WHO WILL BUY THIS HOLDER?

mintyfresh

I figure the card is probably more like a 9 (being generous). So thats 600 for the card and only 9,400 for the holder if you use BIN. Where are these graders when I send my cards in???

mintyfresh

oooops. Text

pandrews

thats ridiculous.. further disappointment from PSA.. half of the cards I send in always come back "factory miscut" or "evidence of trimming".. when I know that the cards came from someone who wouldnt even think about trimming..

mrc32

I am not a "high grade" collector, but what is wrong with it?

DeutscherGeist

This should have never been a 10 due to centering alone. A PSA 9, yes, but not a 10. This is disappointing because I am sure graders take more time in grading vintage and this still fell through the cracks.

Kosmo

PSA grading standards (like them or not) allow for 60/40 centering on Gem Mint 10 cards with a 5% leeway, or 65/35 centering if the card has good eye appeal.

bowlking

I can see allowing a 55/45 for a "10", but any card that is 65/35 is far too different than a 50/50 to be put in the same class. Once again, buy the card, not the case it came in.

ZodiacMindwarp

In their definition of grades, PSA says that they will allow up to (or down to) 60/40 centering. This card appears to be 43/57 left to right and dead-on 50/50 top to bottom.

pandrews

<< <i>In their definition of grades, PSA says that they will allow up to (or down to) 60/40 centering. This card appears to be 43/57 left ot right and dead-on 50/50 top to bottom. >>



looks horrible to me.

yawie99

The centering is probably better than how it appears in the scan because the card sits in the far left of the recessed area of the holder, with some of the left edge of the card under the lip of the slab. I get a little lazy with my scanning sometimes, but if I had a card of this stature, I definitely would've rescanned it until I had the card sitting smack dab in the middle of the slab.

Lothar52

i bought a BVG pregraded 75 brett last year for 65 freaking dollars with 50/50 centering front and back.... i thought it was pretty sweet...i was like wow....im going to have this dag on thing graded....i sent it to SGC and it came back a 88....which is a 8 by there scale. I had it graded when they had there special on.....it was 6 bucks..... so for 71 dollars i got a 8 with 50/50 centering....which would you rather have??? an 8 with perfect centering or that 10 at 200x the cost that looks like DUNG

loth

BigKidAtHeart

egallon

at my first glance the... Bottom Edge .... really caught my eye as having imperfections unless it is the scan. The centering for PSA grading could merit a 10 as we have all seen.

downgoesfrazier

I think that image and print quality is awesome. I'd be sitting on the 10-fence with that one. I'm the biggest 10-critic out there, but it's refreshing for PSA to notice a card with a surface that exceeds the normal MINT 9.
Lother, send me all of your "dung" that looks like this and we'll be fine.
This card would grade a "frazier 9 '+surface' ".
Clean, sharp card that obviously got the grader we all like to get.


dgf

ctsoxfan

I don't feel that the centering warrants a 10 here, especially if you want to factor in the subjective "eye appeal". Eye appeal here says that the card is off center, and that's that. Of course, PSA would have to know what this type of card would sell for, so either you would think they should be more careful when giving these out, or maybe they are just thanking Joe for all of his business over the past year.

downgoesfrazier

It's not about who submits 'em, but rather who grades 'em. I've gotten 10's on cards like this so why can't Joe? If he would've had a different grader that day it's a 9. Do you really believe that someone took time out in the grading room, called upstairs to Joe Orlando and said "We got Tuttle's cards down here and there's a Brett rookie. Whattya say we ten the b'tch". C'mon, guys. They don't know whose cards they're grading day to day. Human nature suggests that a large invoice may get the benefit of the doubt, but to allege that PSA singles out a large customer and implements a quota is a bit over the top. I used to think it was possible until I noticed how volatile my submissions got with like-quality cards. Just a crap-shoot and JT won that round. He gets his share of head-scratchers...believe me.
I still think a 10 is within reason on that card. The stock is MINT and it has a truly exceptional quality that is obvious. A super-nice 9 and that's basically all a 10 is on a given day.

dgf

downgoesfrazier

...by the way, the Brett in my signature line is an extreme the other way. If it's not GEM MINT then SGC needs to do away with that grade designation. The card is actually PERFECT. No extraneous print, tremendous color-strike (best I've seen in over 20 MINT copies I've owned), the sharpest corners a non-sheet-cut '77 can have, the tightest registration pixel for pixel possible and centering within 4% both directions front and back. Some graders just won't give it up for some reason. Some give it up like a...well, I won't go there. JT found the right guy at the right time. If you submit a gazillion (just pulled that out of my arse) cards, eventually someone will really dig what you're cookin'.

dgf

Boopotts

DGF-

I, like you, put no stock in the idea that volume submitters get better grades. Why? Because I've submitted lots through Joe, and on the average the grades I've gotten on those cards are right in line with the grades I've gotten on the cards I've submitted myself. So, unless Tuttle is calling Orlando, and telling him 'the cards on invoice 4014545 aren't mine, go ahead and downgrade 'em'-- and I think that's a stretch-- I have every reason to believe that PSA applies the same standards for grading to all members.

But what's crazy is the ridiculously arbitrary assignment of grades. Am I alone here when I say it's madness that premiums up to 100x are paid for cards that aren't obviously in better condition than a like sample? I'll bet donuts to holes that I can find a Brett PSA 8 out there which matches this one attribute for attribute, and I can certainly find a whole hatful of 9's. The '10' grade, I think it's safe to say, was developed by PSA as a way to spur sales and generate interest in the idea of grading. Nothing wrong with that. But I doubt anyone had any idea of the kind of sick premiums some of these cards would fetch, which leaves PSA in a long-term quandry; i.e., how are we going to justify the seemingly haphazard assigment of grades, when so much money is at stake?

Surely, at some point, it's going to come to that. No doubt that Americans in general have an unrivaled fetish for labels, which explains why we'll pay 90 bucks for a 20 dollar pair of jeans, simply because they have the right tag on the pocket. But at some point enough people are going to wise up to the fact that the average, and certainly the high end, '8' bears an awfully close resemblance to the '10' in the next display case-- only the 8 costs about 5000 less.

This fact hit home for me about six months ago, when I was bored and trolling for invoices (this is before the zip code requirement- and yes I know it's lame, but I was home with the flu and had absolutely nothing to do). Some guy had sent in a bunch of '89 UD baseball commons, and the grades he got were, on the balance, outstanding- lots of 10's, maybe 30%, and a ton of 9's. So obviously this guy a) knew what to look for, and b) really took the time to pore over the cards. But what got me was the fact that about 15% of his invoice was filled with '8's'. So what the heck? You want to tell me that this guy 'missed something' on 1/6 of his cards that the graders at PSA were able to detect? That a guy who clearly went over his cards with a fine toothed comb somehow missed some light corner wear on 15% of his submission? No way, I say. That's just too improbable. Which leaves me to believe that I, or anyone else here, could break 500 '10's, and we'd get back somewhere around 75 '8's.

And that's just unacceptable. Period. With the money that's at stake, the grading simply needs to be more consistent. Which means, amongst other things, breaking down the standards in a language that everyone can understand, thereby allowing the customer to pre-screen his cards with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and thereby be assured that the results will be roughly as expected. I've submitted my fair share of cards, and I'm still amazed that we we, as consumers, willingly support this system, whereby a man can send off 100 or so cards, and have really no idea if what he gets back will be worth 2000 or 10000. There has to be a better way to do this.

wolfbear

Let's just say with current grading procedures out of 100 cards graded an 8 :
10 - would come back a 9 if resubmitted
80 - would come back a 8 if resubmitted
10 - would come back a 7 if resubmitted
and also for the sake of argument say that you're paying $ 8.00 per card for grading.

Now, say additional graders are added to independently grade each card.
With this new method consistency is improved and out of 100 graded an 8 :
5 - would come back a 9 if resubmitted
90 - would come back a 8 if resubmitted
5 - would come back a 7 if resubmitted
but now you're paying $ 30.00 per card for grading.

Would you pay $ 50.00 to have each card graded if it meant even greater consistency ?

My guess is that the laws of diminishing returns set in rather rapidly,
and that all the grading companies are faced with the delicate balancing act
of pleasing the customers demanding reasonable grading fees,
and at the same time pleasing the customers demanding more consistency in grades.

I know we want it both ways, but sorry, there's no free lunch ...

DeutscherGeist

I think yawie99 said it best. The card has better centering than the scan leads on. The card is touching the left side of the slab, causing an optical illusion. If we can measure the centering instead of eyeballing it, maybe it is actually 60-40 and within the guidelines of a PSA 10. I have seen lots of 10's like this, but not on a card that is thousands of dollars. I think because the value is so high on this card, that we all become super anal. This looks to be a legitimate 10 after all, but definately not my preference. I personally want something centered in addition to all the other great stuff, especially on a card this high in value.

I admit, the card is really nice, with excellent color and no sign of any chipping. I would not pay $10,000 for it, had it been dead centered, then maybe. I am just very picky that's all. Usually, on such high priced cards, I look for the best PSA 8 I can find. Part of the fun of the hobby is searching for that elusive card. it is like a treasure hunt. I bought my Molitor rookie in PSA 8, but it looks like most 9's and 10's out there of the same issue, possibly better because it has no smudge. I am super happy with it.

From what you guys posted, I think it is safe to say that a PSA 10 is really just a PSA 9 on any regular day (thanks for the wording DGF). A PSA 10 is good to sell, but not good to buy. The PSA 10's I have are usually from cards not too valueable in the first place, such as the 1990 Leaf Olerud and Thomas.

There are some inconsistencies in grading, no doubt, but grading has done a lot of good to the hobby in that we can buy from long distance (not holding the card in front of us) without worrying about getting something dinged up or creased. On ebay, imagine if we only had the option to buy raw---you would see more inconsistencies with grades being assigned in that situation (people selling the cards tend to downplay the errors, print marks and wear on a card).

DeutscherGeist

Boopotts,

That was one intelligent post! I like your critique of American culture and the fetish with labels. You really hit the nail on that one. That's what the PSA 10 really comes down to.

Boopotts

Wolfbear-

You make an excellent point. The thrust of my post-- and I didn't make this clear, for which I apologize-- is that the grading standards themselves are largely unenforcable, because even an experienced eye often can't distinguish between two same cards separated by one full grade. And this includes the graders. Which means hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars can hinge on a totally arbitrary designation.

Take, for example, the WIWAG scandal. What strikes me most about this bit of nastiness is not that PSA has tried to sweep it under the rug, and not that the holders can be tampered with, but the fact that people on this forum, which is to say people with considerable experience pre-screening cards, DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE HOLDING BUM SLABS! And why don't they know? Because they can't look at the card itself and confidently assign a grade to it without looking at the number on the holder. Now I don't blame anyone for this-- in fact, I'd fall into the same catagory. But doesn't it seem a little strange that an '8' sells for 5-10 times less than a nine, when even experienced hobbiests have trouble distinguishing between the two? So a guy bought a card from WIWAG three years ago-- it could be anything, say an 87 fleer Bonds-- and now isn't sure if the card is 'actually' a 10, or a '9' masquarading in a '10 holder. Well, if you can't tell the difference by looking at the card, or poring over it with a loupe, THEN WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE?!

And that, essentially, is my point-- that PSA is devised a grading system of which nobody, not even the graders, have a firm understanding. Now the graded card market is still relatively young-- that is, compared to the hobby itself-- and I think PSA is still enjoying something of a 'honeymoon'. But that's going to get old in another five or ten years, when people get sick of paying 20x more for speciman 'a' than 'b', when they can't tell the difference between the two.

The alarming thing about WIWAG-- and what ought to keep Joe Orlando up at night-- is that nobody seems able to identify which slabs WIWAG allegedly sealed with their own machine, for the simple reason that noone can look at the card within and say, with any degree of confidence, that the card within clearly doesn't represent the grade it was supposedly assigned. If almost nobody-- and that includes the best eyes in the business-- can distinguish a '9' from a '10' with any kind of consistency, then that means, ultimately, that there's no meaningful difference between them. Which will prove to be very bad news indeed down the road for anyone holding a '10' , once collectors begin to honestly wonder just what it is they're paying for.

DeutscherGeist

Boopotts,

Good reasoning on that last post too! A PSA 10 really has no inherent value, nor is the grade enforceable. A PSA 10 is not always going to be a PSA 10 every time you resubmit it. You may get a PSA 9 or a PSA 8. Granted, there is no reason to resubmit a PSA 10, but my point is what are collectors actually paying for with a PSA 10? Boopotts stated very well, that collectors will soon wonder why and what is so special about a PSA 10 card. The value could fall closer to a PSA 9 in 5-10 years--who is to say they will always command the type of premium they have now?

calleocho

The desire to have the best ...and be reconized for it, is so powerful that it blurs common sense

Coin grading has been going on a lot longer than card grading and they have the same exact issues. they have overgrades, undergrades, holder crackouts and the list goes on and yet they still pay huge multiples for a better grade.

i think it was "Buckwheat" who predicted even further discrepency between the price of an 8 vs a 9 (vintage of course) in key cards and low pops. that should be an interesting trend to watch over the years.

DeutscherGeist :

Dont be so quick to simply assume that the desire to have the best at any cost only relates to americans.

wolfbear

Boo and Deuts - I understand what you're saying, but here's another way to look at it :

Maybe if you resubmit a psa 10, ten times, it will come back a 10 again twice.
but if you resubmit a psa 9, ten times, it will come back a 10 only once.

Or, take a random stack of a dozen 10's and a random stack of a dozen 9's.
Everyone here would be able to tell, without looking at the flips, which stack was the 10's.

So, not every 10 is better than every 9, but on average across the board they are better.
And since they are generally better, and a lot more scarce, I can't foresee the demand for them going down.

downgoesfrazier

wolfbear,
I completely disagree. I am only able to speak to 70's cards from my own submissions, however. Perhaps your point speaks to a general sampling from eBay or vintage examples. Even so, who submitted them and when they were submitted will have more to do with what each stack looks like. Less than half of the 10's I have turned/purchased/or reviewed have bumped my 9 out of it's place in my set--on any criteria. My last invoice was a perfect example. It was chock-full of the best examples I had been saving for over a year (grading special). In the meantime I had sent a few hundred cards that were considerably less appealing and softer and had garnered many 10's (close to 13%) and my share of 9's (almost 80%) leaving the rest 8's (a touch over 7%). So, I send 30 "virtually perfect" cards--dead-on registration, tremendous-even unusual color-strikes, four corners that are razor sharp and hold up under 10x 100-watt scrutiny, unusually glossy and smooth surfaces, and centering within 4% in both directions...front AND back. It started OK--a couple of 10's and the obligatory mechanical error card-- and then it was as if the grader realized they all looked that good and there were HOF'ers on there and bang...9-city. These were another brick in my wall. 10's are the most random, over-played thing about graded sportscards. These 9's will smoke an overwhelming majority of 10's from this issue. Keep in mind, I'm only speaking to 70's cards and later. I'd have to agree with you on vintage issues as there are not as many bulk submissions of vending-fresh material. 10's will be much harder to come by.

dgf

wallst32

I disregard all "grades" given to a card by simply viewing a scanned photo. Scanner quality is not consistent for one thing, a lower quality scan make the card look better.

To properly grade a card, it needs to be in hand, and examined under magnification... period.

When I first joined PSA, I was very dissappointed with the grades I received on some of my cards (8s instead of 9s). Then it was suggested that I view the cards under magnification, and I could see why the 8s were 8s. There were small flaws in the edges or right on the corners. If I took away the magnification, and tried to look for them, sometimes I could not even find them. Sorry, but a scan doesn't do a card any justice. I have some very high end 8s that wouldn't look out of place in a scanned 9 or 10 holder.

When I view my cards for submission now, I'm pretty confident which ones will be 9s, and which ones will be 8s, and yes there is the occasional borderline card that could go either way. I cannot tell the difference between 9 and 10, but that's most likely because I haven't had the opportunity to view a large sample of 10s.

And for those who think PSA plays favorites with the large submitters, think about it, why would these guys bother sending in commons from modern sets like 89 Score football, or 85 Topps Football, and HOFers from 1980s sets when an 8 results in sales below the grading cost? Do you really think they just pull them out of vending boxes, slip them into Card Savers, and off they go to be stamped PSA 10? No, they examine the cards, and cherry pick the high grade ones. On ebay, there are some big PSA dealers who will occasionally offer some major rookie/star cards raw when most of their stuff is PSA (with star cards it is usually in lots - ie (5) 1983 Nolan Ryan's NM/MT out of the pack condition). Why wouldn't they grade these cards since the value would increase? It is because these are their rejects, PSA 8 NM/MT; they know it's not worth the price of grading. Whether you think that is a fair practice or not is debateable, but I'm sure we all do that with our own cards.

These guys know what PSA looks for (AND NOT what they personally think the card should grade) in 9s and 10s. Anyone here commenting on grades based on scanned photos does not know what PSA is looking for (no offense, but that is the truth - PSA does not grade based on scanned photos). It is really dissappointing to see how many "how could this grade so high?" threads started here. I honestly think much of it is from bitter submitters who didn't get the grades they hoped for.

My opinion of this Brett PSA 10 rookie... I'd have to see it.

Davino

Good thread(and great last comment)!

downgoesfrazier

wallst,

While most of what you say is true, misdirected--but true, I think that the centering is what is in question here. THAT can typically be discerned from a legible scan.

dgf