Options
Can anyone point to the change in PSA grading? Was there a material change to standards in writing?
ScoobyDoo2
Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭
B/c clearly this PSA 2 is far more attractive in every single aspect to grading and worth more to the collector condition wise than the following PSA 4....
5
Comments
My gosh. I am just noticing the surface dots and mustache on the PSA 4 ~ dotting all over the collar....
At some point the "recreational hobby" became a "huge money business" and thus the obvious transition from the older Cert. # to the PSA 2.... good legit questions.
Anything starting with a ‘6’ definitely seems to be at a different standard (and I gave a ton of 6’s).
If I believed in conspiracy theories it would be an easy leap to believe this will change back and then PSA gets a bunch of re-grades when things go back to how they used to be. Money coming and going.
But I’m not a conspiracy theorist so there’s no way that’s true…
I understand that one was graded more recently as shown by the advanced technology flip, but both were graded after PSA started using the .5 scale.
This was my point in another post. Sometimes common sense needs to come into play. There is no doubt that the first one is heads and tails better than the second on. the second one looks like a 3. this first one should at least be 4.5 .
Back scans?
I was going to say the same thing.
I’m not convinced that grading standards have changed. Eye appeal and technical grade have always been 2 separate things.
Edit to add: for the most part, in my recent subs, I’ve had some items grade higher than I expected and some grade lower. And I realize my grading eye isn’t perfect to begin with.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Could be paper loss we can't see on the front or paper loss on the back?
Eye appeal can vary greatly in lower grades. Even a 5 can vary greatly. I have mint looking cards that were downgraded to a 5 because of a surface wrinkle. I frankly think they deduct too much for surface wrinkles that can only be seen at an angle in bright light. However, that's been the case for at least the last 20 years when I've been submitting cards.
Outrageous. That is not a 2. And that's an overgraded 4.
This makes me really nervous about my sub.
In my opinion...serial numbers beginning with 0xxxxxxx, 1xxxxxxx, 3xxxxxxxx and early 2xxxxxxx were graded looser than later grading beginning with 4xxxxxxx, 5xxxxxxx, 6xxxxxxx, and currently 7xxxxxxx. There are nice examples in early grading worthy of the assigned grade, no doubt, but a collector/investor needs to look carefully at these early grades to determine if the assigned grade is justified.
front of the card is only 1/2 the story on technical grade.
Take this T-206 for example. I picked it up as the colors were vibrant and corners and edges were near perfect. However there was back damage. Apologies as I don't have the back scan handy
All boils down to buy the card not the flip.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
I think some , if not many, of the new graders (for vintage) go in looking for flaws. And I mean really , really looking for anything imperfect in the cards they grade. And with the help of AI and better scopes they will find them.
I recently sent three 3 PSA 9 1972 #445 Seaver's for regrade. Two came back 8, one 7. A 1977 #150 Seaver 9 for regrade came back a 6. A 1973 #350 Seaver 9 for regrade came back 8. Thought they had a chance of a 10. All cracked out for regrading. No kidding...AI technology is being used IMO.
Wow. Not sure what to say about this. But I will say that the cardboard issues are lowering the cards in my opinion. Any flaw in the cardboard lowers the card to a 7 or 8 instantly.
With their new tech, they appear to be using modern card standards for vintage. A 2023 topps chrome should not be held at the same standard as a 1964 topps.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
You cracked out three PSA 9 1972 Seavers?! Cojones.
I accept that vintage cards are being graded harshly right now. But at the same time, I keep seeing newly graded PSA 9s on eBay with very noticeable corner wear. Hard to understand.
Yes, I agree. My regrades were in the "6" serial numbers. I've noticed more vintage 9's as well with corner issues currently available but mostly from the "7" serial number series. So I can guess perhaps they let up on the AI grading a bit?
@fmclaug11 ...... back scan for you~~PSA 2 only
And it's not like you can go to SGC to get accurate vintage grading.
The kids grading over there are so reverent to shiny, refractory ultramodern, that vintage doesn't measure up in their eyes, so the grades suffer.
SGC 1.5 standards: "Centered 90/10 or better. This card usually exhibits several of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tears, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss, a small portion of the card may be missing."
"SEVERAL."
Yeah, I know, no back pics, but when I think 1.5, I think of a card that's pretty beat up.
I think we know what Chaz would say.
There would have to be multiple hidden defects for this card to be a "2". I don’t understand. Perhaps a "mechanical" error in getting grade into the system, like a typo? My sevens can look like twos when handwritten.
Back looks pretty good…only other thing I noticed on the front after a second look is what appears to possibly be a pin hole or perhaps an indentation (as it doesn’t appear to go thru to the back)? I suppose that could bring it down to a 2. Nice looking 2 regardless.
When we look at a road map, there's no nuance, we will all agree that US 10 goes east from San Antonio to Houston.
IMO, grading is subject to all kinds of "subjective" factors and one that's human? How does one "feel" today?
I'll bet if I gave any grader from any company 100 cards and had them grade them on Monday?
And then give them the "same" 100 cards on Wednesday? I'm willing to bet that I won't get the same results.
Isn't this something we all kind of think and just have to accept when sending our cards to be graded?
SGC has been tough lately too. I have sent in a few submissions and they seem to have tightened up their standards.