranking roughly between 250/300 to 1,000 journals in all fields based on IF = second tier
And so on, and so on……such that any journal appearing in the top half of all fields would seem to be reasonable (after all, this would still be "above average").
To be fair, and in the interest of full disclosure, should anyone wish to look at these numbers too - I selected both SCIE AND SSCI to be included in a single search/rankings, which means that some journals appear twice because they appear in both searches. I didn't have the time or inclination to try to figure out how to (let alone do it one by one) include both indices, and eliminate duplicates. So, please take these numbers with that grain of salt.
However, for the purposes of the example of keeping in my the "bigger picture", I think these numbers illustrate that reasonably well. My sense is that because we all focus on IF, in the absence of considering it within the data set of journals receiving an IF, we have tendency to lose sight of actually, pretty darn good, all things considered. We also tend to forget that papers that receive few citations over a reasonable period of time (e.g., 3-5 years or so) probably won't be viewed as all that important, even if they appear in an elite or top journal.