PSA 8's vs 9's Are they really worth it? (again)
Sideplate
Posts: 141
I have recently been upgrading my 1974 set on the registry from all 8’s to a few 9’s. Mostly I just wanted the HOF and rookie cards in 9’s. I’ll admit I also would like to solidify my position in the top 5 (sorry Carlos). The strange thing is, as I replaced the 8’s with the 9’s, I had a hard time seeing any difference between the 2 cards. Occasionally, there would be a noticeable difference with the 9 being clearly superior, but most of the time the 8 was every bit as good looking as the 9. I want to make it clear that I am NOT PSA bashing here. I love PSA’s service. But, have we as collectors started to split hairs just a bit too much? Given the big price difference between 8’s and 9’s are the 9’s really worth it? I find myself grabbing a magnifying glass at least 10 times a day to look at a card. I don’t remember doing that when I was nine years old, and I had just as much fun then as I’m having now. I think with this hobby, it’s easy to start “looking though a straw” if you’re’ not careful. And, sad to say, the registry very much perpetuates this. Oh well, just a thought. I have to go see if Brian has any more 9’s I can buy. Can’t let those guys get the upper hand!
Ken
Ken
0
Comments
A high end 8 often looks as nice as a low end 9
A well centered 9 often looks as nice as a 10
A PSA 7 almost never looks like a PSA 9
A PSA 8 is almost never comparable to a PSA 10
Within any single grade -- if you are a discriminating collector, your PSA 7 will often look like a PSA 8.
If you think PSA's system is splitting hairs too much -- what do you think about other grading companies that have half grades?
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that with few exceptions the Gem mint grade is haphazardly assigned. If you sent in a '70 Topps common and a 2002 Bowman Chrome common, and both cards exhibited the same wear (or lack of it), I have every confidence that the Chrome would come back a 10 at least ten times more often than the '70 Topps (over a statistically significant number of trials). Also, while most of us here could pick out 50 'nines' from a box of 10000 well preserved cards, with an error rate of less than 20%, I doubt anyone could pick out the same number of '10' with the same degree of accuracy. And it's not because we don't know enough, or aren't discriminating enough.
The 'Gem Mint' designation was a stroke of marketing genius, and PSA should be applauded for that. But until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I will maintain that it's just that-- a marketing move.
Another good thread started by yourself. I often wondered the same thing when building the 74 set. I would have a very hard time getting rid of the high end 8 to replace it with a low end 9.
I realized that is going to happen and became more determined to have my own criteria for the quality I wanted and to buy the card not the grade.
Undoubtably,a few of the upgrades you are referring to might be one of the many I have sold you recently from the break up of my set. Its funny because as I list them on ebay or package them up..I look at them one last time(as if to say goodbye)lol and while sometimes they look the same as nice 8s there are many others that leave you scrathching your head thinking"this card is flawless and why is it not a 10". I strongly believe Psa does a great job and this is just part of finding the cards that make you happy.
What is also interesting is that I can almost tell/remember which ones that I bought online from a dealer vs. my own submissions.
Anyways,congrats on an outstanding set and Ill "keep em coming"
The only exception that I have noticed is in the Kellogg cards. I have been toying with the 1974 Kellogg set and I have been able to discern a distinct difference in the 9’s vs. the 10’s. The problem is, I have discerned a big difference in the price too. There sure doesn’t seem to be such a thing as “bottom feeding” when it comes to PSA 10’s.