@olb31 said:
Topps paid about .000001 cent per cardboard on each card, and PSA thinks the cardboard should be perfect. Wow. The magnifying angle above, I believe is the answer. When used on today's cards not big deal, but on 50 year old cards, deafening.
Right... there is no person with perfect skin...i.e. always freckles, moles etc...at any rate grading will ALWAYS be in the eye of the beholder...also depends on their mood that day for sure...
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The Registry is being rebuilt, from what’s been said by PSA management. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but the basic gist is the current software system was ahead of its time at the start of the Registry but at this point in time, now it’s like the equivalent of trying to update the original iPhone out of a box to the current iPhone software, with none of the numerous upgrade steps in between. The current registry still crashes often, it’s too hard to update properly, it’s become tougher and slower to navigate over time and it seems like it can’t handle the number of images OR visitors. Analagous to a stadium in its last year before replacement, I don’t think PSA is putting any further significant investment or effort into the current venue but just the necessary maintenance to keep it up and running. And again, this has been stated publicly by the company in some of their press releases and interviews.
To be completely clear, this next bit is just speculation and opinion on my part, reading the tea leaves and such. So with respect to the SGC deal, I still think it was mainly completed to keep SGC out of the hands of the Fanatics Group; they’re moving hard on the industry by acquiring the card companies and the group has a penchant for trying for monopolistic control. See their Topps acquisition deal, their repeated attempts at cutting the legs off the Panini group and their FANATICS FEST that is basically designed to be direct competition with National (see autograph lineup) to be held at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City this August. Given the splash they’re trying to make and the way they enter markets, I would not be surprised to see them launch some type of grading service of their own by the time of or at this event. Again, just speculation on my part.
With respect to the purpose of the acquisition, I also think SGC will be improved to be more PSA like from a business perspective. A cleanup of the population report, a Registry, and other symbiotic improvements. In theory, you could potentially submit to both brands through either company and have walk up service in NJ, Florida and CA. And, obviously, you now have the two most established and respected brands under one holding company and the synergies created will make grading more consistent across the brands, increase profitability and with the establishment of a proper SGC registry will probably serve to increase the long term popularity of SGC.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I betcha some of the lowered grades vs. expectations have been happening because of surface issues which used to be overlooked, such as tiny wrinkles and divots. Or fuzzy corners which can only be viewed at 100X through a telescope. I just betcha.
Aren't there SOME surface things that are natural in the manufacturing process of the card?
Grading should never account for manufacturing flaws. The inherent problem, IF my suspicions are correct, is that there are cards already graded and holdered which now don't fit the qualifications so many have identified as being stricter than before.
are there flawed processes??? also why change the standards...a pound is still a pound...a kilogram is still a kilogram...metrics have standards that never change
@PaulMaul said:
I don’t really get what the point would be to compete against themselves in that way. In fact, I don’t see why they would try to increase the profile of SGC at all, or even keep it active long term.
I agree and I like SGC as much as PSA. It was a defensive move to stop Fanatics from acquiring them. Now Fanatics has to start from scratch, not be in that part of the sports card market or buy Collectors Universe. The EBay Vault deal makes buying Collectors Universe almost impossible as their revenue from EBay sales from the vault will be a huge growth driver and Fanatics wants to sell from their own platforms.
TAG perhaps? Still their process might be just as vicious to vintage for grades.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I betcha some of the lowered grades vs. expectations have been happening because of surface issues which used to be overlooked, such as tiny wrinkles and divots. Or fuzzy corners which can only be viewed at 100X through a telescope. I just betcha.
Aren't there SOME surface things that are natural in the manufacturing process of the card?
Grading should never account for manufacturing flaws. The inherent problem, IF my suspicions are correct, is that there are cards already graded and holdered which now don't fit the qualifications so many have identified as being stricter than before.
are there flawed processes??? also why change the standards...a pound is still a pound...a kilogram is still a kilogram...metrics have standards that never change
I will try my best to make sense of this. The craziest example I can offer is, if there's a fisheye on Mickey's nose and it looks like a 3rd nostril, but everything and I mean EVERYTHING else about the card equals GEM MINT 10, it's not necessarily a 10. It can't be. There's a flaw and it's right there on his face. Now, as we also know, grading is purely objective because only a tiny fraction of the human race is professionally capable of mandating an opinion. But, the manufacturer put that 3rd nostril on Mick and the grading company is not obligated to overlook it just because the rest of the card is presumably perfect.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I betcha some of the lowered grades vs. expectations have been happening because of surface issues which used to be overlooked, such as tiny wrinkles and divots. Or fuzzy corners which can only be viewed at 100X through a telescope. I just betcha.
Aren't there SOME surface things that are natural in the manufacturing process of the card?
Grading should never account for manufacturing flaws. The inherent problem, IF my suspicions are correct, is that there are cards already graded and holdered which now don't fit the qualifications so many have identified as being stricter than before.
A diamond with a flaw is worth a lot less than a flawless diamond. You're pretty much saying anything that comes straight out of a pack should be a 10.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The Registry is being rebuilt, from what’s been said by PSA management. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but the basic gist is the current software system was ahead of its time at the start of the Registry but at this point in time, now it’s like the equivalent of trying to update the original iPhone out of a box to the current iPhone software, with none of the numerous upgrade steps in between. The current registry still crashes often, it’s too hard to update properly, it’s become tougher and slower to navigate over time and it seems like it can’t handle the number of images OR visitors. Analagous to a stadium in its last year before replacement, I don’t think PSA is putting any further significant investment or effort into the current venue but just the necessary maintenance to keep it up and running. And again, this has been stated publicly by the company in some of their press releases and interviews.
To be completely clear, this next bit is just speculation and opinion on my part, reading the tea leaves and such. So with respect to the SGC deal, I still think it was mainly completed to keep SGC out of the hands of the Fanatics Group; they’re moving hard on the industry by acquiring the card companies and the group has a penchant for trying for monopolistic control. See their Topps acquisition deal, their repeated attempts at cutting the legs off the Panini group and their FANATICS FEST that is basically designed to be direct competition with National (see autograph lineup) to be held at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City this August. Given the splash they’re trying to make and the way they enter markets, I would not be surprised to see them launch some type of grading service of their own by the time of or at this event. Again, just speculation on my part.
With respect to the purpose of the acquisition, I also think SGC will be improved to be more PSA like from a business perspective. A cleanup of the population report, a Registry, and other symbiotic improvements. In theory, you could potentially submit to both brands through either company and have walk up service in NJ, Florida and CA. And, obviously, you now have the two most established and respected brands under one holding company and the synergies created will make grading more consistent across the brands, increase profitability and with the establishment of a proper SGC registry will probably serve to increase the long term popularity of SGC.
Synergy = Layoffs
It's a Vile Evil term IMHO
LOL - It doesn’t have to be but yes it’s connotation has changed.
I meant more with respect to processes as opposed to staffing.
As a silly and perhaps outdated example, I stopped using SGC when I had to literally call them and ask them to add things that they graded to their population report. These were semi high value, low pop items and it was disconcerting enough for my to not use them since.
I imagine PSA could automate that process, as theirs most definitely is automatic to the point of predictable.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I betcha some of the lowered grades vs. expectations have been happening because of surface issues which used to be overlooked, such as tiny wrinkles and divots. Or fuzzy corners which can only be viewed at 100X through a telescope. I just betcha.
Aren't there SOME surface things that are natural in the manufacturing process of the card?
Grading should never account for manufacturing flaws. The inherent problem, IF my suspicions are correct, is that there are cards already graded and holdered which now don't fit the qualifications so many have identified as being stricter than before.
A diamond with a flaw is worth a lot less than a flawless diamond. You're pretty much saying anything that comes straight out of a pack should be a 10.
Perhaps I could have worded it differently. Grading should not be held accountable for manufacturing flaws.
I wish everything that came from a pack was a 10. Had some much better luck with vending boxes, though.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I betcha some of the lowered grades vs. expectations have been happening because of surface issues which used to be overlooked, such as tiny wrinkles and divots. Or fuzzy corners which can only be viewed at 100X through a telescope. I just betcha.
Aren't there SOME surface things that are natural in the manufacturing process of the card?
Grading should never account for manufacturing flaws. The inherent problem, IF my suspicions are correct, is that there are cards already graded and holdered which now don't fit the qualifications so many have identified as being stricter than before.
are there flawed processes??? also why change the standards...a pound is still a pound...a kilogram is still a kilogram...metrics have standards that never change
I will try my best to make sense of this. The craziest example I can offer is, if there's a fisheye on Mickey's nose and it looks like a 3rd nostril, but everything and I mean EVERYTHING else about the card equals GEM MINT 10, it's not necessarily a 10. It can't be. There's a flaw and it's right there on his face. Now, as we also know, grading is purely objective because only a tiny fraction of the human race is professionally capable of mandating an opinion. But, the manufacturer put that 3rd nostril on Mick and the grading company is not obligated to overlook it just because the rest of the card is presumably perfect.
yeah standards were written to be universal from the get go...if and when standards somehow change then it can do more harm than good...like what would happen if the bureau of weights and measures suddenly says a foot is 12.1 inchs and a kilogram is 2.3 lbs instead of 2.205 lbs....once a standard is determined it should remain a standard it would seem...plus i don't think PSA changed the standards but they could be misinterpreting the standards such that under grading was occurring frequently and mystifying the collectors...
Grading has always been wildly inconsistent. PSA supposedly has one grading standard that they apply equally to a T206 and a 2024 Topps card. Realistically there have always been several standards - as PSA grew and hired new people it was impossible to train to the various standards that evolved over time. What really needs to be done is three grading standards pre-war, vintage and ultra modern. Effectively PSA behaved that way but couldn’t maintain that with growth.
I know everyone says, "buy the card, not the holder", but if I like a vintage (1957 football) SGC card that is graded 6.5 would value go down if SGC is laid to rest?
@mexpo75 said:
I know everyone says, "buy the card, not the holder", but if I like a vintage (1957 football) SGC card that is graded 6.5 would value go down if SGC is laid to rest?
Not necessarily. Depending on the player and how hard that card is to find in higher grades.
A "low demand" card might be harder to sell in the future if SGC goes away.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
PSA can buy all the grading companies and it still wouldn't stop Fanatics from getting into grading. They're going to take over every aspect of the hobby.
I don't know how the law works but could they start their own grading company and then make the cards that they design,produce and market as Proprietary? Make it so it would be unlawful for any other grading company to encase,grade and put their name and or logo on the card.
It would be like buying a used BMW off a BMW lot. It's certified by BMW. It's not certified by Kia or Ford,etc.
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
Often people are paying 25 bucks to grade cards that are worth less than a dollar. People are buying the holder.
Luis Robert 2020 Topps, 18k PSA 10s, 18K PSA 9s, 38k total graded. At 25 dollars each that's 950k in grading fees. For cards that have a market cap right now of, optimistically, about 180k dollars.
Fanatics is coming for the entire hobby just like they did the merchandising of every sport and team in America. There's no stopping it and they're going to leave a trail of destruction.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them buy PSA. Especially since PSA has the largest market share like Topps did. PSA to Goldin is not that different than Fanatics doing their own grading. PSA can try to beat them but the more likely scenario sees them getting bought.
Fanatics owns an auction house (was called PWCC until yesterday). PSA owned Goldin until they traded it to EBay for their vault and the ability to list straight from grading. It is just 3 big players - Ebay, Collectors Hnivere and the ultimate Goliath Fanatics.
PSA is PSA on eBay. PWCC was banned from Ebay and on the brink of bankruptcy - Fanatics bought them and bailed them out. Fanatics got rid of the old ownership and management. PSA owned Goldin for a few years now Ebay owns Goldin. The eBay vault is now the PSA vault. PSA sold Goldin to eBay and eBay sold the vault to PSA - PSA now lets people sell their freshly graded cards or vaulted cards on eBay with PSA as the seller. You can elect to have your cards auctioned on eBay instead of sent back to you.
@BBBrkrr said:
I wonder how long until PSA shuts down SGC and offers a 'discount' to get cards reslabbed into the PSA holder.
Won't (or I should say shouldn't) happen at the same grade. That's why people submit to SGC in the first place. Diluting PSA's brand would be a colossal mistake on CU's part.
Just look at the thread where someone here conducted an experiment by cracking out PSA cards and sending them to SGC. The overall grade inflation was staggering. That's all you need to see to understand that straight crossing SGC cards to PSA at the same grade makes no sense. It would be like BGS crossing BCCG cards to BGS at the same grade.
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.
That doesn't sound so bad. Kind of surprising to see what people choose to sell through PSA. Only 2300 items.
I wonder what Fanatics is going to do with PWCC. I assume when you say they bought PWCC, the web site is mostly what they bought? Or did they have a physical location that Fanatics took over?
@BBBrkrr said:
I wonder how long until PSA shuts down SGC and offers a 'discount' to get cards reslabbed into the PSA holder.
Won't (or I should say shouldn't) happen at the same grade. That's why people submit to SGC in the first place. Diluting PSA's brand would be a colossal mistake on CU's part.
Just look at the thread where someone here conducted an experiment by cracking out PSA cards and sending them to SGC. The overall grade inflation was staggering. That's all you need to see to understand that straight crossing SGC cards to PSA at the same grade makes no sense. It would be like BGS crossing BCCG cards to BGS at the same grade.
Why is the assumption that PSA is the "correct" grade and SGC is the "inflated" grade?
It's possible and also likely the SGC was the correct grade and PSA was the undergraded.
The few that I've sent to SGC, I haven't received any inflated grades, but I've sure received some woefully undergraded cards from PSA.
And there are plenty of YouTube vids of people cracking out PSAs and resubbing them back to PSA and getting "inflated" grades returned.
Likening SGC to BCCG is BS.
@BBBrkrr said:
I wonder how long until PSA shuts down SGC and offers a 'discount' to get cards reslabbed into the PSA holder.
Won't (or I should say shouldn't) happen at the same grade. That's why people submit to SGC in the first place. Diluting PSA's brand would be a colossal mistake on CU's part.
Just look at the thread where someone here conducted an experiment by cracking out PSA cards and sending them to SGC. The overall grade inflation was staggering. That's all you need to see to understand that straight crossing SGC cards to PSA at the same grade makes no sense. It would be like BGS crossing BCCG cards to BGS at the same grade.
Why is the assumption that PSA is the "correct" grade and SGC is the "inflated" grade?
It's possible and also likely the SGC was the correct grade and PSA was the undergraded.
The few that I've sent to SGC, I haven't received any inflated grades, but I've sure received some woefully undergraded cards from PSA.
And there are plenty of YouTube vids of people cracking out PSAs and resubbing them back to PSA and getting "inflated" grades returned.
Likening SGC to BCCG is BS.
Take a look at the thread I referred to. The gradeflation in cards cracked out of PSA holders and submitted to PSA was remarkable.
My BCCG to BGS analogy was a bit hyperbolic but there is no question that SGC is more lenient than PSA when it comes to grading, especially with vintage.
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.
I still believe, to some degree, that it matters who you are or the volume that you grade for any and all of them. I have graded many PSA 10's in the past. But now everything is 8's or worse. I have received fantastic grades from SGC until this last one when 15 cards came back as ungradeable or 4's or lower. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency and that's really the problem. Not how "hard" or "soft" a company grades, but that the same rules are used each time to grade a card, no matter, it it's a 1952 mantle or 1982 shooty babbitt.
I'd agree that consistency is an issue and something to strive for but it's no worse now than it ever was (as illustrated by the many crack and resubs out there). I also agree completely that 10s are much more difficult to attain from PSA in recent years, with vintage at least.
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.
@BBBrkrr said:
I wonder how long until PSA shuts down SGC and offers a 'discount' to get cards reslabbed into the PSA holder.
Won't (or I should say shouldn't) happen at the same grade. That's why people submit to SGC in the first place. Diluting PSA's brand would be a colossal mistake on CU's part.
Just look at the thread where someone here conducted an experiment by cracking out PSA cards and sending them to SGC. The overall grade inflation was staggering. That's all you need to see to understand that straight crossing SGC cards to PSA at the same grade makes no sense. It would be like BGS crossing BCCG cards to BGS at the same grade.
I don't really buy the argument that they'd be diluting their brand by incorporating SGC in since they're currently grading a million cards a month. Seems to me they're already diluting just by being in business.
If the hobby is strong then the hobby is strong and the demand will be there.
I think PSA is doing more damage to their brand by changing grading standards and being inconsistent. That will drive customers to other companies faster than some dilution that no one thinks about. If I start to see my money being wasted in a way that was different recently then I'll find somewhere else to grade.
A few years ago I used to exclusively by SGC, crack and send to PSA. It was almost a certainty I'd get in a range .5 lower up to a grade higher with PSA. Due to SGC's prices being a bit lower that was good practice and I was adding to my PSA collection. These days it is exactly the opposite to the point where I've considered going the other way. PSA forcing me to use other companies is not a good business decision on their part.
@olb31 said:
I still believe, to some degree, that it matters who you are or the volume that you grade for any and all of them. I have graded many PSA 10's in the past. But now everything is 8's or worse. I have received fantastic grades from SGC until this last one when 15 cards came back as ungradeable or 4's or lower. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency and that's really the problem. Not how "hard" or "soft" a company grades, but that the same rules are used each time to grade a card, no matter, it it's a 1952 mantle or 1982 shooty babbitt.
I do agree.
A firm giving one's larger clients preferential treatment is called good business. That is something that should never be overlooked or underestimated!
@BBBrkrr said:
I wonder how long until PSA shuts down SGC and offers a 'discount' to get cards reslabbed into the PSA holder.
Won't (or I should say shouldn't) happen at the same grade. That's why people submit to SGC in the first place. Diluting PSA's brand would be a colossal mistake on CU's part.
Just look at the thread where someone here conducted an experiment by cracking out PSA cards and sending them to SGC. The overall grade inflation was staggering. That's all you need to see to understand that straight crossing SGC cards to PSA at the same grade makes no sense. It would be like BGS crossing BCCG cards to BGS at the same grade.
Why is the assumption that PSA is the "correct" grade and SGC is the "inflated" grade?
It's possible and also likely the SGC was the correct grade and PSA was the undergraded.
The few that I've sent to SGC, I haven't received any inflated grades, but I've sure received some woefully undergraded cards from PSA.
And there are plenty of YouTube vids of people cracking out PSAs and resubbing them back to PSA and getting "inflated" grades returned.
Likening SGC to BCCG is BS.
Take a look at the thread I referred to. The gradeflation in cards cracked out of PSA holders and submitted to PSA was remarkable.
My BCCG to BGS analogy was a bit hyperbolic but there is no question that SGC is more lenient than PSA when it comes to grading, especially with vintage.
You're directing me to a thread that I commented in.
And I asked essentially the same thing:
"Is PSA undergrading or is SGC overgrading?
I don't agree with some of those PSA grades, but I don't agree with some of the SGC grades either."
And the 'gradeflation' is not that remarkable, as many seemed to agree that the SGCs were more correct and the PSAs were undergraded.
And I've posted my own examples, where SGC got it right and PSA was way off. (And no, I'm not one of those guys that thinks whoever gave it the highest grade is correct.)
The worst being my 89 Hoops Michael Jordan, that PSA gave a ridiculous PSA 5 to, that I cracked and subbed to SGC and it came back a SGC 10. You call it gradeflation. I call it PSA was out of their minds.
It would have been a real interesting experiment to then take that card and cross it over to PSA.
Would PSA, seeing it in a SGC 10, then give it a 5?
Attached is a 1975 Topps baseball card that is graded a psa 10. Looks like it has been graded in the last couple of years.
1) I wouldn't have sent this card in for $15 because it doesn't look like a 10 and 9's go fro nothing
2) Someone did send it in and paid $15.
3) While I think it's a nice looking card, here a re some of the flaws, that are noticeable
A) Has about 7 or 8 blue print marks, all over the card.
B) Has additional Black PD in the "s" in Expos.
C) white border around the pic -- has brown discoloring on the right side.
If I Sent this card in, i would get a 7 at most. So "Groo" above thinks it's ok to give this guy a 10 because he might grade more or spend more money. And give all of us 7's.
If spend a lot of money -- give the submitter discounts, or grade their cards faster -- don't give them 10's like this one, knowing that none of us could even get an 8.
@BBBrkrr said:
I think PSA is doing more damage to their brand by changing grading standards and being inconsistent. That will drive customers to other companies faster than some dilution that no one thinks about. ...
@BBBrkrr said:
I think PSA is doing more damage to their brand by changing grading standards and being inconsistent. That will drive customers to other companies faster than some dilution that no one thinks about. ...
Yeah they both had conflicting rules with in house grading and selling. I guess I’m wondering if that perk goes away with the purchase of sgc. Or if that policy is only for one,none, or both now?
If you look at my post above with the pic of the 1975 psa 10, who would even send that in for $16 or whatever it costs? IF you were weeding through the ones to send in, there is NO way you send this in. I think we have stumbled on to something here.
1) doesn't look like a 10
2) lots of print defects
3) can't see the cardboard surface, so I have no idea what that looks like
4) are people still sending in commons for $16
5) did someone have an inkling they might get a good grade?
@olb31 said:
If you look at my post above with the pic of the 1975 psa 10, who would even send that in for $16 or whatever it costs? IF you were weeding through the ones to send in, there is NO way you send this in. I think we have stumbled on to something here.
1) doesn't look like a 10
2) lots of print defects
3) can't see the cardboard surface, so I have no idea what that looks like
4) are people still sending in commons for $16
5) did someone have an inkling they might get a good grade?
Whomever sent it in did their homework. The card is part of a run of 10 consecutive cert numbers, all PSA 10's.
@BBBrkrr said:
I think PSA is doing more damage to their brand by changing grading standards and being inconsistent. That will drive customers to other companies faster than some dilution that no one thinks about. ...
What other companies will they go to?
Great question. I'm not sure who that would be but it could certainly give another company an opening.
Realistically, it feels like the grading ecosystem is headed towards a monopoly that'll push everyone into barely any market share. That will not be good for the small/individual collectors but probably not bad for the large dealers/retailers.
@olb31 said:
If you look at my post above with the pic of the 1975 psa 10, who would even send that in for $16 or whatever it costs? IF you were weeding through the ones to send in, there is NO way you send this in. I think we have stumbled on to something here.
1) doesn't look like a 10
2) lots of print defects
3) can't see the cardboard surface, so I have no idea what that looks like
4) are people still sending in commons for $16
5) did someone have an inkling they might get a good grade?
The back of that card alone should prevent that from ever being a 10. 2 years ago that would have come back a 6 if I sent that in.
I never do any commons and won't even consider it these days (another lost market for PSA). Closest thing I'll do is a team card, but only because I think they're cool.
Age-old business strategy, eliminate the competition then raise prices and at the same time lower your costs by making your product worse after your customers have nowhere else to go.
This hobby isn't supposed to be for big dealers and retailers. It's a shame that these guys have taken something so innocent and completely bastardized it.
It is the illusion of commerce. All these guys cracking packs think their cards have value. Then they have to ask on facebook where to sell their cards because eBay is a glut and their local card dealer wont give them any money for their cards.
The "dealers" for the most part are who ever just bought out the local Walmart and Target.
@olb31 said:
If you look at my post above with the pic of the 1975 psa 10, who would even send that in for $16 or whatever it costs? IF you were weeding through the ones to send in, there is NO way you send this in. I think we have stumbled on to something here.
1) doesn't look like a 10
2) lots of print defects
3) can't see the cardboard surface, so I have no idea what that looks like
4) are people still sending in commons for $16
5) did someone have an inkling they might get a good grade?
Whomever sent it in did their homework. The card is part of a run of 10 consecutive cert numbers, all PSA 10's.
Attached is a 1975 Topps baseball card that is graded a psa 10. Looks like it has been graded in the last couple of years.
1) I wouldn't have sent this card in for $15 because it doesn't look like a 10 and 9's go fro nothing
2) Someone did send it in and paid $15.
3) While I think it's a nice looking card, here a re some of the flaws, that are noticeable
A) Has about 7 or 8 blue print marks, all over the card. Has additional Black PD in the "s" in Expos.
C) white border around the pic -- has brown discoloring on the right side.
If I Sent this card in, i would get a 7 at most. So "Groo" above thinks it's ok to give this guy a 10 because he might grade more or spend more money. And give all of us 7's.
If spend a lot of money -- give the submitter discounts, or grade their cards faster -- don't give them 10's like this one, knowing that none of us could even get an 8.
I don't think that it's "ok", other than that we are in agreement.
@mexpo75 said:
I just think it is sad that collecting and grading has come to this.
Really frustrates me. i love grading. I love the journey. From buying on EBAY and card shows, to submitting..all of it. Then you see PSA 10's that look like 6's, people getting 10 psa 10's in a row or 275 psa 9's in a row. it's just a bummer.
Just got back my SGC order, which was my worst results yet. I have a perfectly centered 1973 Palmer, tough to find. Got a 7 (PSA rules I suppose). I look at EBAY and there is listed an 8.5. The 8.5 has some flaking on the top left of corner and in general looks a very tad bit worn. In reality, my Palmer looks like the 8.5 and the the 8.5 looks like a 7. Just venting. Sorry.
I know it's beating a dead horse to say "Never get cheated", the rallying cry of our universe. I buried my envious notions a long, LONG time ago while noticing that grading results for others that will always be a part of it. The best advice I gave to myself was "Never worry or mull over someone else's grades b....b....b....because it'll make you insane", and wouldn't you know it I'm not insane, just stupid crazy for still wanting to be in this game after so many years. Enjoy your cards.
I really think more than ever, just buy cards you enjoy. Don't buy a card thinking you are going to flip for a profit. Like ElMagoStrikeZone just said, Enjoy your cards,
Comments
I thought they only magnify up to a certain point? Otherwise, vintage cards will max out at 6.
Right... there is no person with perfect skin...i.e. always freckles, moles etc...at any rate grading will ALWAYS be in the eye of the beholder...also depends on their mood that day for sure...
Synergy = Layoffs
It's a Vile Evil term IMHO
are there flawed processes??? also why change the standards...a pound is still a pound...a kilogram is still a kilogram...metrics have standards that never change
TAG perhaps? Still their process might be just as vicious to vintage for grades.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I will try my best to make sense of this. The craziest example I can offer is, if there's a fisheye on Mickey's nose and it looks like a 3rd nostril, but everything and I mean EVERYTHING else about the card equals GEM MINT 10, it's not necessarily a 10. It can't be. There's a flaw and it's right there on his face. Now, as we also know, grading is purely objective because only a tiny fraction of the human race is professionally capable of mandating an opinion. But, the manufacturer put that 3rd nostril on Mick and the grading company is not obligated to overlook it just because the rest of the card is presumably perfect.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
A diamond with a flaw is worth a lot less than a flawless diamond. You're pretty much saying anything that comes straight out of a pack should be a 10.
LOL - It doesn’t have to be but yes it’s connotation has changed.
I meant more with respect to processes as opposed to staffing.
As a silly and perhaps outdated example, I stopped using SGC when I had to literally call them and ask them to add things that they graded to their population report. These were semi high value, low pop items and it was disconcerting enough for my to not use them since.
I imagine PSA could automate that process, as theirs most definitely is automatic to the point of predictable.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Perhaps I could have worded it differently. Grading should not be held accountable for manufacturing flaws.
I wish everything that came from a pack was a 10. Had some much better luck with vending boxes, though.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
yeah standards were written to be universal from the get go...if and when standards somehow change then it can do more harm than good...like what would happen if the bureau of weights and measures suddenly says a foot is 12.1 inchs and a kilogram is 2.3 lbs instead of 2.205 lbs....once a standard is determined it should remain a standard it would seem...plus i don't think PSA changed the standards but they could be misinterpreting the standards such that under grading was occurring frequently and mystifying the collectors...
Grading has always been wildly inconsistent. PSA supposedly has one grading standard that they apply equally to a T206 and a 2024 Topps card. Realistically there have always been several standards - as PSA grew and hired new people it was impossible to train to the various standards that evolved over time. What really needs to be done is three grading standards pre-war, vintage and ultra modern. Effectively PSA behaved that way but couldn’t maintain that with growth.
I know everyone says, "buy the card, not the holder", but if I like a vintage (1957 football) SGC card that is graded 6.5 would value go down if SGC is laid to rest?
Not necessarily. Depending on the player and how hard that card is to find in higher grades.
A "low demand" card might be harder to sell in the future if SGC goes away.
PSA can buy all the grading companies and it still wouldn't stop Fanatics from getting into grading. They're going to take over every aspect of the hobby.
I don't know how the law works but could they start their own grading company and then make the cards that they design,produce and market as Proprietary? Make it so it would be unlawful for any other grading company to encase,grade and put their name and or logo on the card.
It would be like buying a used BMW off a BMW lot. It's certified by BMW. It's not certified by Kia or Ford,etc.
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
Often people are paying 25 bucks to grade cards that are worth less than a dollar. People are buying the holder.
Luis Robert 2020 Topps, 18k PSA 10s, 18K PSA 9s, 38k total graded. At 25 dollars each that's 950k in grading fees. For cards that have a market cap right now of, optimistically, about 180k dollars.
Fanatics is coming for the entire hobby just like they did the merchandising of every sport and team in America. There's no stopping it and they're going to leave a trail of destruction.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them buy PSA. Especially since PSA has the largest market share like Topps did. PSA to Goldin is not that different than Fanatics doing their own grading. PSA can try to beat them but the more likely scenario sees them getting bought.
Fanatics grading their own cards is not as bad as a grading company owning an auction house.
The grade wouldn't add any value to what fanatics sells. Fanatics grading would pretty much be like quality control.
Fanatics owns an auction house (was called PWCC until yesterday). PSA owned Goldin until they traded it to EBay for their vault and the ability to list straight from grading. It is just 3 big players - Ebay, Collectors Hnivere and the ultimate Goliath Fanatics.
Wasn't PWCC banned from eBay? Was that before Fanatics bought them?
I had heard that PSA was thinking about buying Goldin. I hoped it never actually happened.
What seller is PSA on eBay?
PSA is PSA on eBay. PWCC was banned from Ebay and on the brink of bankruptcy - Fanatics bought them and bailed them out. Fanatics got rid of the old ownership and management. PSA owned Goldin for a few years now Ebay owns Goldin. The eBay vault is now the PSA vault. PSA sold Goldin to eBay and eBay sold the vault to PSA - PSA now lets people sell their freshly graded cards or vaulted cards on eBay with PSA as the seller. You can elect to have your cards auctioned on eBay instead of sent back to you.
Won't (or I should say shouldn't) happen at the same grade. That's why people submit to SGC in the first place. Diluting PSA's brand would be a colossal mistake on CU's part.
Just look at the thread where someone here conducted an experiment by cracking out PSA cards and sending them to SGC. The overall grade inflation was staggering. That's all you need to see to understand that straight crossing SGC cards to PSA at the same grade makes no sense. It would be like BGS crossing BCCG cards to BGS at the same grade.
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.
That doesn't sound so bad. Kind of surprising to see what people choose to sell through PSA. Only 2300 items.
I wonder what Fanatics is going to do with PWCC. I assume when you say they bought PWCC, the web site is mostly what they bought? Or did they have a physical location that Fanatics took over?
Why is the assumption that PSA is the "correct" grade and SGC is the "inflated" grade?
It's possible and also likely the SGC was the correct grade and PSA was the undergraded.
The few that I've sent to SGC, I haven't received any inflated grades, but I've sure received some woefully undergraded cards from PSA.
And there are plenty of YouTube vids of people cracking out PSAs and resubbing them back to PSA and getting "inflated" grades returned.
Likening SGC to BCCG is BS.
All of these companies use different scales. There is no standard. People have different opinions on different days.
Take a look at the thread I referred to. The gradeflation in cards cracked out of PSA holders and submitted to PSA was remarkable.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1096302/crackout-results-psa-to-sgc/p1
My BCCG to BGS analogy was a bit hyperbolic but there is no question that SGC is more lenient than PSA when it comes to grading, especially with vintage.
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.
I still believe, to some degree, that it matters who you are or the volume that you grade for any and all of them. I have graded many PSA 10's in the past. But now everything is 8's or worse. I have received fantastic grades from SGC until this last one when 15 cards came back as ungradeable or 4's or lower. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency and that's really the problem. Not how "hard" or "soft" a company grades, but that the same rules are used each time to grade a card, no matter, it it's a 1952 mantle or 1982 shooty babbitt.
I'd agree that consistency is an issue and something to strive for but it's no worse now than it ever was (as illustrated by the many crack and resubs out there). I also agree completely that 10s are much more difficult to attain from PSA in recent years, with vintage at least.
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.
I don't really buy the argument that they'd be diluting their brand by incorporating SGC in since they're currently grading a million cards a month. Seems to me they're already diluting just by being in business.
If the hobby is strong then the hobby is strong and the demand will be there.
I think PSA is doing more damage to their brand by changing grading standards and being inconsistent. That will drive customers to other companies faster than some dilution that no one thinks about. If I start to see my money being wasted in a way that was different recently then I'll find somewhere else to grade.
A few years ago I used to exclusively by SGC, crack and send to PSA. It was almost a certainty I'd get in a range .5 lower up to a grade higher with PSA. Due to SGC's prices being a bit lower that was good practice and I was adding to my PSA collection. These days it is exactly the opposite to the point where I've considered going the other way. PSA forcing me to use other companies is not a good business decision on their part.
I do agree.
A firm giving one's larger clients preferential treatment is called good business. That is something that should never be overlooked or underestimated!
My question is. Can sgc employees still grade there own cards now? Or are they now on the psa rule which is what I believe they do not.
Seriously! SGC allowed graders to grade his or her own cards?! Conflict of interest…what a sham!
GRade their own submissions or are they under PSA rule now, I think is the question Handyman asked.
You're directing me to a thread that I commented in.
And I asked essentially the same thing:
"Is PSA undergrading or is SGC overgrading?
I don't agree with some of those PSA grades, but I don't agree with some of the SGC grades either."
And the 'gradeflation' is not that remarkable, as many seemed to agree that the SGCs were more correct and the PSAs were undergraded.
And I've posted my own examples, where SGC got it right and PSA was way off. (And no, I'm not one of those guys that thinks whoever gave it the highest grade is correct.)
The worst being my 89 Hoops Michael Jordan, that PSA gave a ridiculous PSA 5 to, that I cracked and subbed to SGC and it came back a SGC 10. You call it gradeflation. I call it PSA was out of their minds.
It would have been a real interesting experiment to then take that card and cross it over to PSA.
Would PSA, seeing it in a SGC 10, then give it a 5?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/355785152087?epid=4055959882&itmmeta=01J09BRRHTB9E3GT946Q7PEEBS&hash=item52d6729657:g:ZKIAAOSwdBhmaK-h&itmprp=enc:AQAJAAAA4Kp5QRdlHTKthGRhuACc9aZJ+SSnhm4E6cDDWa9hg/c1BEg+e6+DAaruv6ABttcYZiI/xnP3OOL6kRskalpG21cEn+9gkQYarRDL6a4JnbS5kRDRjJYp4hcuhZ7T+V1WnG2oO+RTsxOYQJHKlUiKam4zr7XP5Of+sQgffARtelv2KWK6491cNFCHMeYqYcDRkfzI7jBYla+/GaGQ2hiNBNt+j2ol4h3tyAr0B1TDwHH5vsVKYZlRbUtuYU88GJ5hYUKChQG2HsAbv0VnwySjcuYV3t57PMzpSBJfRRleYy0g|tkp:Bk9SR4aJ46uCZA
Attached is a 1975 Topps baseball card that is graded a psa 10. Looks like it has been graded in the last couple of years.
1) I wouldn't have sent this card in for $15 because it doesn't look like a 10 and 9's go fro nothing
2) Someone did send it in and paid $15.
3) While I think it's a nice looking card, here a re some of the flaws, that are noticeable
If I Sent this card in, i would get a 7 at most. So "Groo" above thinks it's ok to give this guy a 10 because he might grade more or spend more money. And give all of us 7's.
If spend a lot of money -- give the submitter discounts, or grade their cards faster -- don't give them 10's like this one, knowing that none of us could even get an 8.
What other companies will they go to?
Exactly. CGC?
Yeah they both had conflicting rules with in house grading and selling. I guess I’m wondering if that perk goes away with the purchase of sgc. Or if that policy is only for one,none, or both now?
If you look at my post above with the pic of the 1975 psa 10, who would even send that in for $16 or whatever it costs? IF you were weeding through the ones to send in, there is NO way you send this in. I think we have stumbled on to something here.
1) doesn't look like a 10
2) lots of print defects
3) can't see the cardboard surface, so I have no idea what that looks like
4) are people still sending in commons for $16
5) did someone have an inkling they might get a good grade?
Whomever sent it in did their homework. The card is part of a run of 10 consecutive cert numbers, all PSA 10's.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
Great question. I'm not sure who that would be but it could certainly give another company an opening.
Realistically, it feels like the grading ecosystem is headed towards a monopoly that'll push everyone into barely any market share. That will not be good for the small/individual collectors but probably not bad for the large dealers/retailers.
The back of that card alone should prevent that from ever being a 10. 2 years ago that would have come back a 6 if I sent that in.
I never do any commons and won't even consider it these days (another lost market for PSA). Closest thing I'll do is a team card, but only because I think they're cool.
Age-old business strategy, eliminate the competition then raise prices and at the same time lower your costs by making your product worse after your customers have nowhere else to go.
This hobby isn't supposed to be for big dealers and retailers. It's a shame that these guys have taken something so innocent and completely bastardized it.
Knitting dog socks is a hobby. This is commerce. Without dealers and retailers there wouldn't be any cards to buy.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
It is the illusion of commerce. All these guys cracking packs think their cards have value. Then they have to ask on facebook where to sell their cards because eBay is a glut and their local card dealer wont give them any money for their cards.
The "dealers" for the most part are who ever just bought out the local Walmart and Target.
wow!!! nice detective work. somebody knew.
I don't think that it's "ok", other than that we are in agreement.
I just think it is sad that collecting and grading has come to this.
Really frustrates me. i love grading. I love the journey. From buying on EBAY and card shows, to submitting..all of it. Then you see PSA 10's that look like 6's, people getting 10 psa 10's in a row or 275 psa 9's in a row. it's just a bummer.
Just got back my SGC order, which was my worst results yet. I have a perfectly centered 1973 Palmer, tough to find. Got a 7 (PSA rules I suppose). I look at EBAY and there is listed an 8.5. The 8.5 has some flaking on the top left of corner and in general looks a very tad bit worn. In reality, my Palmer looks like the 8.5 and the the 8.5 looks like a 7. Just venting. Sorry.
I know it's beating a dead horse to say "Never get cheated", the rallying cry of our universe. I buried my envious notions a long, LONG time ago while noticing that grading results for others that will always be a part of it. The best advice I gave to myself was "Never worry or mull over someone else's grades b....b....b....because it'll make you insane", and wouldn't you know it I'm not insane, just stupid crazy for still wanting to be in this game after so many years. Enjoy your cards.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
I really think more than ever, just buy cards you enjoy. Don't buy a card thinking you are going to flip for a profit. Like ElMagoStrikeZone just said, Enjoy your cards,