Graders to be tougher now?
mexpo75
Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭✭
Do you expect the graders to be even tougher now, given everything which has been going on lately?
PackManInNC
0
mexpo75
Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
If lately is the past 30+ years, then no.
Enjoy the go.
What has been going on is more an issue of detecting "alterations" and "conservation" and not so much an issue of what grade a given card will receive. I would hope the ability to detect "alterations" and "conservation" can improve, but I wouldn't expect the process of determining the number grade itself to change.
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
Very good point.
No need to be tougher, across the board consistency would be fine.
Unfortunately I believe that's exactly what's going to happen. Say you have cards that are slightly undersized from the manufacturer to begin with but still fall within the parameters to be graded by PSA. Considering everything that's going on, they will most likely err on the side of caution and deem them min size or possibly evid of trim. That would say to me that they are tougher across-the-board
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Agreed. How can you be "tougher" if you upheld the standard all along?
Tougher? Not sure why they would need to be tougher. More careful? Maybe.
Certain alterations are undetectable.
My main concern is with legit vending cards that are slightly undersized getting rejected at an even higher rate. Vending is very often a bit undersized, especially for some years like 1971. I have a large sub I'm sitting on at the moment, contemplating what to do. I have several vending cards in there and, though I've filtered out any that are noticeably undersized, I did not measure with a caliper for those that are a micron short. Most are commons, so getting them rejected is painful since their value is relatively low. Worse yet would be getting the dreaded EOT rather than the more appropriate Min Size and having to pay the grading fees and not just the shipping charges.
And this is the bugaboo behind bulk subs - when they speed grade and eyeball card condition, it's easy to consistently brush off anything which "looks" suspect, but the reality is that there are myriad numbers of perfectly nice original manufactured cards which are either slightly short or tall and they still, after ALL THESE YEARS, have set no parameters for the examination of these cards which are legitimate and deserve to be graded, but the inherent fear must be about what is occurring right at this moment - the argument over tampering. So some of them make it into holders and others don't. Y'all can decide how and why that happens.
Enjoy the go.
I was wondering what their current tolerance level is for Min Size, and whether they lower that tolerance level with all the suspected trimming. Do they allow for 1/16" tolerance? Does it depend on the year/issue?
Maybe they switch to zero tolerance for size meaning if it should be 2.5" x 3.5" then anything other than that does not meet standards. Or perhaps they add a new qualifier to indicate there was no evidence of trimming, but the card was a fraction short/wide. Admittedly, this would be harsh for legit undersized cards that came like that from the factory...
Maybe they can offer some middle ground. Actually put the size measurements on the back of the flip. If you can prove that the cards came from vending (purchased through Steve Hart, opened and submitted at a show for instance) etc.
I would expect that these two ladies will not be graders.
>
I recognize this was more joke/jab that flat-out badmouthing, but if I'm going to hold up a standard, I've got to do it in regards to other grading companies as well. As such I have deleted this comment. - Todd Tobias
DesertIceSports.Com
THIS
I know SGC announced they were finished with autograph authentication in order to focus more on jersey authentication and for more strict card grading. I'm thinking to myself "Sooooo, you weren't strict before!?????"
Most of my PSA graded cards are from 1974-79 and are "only" PSA 7's (PSA 8's for 1978-79) so I shouldn't have anything to worry about right? I mean who would bother with any kind of hanky-panky with those kind of cards...right?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Hate to break it to you, but they could be altered.
You are correct in that there would be less monetary reason to "fix" them, but as I have been saying all along sellers have been doing this for YEARS.
I heard and saw it happening in the early 90's. Ordered a card through SCD, a 1964 Killebrew NOT a card worth more than $20.00 at the time. Black background had been touched up.
It's not the fact that Moser trimmed card after card after card and recolored a few and chemically altered a few more that bothers me so. It's that PSA was so woefully inept at catching them. I feel the horses have long left this barn.
No,