PSA Half-Grades: An Open Discussion (aka, What Are They, Really?)
detroitfan2
Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭✭
I did not want to hijack billwaltonsbeard's thread on the comps for half-grades here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1080159/opinions-on-comping-the-value-of-items-with-half-grades
I'm definitely a PSA slappy, but since the day they were introduced, I've always been disappointed with, or at least confused by, PSA's use of the half-grade. The information available from their web-site says the following:
Fair enough, but not extremely detailed. From this description and probably from how other TPGs (notably SGC and BGS) use the half-grade, it was logical to assume that PSA went from a scale that had 10 possible values to one that had 20 (actually 18 since there is no 0.5 or 9.5). In other words, on average, half of all PSA 8's would now be 8.5's.
After seeing many people post their grades from submissions with upwards of a hundred cards with ZERO half-grades, it was clear that the half-grade was reserved for very high end cards within the grade. A quick data check proves that out.
I selected a popularly graded set that was not released until after the half-point grading scale was in existence by PSA (2018 Panini Prizm Basketball). Here is a summary of the grades by PSA and SGC for all cards graded within that set:
Notice that for SGC, it appears that it's essentially a 10 point grading scale cut in half. This is especially evident in the 9.5 and 9 grades, I believe the huge discrepancy between 8.5 and 8 is because the population falls off dramatically as you get below a 9 since this is a modern set.
Then, look at the PSA numbers. Only 454 out of 11578 cards (under 4 %) in the PSA 8 range received a half point bump. Only 17 out of 1209 cards (1.4%) received a bump in the PSA 7 range. To me, this is even more staggering when you consider that for a modern issue that is scrutinized closely by submitters, the population should decrease aggressively as you lower the grade (exactly as the SGC numbers do and as the PSA numbers do as you go from 9 to 8 to 7, ignoring the half grades).
So . . . what is your understanding of how the half-grade works? Is it reserved for the top 2-5 % of cards within a grade, as the numbers show? If so, does that make sense to you?
Either way, the premium for a half-grade should be much more than what sales reflect. I would think half-way between a PSA 8 comp and a PSA 9 comp for a PSA 8.5 would make sense if only 5% of all cards in the PSA 8 range receive the half-point bump, but that is certainly not reflected in sales.
Thoughts?
Comments
My first thoughts were there should be a 9.5. There have been many examples of super nice 9's with a minor flaw and 10's that have print spots that would fit perfectly into a 9.5. PSA could have called it Mint+.
Mathematically, there should be a LOT more cards with a half grade. It seems like most graders are unaware of it, or unwilling to assign them.
My experiences with the half graded cards (usually 7.5's and 8.5's) is there isn't much of a premium placed on them. Of course card prices seem to vary quite a bit even within the same grade depending on many factors.
Love my 8.5s - my favorite grade and well worth the price difference IMO. Used to buy more of them when they first came out because the premium was next to nothing. I have 82 PSA 8.5s, 57 SGC 92s/8.5s and 2 BVG 8.5s. As cards have gone up have been buying them less often than I used to.
I personally believe they are closer to the next grade up than the next grade down.
Not on my computer so my pics are limited but here are a few half grades I happen to have on my IPad.
Sorry Monte didn’t realize the Perez was the screenshot from your post when I bought it. You will recognize a couple of the cards I posted.
Brad…
Yes…I recognize the Perez and Berra. Nice cards and agree that the 1/2 grade is closer to rounding up than rounding down. My favorite grade too…an 8.5!
I really wish half grades were available when I submitted my Brady Contender back in '07. I had missed the cutoff by only a few months. Really thought my Champ Tix had a chance at a 9, but came back as an 8. I think if the half grades were available, it would have come back as an 8.5. My regular Contender got an 8 which I thought was accurate and no where as nice as the Champ Tix.
The .5s are compromise grades given, in my opinion when the "experts" agree to disagree.
Just received nine .5 grades out of 141 cards submitted in their 2021 "Sixties" quarterly grading special.
I was actually pleased with the grades for the most part. A Seaver rookie got a .5 bump that I didn't anticipate, though a couple of other cards came back with a .5 drop that in my opinion was more than a little disappointing.
Perhaps vintage gets a lot more half grades than newer cards.
It's a while ago but my thought when the half-grade came out was it was meant to increase submissions, by having people re-submit cards looking for a bump. It was a smart idea, putting them on the same scale as their competition and getting them a lot more submissions.
Half grades are very significant and needed but it is only a band-aid fix to a grading scale that is simply horrible and needs an immediate overhaul... as in just shitcanning it and taking a bold initiative to just start over. And there lies the problem as there is no incentive to do anything.
I suspect I have lost everyone already in terms of what I wrote and recommend. And if so... fine...live with what seems to be unjust and ridiculous. I have seen enough cards graded at the low end of the spectrum to be convinced beyond doubt that the low to mid range cards just simply do not have enough options to separate what is truly important. There is another thread addressing the 1952 Topps Mantle... there is a PO1 posted within that thread. That image and that grade says it all that there is something really wrong with the grading scale. And this is not the only example and it simply may not be the best example, but it was included in a thread that everyone will likely read and the majority of thos readers will ask the same question... How can this be a PO1? The simple answer is that it is not. And there really must be a better way to identify and grade cards that have withstood the storm of time in a way that sends the right message. I see PO1 as a POS and when I look at this Mantle... unless it looks far, far different in hand... as being a card worthy of something better. And MORE IMPORTANTLY the grading scale should reflect that.
So what is the answer? I really would rather leave that to those that may have a better handle on a scale that would truly accommodate true vintage cards and what makes sense. But a certain place has a highly probable chance of freezing over before that happens. So... if one is going to complain, one has to be part of the solution. I have two suggestions that I see as being worthy of the most serious consideration:
Apply a Sheldon type scale and following it in its current form... starting at PO1 and ending at MS70. Certain cards could just be labelled genuine citing the issue for a no grade. This has been widely accepted in the Numismatic community. While some will argue it is not perfect, it seems to have worked relatively well since TPG entered the scene decades ago.
The other option would be to expand the Sheldon scale to 100. And that was done by a British coin grading service years ago. I think this might have some potential to sports cards given the various production issues and some grades within this spread could be for those production issues that some deplore and others can tolerate. I see a 100 point scale as a new scale that represents the widespread grading concerns associated the sportscards.
I know this was not the reply folks anticipate or want to read. All of what has been suggested will likely never happen in any modified form mainly because there is simply because there is no vested interest in a change that will lead to improvement... which can easily be summed up as a better way to grade, distinguish and describe the state of preservation of sports cards. From where I sit, the current scale will eventually be on life support.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
IMO, it was a way to get cards reviewed. Not designed to start out that way.
I have felt right from the start that a 0-100 scale should have been used.
Defects should be listed and assigned a numerical deduction and that should be linked to the card.
"My" grading company would tell you exactly what problems there were with the card and how many points were deducted for each defect.
Too much work for the graders and never going to happen.
Part of my rational behind doing 100 instead of 70 is to account for production issues that are just that. A card can be mint state and even it the centering is off, tilting or if there are other production concerns whether it be ink or whatever, a 100 point scale allows for a number to be used that more accurately reflects the actual state of preservation for the Sports card. And lets be somewhat serious for moment... should that not be the goal especially with vintage cards that potentially have huge value differences between grades?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I’m confused about the part you copied and pasted about “between PSA 2 and PSA 9.” The 1.5 is very much a thing.
FWIW I had a sub of 31 cards pop recently and 3 were half grades.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
I just got a '68 Ryan that came back as a 1.5 ,and am quite satisfied with the grade. I thought it might not grade or come back 1.0.
As far as using the PCGS 70 scale, collectors have ragged on it for decade, coinkat. If you want a 100 point scale, you can always go across the street and have your cards regraded.
Love the grades or not, PSA's move to utilize the +.5 system may not be perfect, but it's a big improvement upon the whole numbers they used formerly.
Greater precision does not imply greater accuracy.
I feel as if people are missing the point I am trying to make. I think most would agree having the half point grading scale is the right thing. What I have a HUGE problem with is how it is being used. As an example, if out of the last million cards graded, there were 200,000 PSA 9s and 200,000 PSA 8's but only 10,000 PSA 8.5s, as data suggests, then that is more than puzzling.
Someone earlier mentioned that it seems that some graders don't know about or don't use the half-point grading scale. I 100% believe this to be true.
I also thought the half grades were given when the grader and "cross checker" didn't agree on final grade
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
@Daltex
Greater precision in terms of an appropriate grading scale with reasonable options at least creates the foundation for accuracy in grading. Will change be perfect and solve all grading concerns? Lets be honest in that it will not but it will be a significant improvement. Grading has a subjecting component... even with Sports cards.
@detroitfan2
I don't think I missed your point in that my answer simply went in an unanticipated direction... at least from your perspective
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Of course there is a subjective component. Otherwise there would be no resubmissions. Frankly, we've come a long way with TPG in that the subjective nature of grading doesn't make a certain card always EX when a dealer is buying and NM when the dealer is selling.
But it really doesn't create the foundation you think it does. Assume that you submit a card (right now) that has a 70% chance of being graded a 10, a 28% chance of being graded a 9, and a 2% chance of being graded an 8.5. That is, of course, if you submitted that exact card you'd get those grades that percentage of the time. If you (not just @coinkat but any reader) don't have a lot of experience with card submissions, rest assured it is easy to find cards that fit that criteria.
Anyway, this indicates that the card should be graded 9.69. And if precision implied a possible increase in accuracy, then we'd get the 9.69 every time, or at least 90% 9.7 and 10% 9.6. But recall that there is not even an overwhelming consensus today to round that to 10, which would be the "accurate" grade today. If now 70% of the time the graders get it "right", do we really think it is likely that more than 70% of the time this card will come back a 9.7, much less a 9.69?
Of course the more possible grades the more possible revenue for the grading services for cards that people are just sure are 9.8s but keep coming back 9.6 or 9.7. The more possible grades you have, the more difficult it is to write detailed descriptions to distinguish between them.
Many graders effectively ignore the half grade option entirely. I've seen several hundred card subs without a single half grade designated.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
It is the job of the authenticator to apply the technical standards to a card and assign it a grade.
It is the job of the consumer and marketplace at large to decide the actual value of a card.
With every card at every graded level, there is some allowable variation: not every ten is equal and not every one is equal, either. Sure, this creates problems but it also creates opportunities. I have tried to build my collection on this principle, looking for cards where your eyes are drawn to the card first and then your mind is left wondering if maybe the grade assigned was a little too low…
…because, ultimately, when dealing with lower to mid grade cards it is those cards that are deemed the “best looking” have tended to be the most desirable in the long run.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
My fave half dollar........
Exactly. Why this isn't a huge issue within the graded card collecting community is puzzling to me.
Being 100% perfect at detecting doctored cards -> not easy.
Ensuring that the half-point grading scale is used properly OR is explained as something that is reserved for the top 5% of cards within a grade -> very easy.
@daltex
Accuracy is not just about one card but it extends to the question of consistency in terms of cards similarly situated. Go back to the Mantle card thread and look at the two PR1 graded Mantles... both of these cannot be PR1. I hope that we can at least agree on that
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
That was my understanding too.
This is good feedback, and at least 3 people have this understanding. I have never heard this explanation before, so it would be interesting to know if there is any truth to it.
If this is really how it is used, I'm not even sure where to begin.
I like'em
It’s for the review process to make More revenue other than the crack out game. I only say this as it’s hard to get a .5 on a regular sub.
A half point card (below) that probably got it for the stated PSA reasoning - the really good centering.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Love 1/2 point grades especially 8.5’s.
That was not how they presented it when it was first introduced.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
PSA didn't even have half grades when I submitted cards to them 20 years ago. I just submitted 20 cards in the mail today from the 60's and 70's topps vending to see what happens. I was thinking of sending some of the cards they did 20 years ago for a second look and reholder even if they don't move up. Are they still as tough on grading as they were years ago? I'm seeing a lot of psa 8's with bent corners on ebay. I mostly have 60's and 70's cards. Did anyone ever send any cards back to them for a second look? Was it worth it? Thanks, Dan