Should PSA Have A Problem With Cracking?

scottsusor

In another thread, Virtualizard opined:

"If you feel your card has been undergraded, feel free to crack it out and resubmit. I'm sure that PSA has no problem with this!"

Do they? Should they? I wonder.

Obviously, PSA can't stop it, at least with the technology they currently use to create their sealed slabs. Lots and lots of people do crack and resubmit when they think a card has been undergraded. And there's nothing wrong with it from the submitter's side. But, is there something wrong with it from PSA's side?

What single step do you think PSA could take to reduce the need to crack and resubmit?

Scott

purelyPSA

Why would PSA care? I think they realize that there's nothing they can do if they wanted to, and it does increase submissions, so they're just fine with it.

scottsusor

PSA would care for one reason only. As the acknowledged premier professional grading company, I'd think that they'd want to create a product that is unquestionably premier. Now, obviously, grading is subjective, humans are doing it, and humans make mistakes. But, assuming they DO care, is there any one thing that PSA could do better or differently to improve its product?

Scott

purelyPSA

I don't know if it's as much humans making mistakes as it is humans having differing opinions. The only way they'd be able to minimize differences and maximize consistency would be to have it done by a machine, which isn't possible, or to only have one grader grade all the cards by himself, which isn't feasible. Therefore there will always be a little play in the results of cards that exhibit borderline characteristics.

JMHO but the problem was caused by the 10 point grading system. I'm fine with it the way it is, and accept "high end" 8s and "low end" 8s, etc., but I think a half point scale would have been more precise. Water under the bridge, though.

**edited for clarity**

mikeschmidt

It becomes much more of a "game" with the PSA 8, 9 and 10 cards. It is quite frightening how many major PSA 10 cards once resided in PSA 9 holders. Not necessarily because they are overgraded now -- but there is definitely a level of gamemanship that can add tens of thousands of dollars to a card's perceived "value".

Specifically as it relates to modern cards -- PSA only has one graded look at the card before it is encapsulated. Though it is checked by someone else afterwards, the card has already been encapsulated and graded. (e.g. though I am sure the checker provides a fair and balanced opinion -- I nonetheless view this as a conflict, as there is an incentive to keep the grade as it is....)

The best step PSA could take to reduce the crack and resubmit is to grade accurately the first time. However, this would include a more cumbersome process, which would mean either a) an increase in grading fees or b) a second reviewer on cards before encapsulation, which does not seem likely given PSA's significant cost-cutting measures as of late.