Thoughts on PSA grading consistently
Boopotts
Posts: 6,784 ✭✭
It seems that a couple times a month someone starts a thread bemoaning the lack of consistency in PSA's grading standards, so I thought I'd throw my thoughts on this subject out there and see if they make sense.
The problem, as I see it, is not in PSA's grading standards. Think back to life before slabbed cards; most of us, I believe, used to consider cards that would now fit comfortably in 7 NQ holders to be 'mint', or at least 'close enough for our purposes'. Then PSA came up with this grading scale, and all hell broke loose. Suddenly, the paradigm was shifted, and everyone had to try and catch up.
If PSA could do it all over I wish they would just have five grades; poor, vg, ex, nmt and mint. Period. That's the way cards used to be graded, and it seemed to work fine. The one thing PSA DID do for the collector is offer assurance that the card wasn't altered, which used to be the major gripe amongst collectors in the pre-slab era. To this end, the grading standard itself should be considered superfluous. But it's not, as we know, so it would be nice if we could get a 'do-over', whereby the cards given a grade that more or less described the card, but didn't pick the card apart for every ridiculously minute defect. But, as we all know, we're stuck with the system that's currently in place. And it's not a bad system. The problem with it is that the differences between the grades are not substantual enough to allow for consistency. That's just the fact. Which means, amongst other things, that if someone doesn't feel as though PSA grades consistently then they should let their money do the talking, and quit paying ridiculous premiums for high grade cards. The core problem is NOT that PSA's standards aren't applied with what many of us would consider to be an acceptable level of consistency-- instead, the problem is the obscene price jump that one sees from one grade to the next. And for this, the collectors have only themselves to blame, since they're the ones who dictate the market prices.
The reason we grouse about consistency in the grading room is because there's a huge financial reward for those who are lucky enough to get their cards in the hi-end holders. But this financial reward is not PSA's doing-- it's the collector's doing. You can't blame PSA for the fact that many collectors will happily pay 20x more for a 10 than a 9 when he himself either a) can't tell the difference between the two cards, or b) wouldn't care about the differences between the two grades if the hobby at large hadn't told him it was important.
What should be the primary concern of every collector? I recognize that this varies from man to man, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the goal of most collectors should be to have a collection that isn't trimmed, and that presents well. And as far as that goes, most '7's, and certainly most '8's, present as well at '10's. Or at least they used to present as well 15 years ago, so I can't understand why they wouldn't present as well now.
PSA will never grade consistently. They just can't do it, because of the nature of the grading system that they started. So we're never going to get consistency. But if collectors would quit paying so much for the hi-end holders we could get it to the point where this lack of consistency was made irrelevant, which is really all we can hope for now. If an 8 sold for 50 bucks, and a 10 for 70, would anyone care if DSL got all the 10's? No. So, If you think PSA gives preferential treatment to volume submitters, then you can voice your displeasure by not shelling out the dough for 9's and 10's. I think it's probably just that simple. True, it's not an ideal protest, but it's all you've got. If you're not willing to do this, then understand that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. You can't make PSA grade consistently, but you CAN work towards making this fact irrelevant.
The problem, as I see it, is not in PSA's grading standards. Think back to life before slabbed cards; most of us, I believe, used to consider cards that would now fit comfortably in 7 NQ holders to be 'mint', or at least 'close enough for our purposes'. Then PSA came up with this grading scale, and all hell broke loose. Suddenly, the paradigm was shifted, and everyone had to try and catch up.
If PSA could do it all over I wish they would just have five grades; poor, vg, ex, nmt and mint. Period. That's the way cards used to be graded, and it seemed to work fine. The one thing PSA DID do for the collector is offer assurance that the card wasn't altered, which used to be the major gripe amongst collectors in the pre-slab era. To this end, the grading standard itself should be considered superfluous. But it's not, as we know, so it would be nice if we could get a 'do-over', whereby the cards given a grade that more or less described the card, but didn't pick the card apart for every ridiculously minute defect. But, as we all know, we're stuck with the system that's currently in place. And it's not a bad system. The problem with it is that the differences between the grades are not substantual enough to allow for consistency. That's just the fact. Which means, amongst other things, that if someone doesn't feel as though PSA grades consistently then they should let their money do the talking, and quit paying ridiculous premiums for high grade cards. The core problem is NOT that PSA's standards aren't applied with what many of us would consider to be an acceptable level of consistency-- instead, the problem is the obscene price jump that one sees from one grade to the next. And for this, the collectors have only themselves to blame, since they're the ones who dictate the market prices.
The reason we grouse about consistency in the grading room is because there's a huge financial reward for those who are lucky enough to get their cards in the hi-end holders. But this financial reward is not PSA's doing-- it's the collector's doing. You can't blame PSA for the fact that many collectors will happily pay 20x more for a 10 than a 9 when he himself either a) can't tell the difference between the two cards, or b) wouldn't care about the differences between the two grades if the hobby at large hadn't told him it was important.
What should be the primary concern of every collector? I recognize that this varies from man to man, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the goal of most collectors should be to have a collection that isn't trimmed, and that presents well. And as far as that goes, most '7's, and certainly most '8's, present as well at '10's. Or at least they used to present as well 15 years ago, so I can't understand why they wouldn't present as well now.
PSA will never grade consistently. They just can't do it, because of the nature of the grading system that they started. So we're never going to get consistency. But if collectors would quit paying so much for the hi-end holders we could get it to the point where this lack of consistency was made irrelevant, which is really all we can hope for now. If an 8 sold for 50 bucks, and a 10 for 70, would anyone care if DSL got all the 10's? No. So, If you think PSA gives preferential treatment to volume submitters, then you can voice your displeasure by not shelling out the dough for 9's and 10's. I think it's probably just that simple. True, it's not an ideal protest, but it's all you've got. If you're not willing to do this, then understand that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. You can't make PSA grade consistently, but you CAN work towards making this fact irrelevant.
0
Comments
As for paying 20X more for a 10 as opposed to a 9, that's not PSA's fault. They don't set the market. Also, people do it all the time in the coin market as well. What's the difference between a coin slabbed as an MS-66 or an MS-67? Maybe just an opinion on the part of a grader, which might change from day to day. However, depending on the type and date of the coin, the 67 might sell for 20X the MS-66 (especially if the pop is only 1 of 2 or something).
Let's face it...PSA does the best job. I think that trying to iron out all flaws and make the whole grading process airtight is a fool's errand. Anything that has to do with human opinion will never be perfect. As far as "improvements" go, I'd focus more on things tht can be better controlled, say, if PSA were to be more consistent with their order handling process (first in, first out, etc), things of that nature, rather than worrying about the grading itself. I'll worry about that when someone else comes up with a better mousetrap in that arena - an event I find unlikely. JMHO though.
Since you know,(and I agree) that there isn't much difference between a 9 and a 10, or even a 7 and a 10 for that matter, then you can just buy 7's and not worry about what people pay for 10's. If they want to pay ridiculous prices, why does that matter to you? You can put together a great 50's set and later in PSA 7 for a very reasonable price. You should be grateful that you don't have to pay PSA 9 prices to do it.
Why do some people pay $50 for a bottle of wine when an $8 bottle is nearly as good? Don't worry about them. Just buy the $8 bottle and be happy.
edited for typo: as u can see spelling isn't my forte
edited again: actually buck what people spend on 6 and 7 is tied to what people spend on 9 and 10
u say that they can build a set at a reasonable price...that price is tied though to what 9 and 10z go for....imho
<< <i>
edited again: actually buck what people spend on 6 and 7 is tied to what people spend on 9 and 10
u say that they can build a set at a reasonable price...that price is tied though to what 9 and 10z go for....imho >>
Winpitcher,
Can you expand on this a little. I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
edited to say: not that its a bad thing only it is a fact of life why then would a tattered psa1 mantle that looks like it came from a milk commercial go for 1500? cuz the hi end 8 goes for 35k....coins are notorious for this
We just had a long discussion about 86s here last week. Well, for most cards you can't sell an 8 for grading fees, but 9s bring some decent bank. Why? Because you can roll out of bed and get 8s but 9s require a good eye and a lot of lucky packs. Again, pricing based on scarcity. The market is pretty efficient by and large, and I'd say that the pricing realized in higher grades has a minor, if any, effect on sales in lower grades. Of cards that are fairly common to find, anyway.
<< <i>...And as far as that goes, most '7's, and certainly most '8's, present as well at '10's. Or at least they used to present as well 15 years ago, so I can't understand why they wouldn't present as well now... >>
Huh? You are either getting some severely undergraded PSA 7s back or you need to get out of the graded game and stick to raw cards.
99% of my PSA 10s look better than their PSA 9 versions.
99% of my PSA 9s look better than their PSA 8 versions.
99% ... you get the picture. If you really look at the card, you can definitely tell the difference. There's no comparison between a PSA 7 (or PSA 8) and a PSA 10 regardless of the consistency of grading!
JEB.
This would have been fixed with 1/2 grades (4.5, 7.5 etc) if they had started that way. But I would guess that when PSA began they had no clue that its busniess would take off to the level it has. The lack of will to change now from a full grade scale to a half grade scale is directly tied to the huge premiums people have payed fr PSA 9s and PSA 10s. To change now would devalue those cards and piss off the biggest guns in the hobby. PSA won't do that.
But IMHO I would like to see half grades. But I only have a hundred or so PSA cards.
JEB said:
"If you really look at the card, you can definitely tell the difference. There's no comparison between a PSA 7 (or PSA 8) and a PSA 10 regardless of the consistency of grading"
Yes, there is a difference. But that's not the question-- the question is this: Did you care about the difference before PSA began grading? That is, were you making these distinctions? Was there a time in the pre-slab era when you would have paid, say, 25$ for a '71 centered Stargell that would now grade an $50, and $1500 for one that would now grade a 10, even if you were 100% confident that neither card had been trimmed?
In any case, this is just a digression. My point was that it's not PSA's fault that people bemoan the lack of consistency in the grading room; it's the collector's fault, since he's the one who has determined that hi-end slabs will fetch such a premium. This, in turn, has made consistent grading such an issue, since there's such a financial reward for getting your cards in the hi-end holders. If this reward didn't exist, then nobody would care about PSA's lack of consistency.
I suppose the interesting part is if they are not good at it why do people continue to send their cards in to them? The collectors yearn for some nuetral party to give an objective opinion as to the quality of their collection. In the pre PSA days everyone was fine on making their own judgements. I believe the advent of the registry has changed the face of the hobby. Common prices have skyrocketed. Why is a PSA 8 60 Vic Wertz worth $450 on ebay and a 60 Lou Burdette worth $20? The answer is the registry. Low population cards are on fire. The invention of the registry was the most positive thing PSA has done for their business. Collectors got into it making sending cards to other companies obsolete. It didn't help their Registry set. Collectors are having a blast putting their sets together with a rating attached to it.
My point is the registry has made it so less focus is placed on PSA inconsistencies and more on putting together a set that can be compared against others and we all thrive on competition. The registry was a brilliant marketing ploy that took the other grading companies out of the picture for the most part. If PSA could show more consistencey they could virtually dominate the market.
Yankee Collector 1958-60
Retired complete 1960 Topps set
If you are truely that dissappointed in PSA why hang around here. I have alot of time and money invested in PSA and to tell you the truth I am getting a little tired of people coming on these PSA boards and bashing them. If you have something constructive to add the by all means email Joe and give him your idea. Its pretty simple if you dont like a big mac dont order it if you dont like PSA's grading then go to another company. PSA has the most consistent graders in the business. They by far out distant thier competitors in thier grading standards and PSA cards bring higher dollars than any other grading company out there. Was there something else you were looking for. Is PSA perfect? No they are not but you cant perfectly grade 7,000,000 million cards. I for one support PSA and there standards and feel they have done a great job. They are the number one grading card company and will most likely remain that way.
Dave
Consistency is a opinion. What you may feel is inconsistent others may not. Here is inconsistency. Complaining about PSA and the going and promoting there business by buying their product. I agree with Jeb. I can tell the differance between 7 and 8's and tens. There is a huge differance between a 7 and a 10. The closer the grades are the smaller the differances but they do exsist. PSA cant hold every ones hand and tell them its an eight because the left to right holds it from being a 9. That would be unproductive and the cost to slab would increase then we could all sit around and whine about the price instead of the inconsistency. I am not sure if your original post suggested we stop paying high dollars for high grades I for one will continue to upgrade my sets when I can. I am pretty sure this will not hurt PSA grading standards or inconsistencies as you may be suggesting.
Dave
I'm not bashing anyone. I'm just giving an unbiased opinion about PSA. Most of the people on here seem content to put up with PSA's lackings. I prefer PsA for their market share. Just because you have money invested doesn't mean your realization of fact should be clouded. I thought that a person, me, working towards consistency in grading was constructive. Isn't that better than just resubmitting all of the misgraded cards and ignoring the fact? Saying that PSA has the most consistent graders is incorrect. There are at least two other companies who grade equal to if not better than PSA. PsA does have market share though. I'll give you that. I'm not looking for perfection, I'm just looking for consistency. There are so many cards that are resubmitted that the pop. report is useless. To me, someone who resubmits a card to PSA is saying "you were wrong the first time, please correct your mistake." These types only take the grades PSA gives them when they think they're correct. If the graders are the best, why do cards have to be sent in multiple times? Clearly, many people don't agree with PsA grades, at least the first time submitted. My bottom line is this, people resubmit cards to get better grades, therefore there is zero consistency, and secondly, a PSA 8 can become a PsA 10.
Take care.
My point with regard to my 500 cards...is that I have a very small population of the PSA cards...yet as a percentage there are to many of them with problems...and it makes no sense to me...Joe tells me that they are the exception when I point them out to him...well...I have way to many exceptions to make me feel comfortable...yet I'm not going to get into a pissing contest...I still prefer the PSA card to protect my value...
Collector
Topps 58,59,60,61,62,63,64 Sets
Fleer 60, 61-62 Sets
An unbiased opinion based on what. What proof do you have except for maybe some cards you may or may not own. Show me the proof of inconsistency. PSA has graded close to 7,000,000 cards what percentage are you talking about. Your idea of inconsistent and somebody else's idea of inconsistent will be two differant things. Also the fact that people send cards in for regrade doesn't mean that PSA is inconsistent. All that says is that person was not happy with his or her grade. If PSA graded cards to make the customer happy they would grade them all 10's. I am not saying PSA is perfect I am saying they are the best in the business and the market values reflect this.
Dave
My Auctions
I will give you an example of GAi. I bought a 9.5 Gem Mint 1969 Mike Marshall and crossed it over to PSA were it came back as trimmed. I submitted it again thinking something was wrong and it came back as trimmed a second time. I have also done this with a 68 cash that I felt would 9. I sent this card three times to PSA on seperate occasions and all three times it came back trimmed. Again I dont think PSA is perfect but I believe they are the most consistent. I am also not looking for a pissing contest but theat are the best at what they do and should be recognized as such.
Dave
Dave,
In your opinion, are the cards trimmed?
As to your trimmed GAI card...I know of a serious collector that had sent a card into PSA...3 times...the first two it came back as trimmed...and now it resides in a 8 Holder??? Isn't a trimmed card...a trimmed card...always? Is that subjective?
Don't get me wrong...I'll buy a PSA card over almost anyone elses cards...and I will be testing the grading as I'm about to send in a 7.5 and 92 SGC...and I'm waiting to see what happens...both look "cherry"...
Collector
Topps 58,59,60,61,62,63,64 Sets
Fleer 60, 61-62 Sets
<< <i>Stump,
I'm not bashing anyone. I'm just giving an unbiased opinion about PSA. .... There are at least two other companies who grade equal to if not better than PSA. ... To me, someone who resubmits a card to PSA is saying "you were wrong the first time, please correct your mistake." ... My bottom line is this, people resubmit cards to get better grades, therefore there is zero consistency.
Take care. >>
Poeandbb--Unbiased????? Do you have any factual study/proof/evidence that there are two other companies who grade equal to if not better tahn PSA? That is just your opinion. It may be true, but it is not an unbiased fact. And I have several GAI cards that are overgraded.
The fact that people submit cards to get better grades just means that there is some subjectivity in grading cards, and they hope to luck out. Maybe get a grader who is more lenient on corners than surface, etc. I dare say that if you took 10 people who you think are the best graders in the world, and gave them 100 cards to grade, every card would receive multiple grades, and no two graders would grade every card the same.
<< <i>Dave (Stump): ....I have issues with card getting 9's that are 60/40...or 75/25...all of us have seen cards with no qualifiers and yet the card is OC all of the way...... >>
Henri,
I have sen tens of thousands of PSA cards, and never have I seen a PSA 9 with 75/25 centering, so we haven't all seen one. Could you post a scan of one... if such a thing exists??
I cant tell. I know sometimes some of these cards come from sheets that were cut later. It takes some bigtime experience to determine whether or not the card was cut at the factory. There seems to be some angle or bevel as to how the card is cut. The Marshall looked great the corners were flawless and the centering was almost perfect.
HammeringHank
I agree that PSA can always look to improve. I believe Joe himself has come on these boards and stated so himself. they are not perfect therefore there is room for improvement. My only problem is when guys come on this board and just start picking on certain isolated instances and indicating because this happened one or twice to me its now gospel. They do this without mentioning the fact the largest return on graded cards happens through PSA submissions. Pick on the shortcomings no problem but also mention the good things also. Pick on the shortcomings only and then go out and buy the product you were picking on is hypocritilcal.
Dave
I never said that by buying hi-end holders a collector is promoting PSA's inconsistency in the grading room, or hurting the grading standards. Rather, I said that by paying high premiums for such cards you are helping to promote the fact that these inconsistencies are even an issue. If you feel the difference between a 7 and a 9 is worth the money, then by all means go for it!! No where in my post did I suggest that people shouldn't spend their money in a way that pleases them. I only wanted to point out that if someone is disappointed with PSA's consistency they should stop spending big money on mint+ holders, since it's the big premiums that these holders fetch which make these inconsistencies the issue they are today.
"Buy the card, not the holder"- the difference between collector and investor is truly represented in this cliche said over and over again.
IMHO consistency is a major problem - PSA 7s and 8s blend together. PSA 6s and 7s - uggggggg! Man is not perfect. All of you collectors who have stuff hanging on the walls sympathize when a friend takes a look and says that a PSA 7 looks much nicer than that PSA 8. Once you exhibit your collection in your home and office, I think inconsistent grading becomes a frustration that could drive us all "mad". I continue to be wary of cards graded early on when PSA first started. I think the grading standards are higher now than they were 5 years ago. Inconsistency drives me crazy.
However, I am happy PSA exists, enjoy the hobby and will continue enjoying it for many years to come... i just wish when it all started back in the beginning, it was done a little differently. Oh well!
<< <i>I have to agree to some extent with the origninal thread. I believe that if only six grades were initially set out by PSA - poor, fair, vg, excellent, nm, mint- then the market would have accepted it this way, PSA would be just as popular and profitable, and the hobby would be better off because the collectors would have more choice. >>
Good post.
However, the market seems to be more demanding of more grades and not less. Thus the newer companies have instituted 1/2 grades. It may just be because they needed to differentiate from PSA, but it may also be because of the price differential between grades.
Where would you put all of the PSA 8 cards, which are the largest portion of cards graded? Mint or NM?
From your first post
<< <i> the problem is the obscene price jump that one sees from one grade to the next. And for this, the collectors have only themselves to blame, since they're the ones who dictate the market prices.
The reason we grouse about consistency in the grading room is because there's a huge financial reward for those who are lucky enough to get their cards in the hi-end holders. But this financial reward is not PSA's doing-- it's the collector's doing. You can't blame PSA for the fact that many collectors will happily pay 20x more for a 10 than a 9 when he himself either a) can't tell the difference between the two cards, or b) wouldn't care about the differences between the two grades if the hobby at large hadn't told him it was important.
What should be the primary concern of every collector? ... goal of most collectors should be to have a collection that isn't trimmed, and that presents well.
PSA will never grade consistently. They just can't do it, because of the nature of the grading system that they started. But if collectors would quit paying so much for the hi-end holders we could get it to the point where this lack of consistency was made irrelevant....I think it's probably just that simple. True, it's not an ideal protest, but it's all you've got. If you're not willing to do this, then understand that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. . >>
And from the most recent post
<< <i>I never said that by buying hi-end holders a collector is promoting PSA's inconsistency in the grading room, or hurting the grading standards. Rather, I said that by paying high premiums for such cards you are helping to promote the fact that these inconsistencies are even an issue. If you feel the difference between a 7 and a 9 is worth the money, then by all means go for it!! No where in my post did I suggest that people shouldn't spend their money in a way that pleases them. I only wanted to point out that if someone is disappointed with PSA's consistency they should stop spending big money on mint+ holders, since it's the big premiums that these holders fetch which make these inconsistencies the issue they are today. >>
These posts seem to be contradictory. Are you saying that people should or shouldn't pay premiums for high graded cards?
my 2 cents....things will prolly change in the future..they always do!!!
Lothar52
Buckwheat is right. Read your posts. I think it may be you who is inconsistent. I will definately keep buying what I feel is right for my collection and if that makes me part of what you are calling the problem then so be it. I say again PSA is the best there is to offer for the collectors who buy graded cards. Again they are not perfect and never will be but that is still not a reason to fry them with conjecture about being inconsistent. Show me some proof.
Dave
PSA 9 an 10 would be grouped together as mint
PSA 7 and 8 would grade as Nrmt in my scheme
PSA 5 and 6 would be excellent
PSA 3 and 4 very good, and so on...
I just like the idea as a collector to have more discretion and power in picking my cards and have the holder play less of a role in my decision making. Unfortunately, all of us have a little "investor" in us and thats what makes inconsistency so painful and makes the holder/psa grade so powerful. We just can't ignore the grade PSA gives despite how great a card looks. It goes against our greedy human nature!
I think a company who puts out a topflight product, like PSA, would be better off with more grades available (as I said in my original post yesterday) than less. After all, doesn't a collector want more accurate knowledge regarding a potential purchase, or do they want something more general? It's obvious to me. I'm with the former.
Great reply. I'm now going to pursue PSA 6s for my pre-60's card collection with that philosophy and not feel guilty about it. Thanks.
cheers,
minibeers
P.S. I bought a 1953 Bowman Color Solly Hemus in PSA 6 to put next to an autographed Cardinals team ball in my office and cracked the mother out of the slab put it in a screw down and it looks freakin' KILLER (like an 8) and I didn't pay the big bucks. I would probably get more for the card now that it is out of its holder (not that I'm into that kind of thing).
1963T Dodgers in 8s
Pre-war Brooklyn 5s or higher
Another thing I'd like to point out - a few of these posts have suggested that PSA started this (the 1-10 grading scale). This is false! ASA (I believe) started the 1-10 grading scale and patented the basic design of the holders that you still see today, well before PSA was even a thought. So don't blame PSA for that.
JEB.
<< <i>Jeb - the irony there is that, in the beginning, there was a perfect opportunity for PSA to make their own scale and tell ASA they can take their ball and go home. Then maybe we'd have had something better than the 1-10 scale we use today. >>
Hindsight is 20/20!
Don't shoot the messenger!
Ok, enough with the cliches!
JEB.
they've graded consistenly for 10 years or so.
hope they grade for another 20+.
<< <i>"Thoughts on PSA grading consistently"
they've graded consistenly for 10 years or so.
hope they grade for another 20+. >>
Ok, enough beating around the bush, that post says it all. My thoughts exactly! Thanks pc!
JEB.
It is difficult for there to be complete grading consistency when any company employs more than 1 grader. Each grader despite having the same written criteria is going to have different tendencies and opinions. Look at what happens on this board when a card is posted and a grade is requested. Opinions are all over the place.
"These posts seem to be contradictory. Are you saying that people should or shouldn't pay premiums for high graded cards?"
If there's any confusion here I'm to blame for it. My point, in a nutshell, is this: Everyone should spend their discretionary income in a way that makes them happy. If PSA 10's seem like a good purchase to a collector, then I would encourage him to pursue as many cards as possible residing in 10 holders. However, if you find that PSA's grading inconsistencies are too troubling to ignore, then you need to reconsider purchasing cards in hi-end holders, because it is the premiums realized for these cards that make PSA's inconsistencies an issue in the first place. If everyone quit buying the hi-end holders, for example, and the prices on 10's came down to say 2x the level of 7's, nobody would care about the inconsistencies anymore.
I'm NOT saying that I personally find PSA's level of consistency unacceptable, or that I am encouraging others to buy 7 and lower holders. My only concern here is to point out why PSA's grading consistency is an issue in the first place.
Lots of interesting commentary in this thread -- only took me about 20 minutes to get through it all but I read every word so give me credit. I had about a 15-minute very informative conversation with Joe Orlando in Chicago. The guy DOES know the business, the hobby, and where he's going with PSA.
Is there inconsistency in PSA grading? Sure there is. Its a subjective activity performed by humans. Humans make mistakes and something one human does will never match exactly to what another human does. Period. Joe admitted as much but explained that PSA does everything HUMANLY (there's that word again) possible to ensure accurate grading on every card. And until somebody comes up with some sort of artificial intelligence robot that can analyze a piece of cardboard, it will continue that way -- with ALL professional card grading companies.
What I found most intriguing in this thread was the attempted introduction of the "marketplace effect" (for lack of a better term), which is OBJECTIVE. into the activity of professional card grading, which is SUBJECTIVE. Huh? They are two very separate things and are about as different as Heather Locklear and Rosie O'Donnell.
This is how I see the "marketplace effect." As I've mentioned before, there is a tremendous stratification that has occurred between a PSA 7 grade and a PSA 8 grade, especially in the realm of common cards. Personally, I don't understand it and I doubt that anyone else does either. The problem for me (and others who submit commons with profit in mind) is that the marketplace for 8's gets you that profit -- sometimes small, sometimes large, but pretty much always. On the other hand, the marketplace for 7's gets you "break even" if you're lucky but more frequently results in a loss.
My opinion on the other side of this coin -- PSA's grading -- is that PSA itself has somehow (inadvertantly, I believe) developed a figurative "wall" between these two grades -- 7 and 8. Again, I don't know why but its there and I communicated this to Joe in Chicago. My opinion is that today, for any card to get a grade of PSA 8, it must be "almost a 9." Anything less and it gets a 7. I don't believe that to be a bash on PSA, just honest observation and constructive criticism -- nothing more. My proof is in reviewing cards that I get back from PSA. I can agree almost 100% on the cards that I've seen get 5's and 6's. But when it comes to 7's, I can find a pretty large percentage that -- based on 8 being halfway between 7 and 9 -- should have gotten an 8. Not all, mind you, but probably 40% to 50%. That's too many, in my humble opinion.
Scott
Thanks for the explanation. I understand you now. Realize though, that you can't fight market forces. It is no different from seating at ballparks now, where they sell the first two rows for 5 to 10 times more than three rows back. The game is not that much different, but people will pay for scarcity as well as for the best. Most of us couldn't tell the difference between Dom Perignon and Korbel, but people will pay 20X more for the Perignon.
Scott,
I believe that PSA grading has changed from way back when.
IMHO, it has gotten tougher (otherwise known as the 'grader of death').
What was Joe's response?
<< <i>Scott,
I believe that PSA grading has changed from way back when.
IMHO, it has gotten tougher (otherwise known as the 'grader of death').
What was Joe's response? >>
Joe told me that they have not all sat down together in a meeting and decided to suddenly get tougher on grading. He said they try very hard to ensure that all graders operate on the same understanding, using the same scale, and getting the same training. He acknowledged that grading will vary slightly from grader to grader. I meant to ask him about the actual grading process itself, and forgot to ask. I'll probably email or call him when I get a chance.
Scott
I think this is a problem to can be easily corrected.
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
You speak true. But, I'm not trying to fight anything-- in fact, if I was to go on slabbed card buying binge I'd probably buy mostly 9's, since I think they have the most growth potential. Also, I have no major problems with PSA's consistency; I think they do a fine job, on the balance, and I don't think I could reasonably expect much more.
The point is that when someone brings up the grading consistency (or the lack of it), then goes out and spends money on '9' holders, they are helping to feed that beast which they loathe.