The Half-Grade Issue -- An Objective Perspective
scottsusor
Posts: 1,210
Post deleted since so many experts decided this subject has been "beaten to death." I wouldn't want to offend anybody by suggesting that anything new could be added to such a subject.
Scott
Scott
0
Comments
I must disagree with your first point. Right now, the population of PSA 8's contains cards that would be 8.5, 8.0, and 7.5 under a half point grading system. On average, if you buy an 8, you will get an 8. By that, I mean you'll get some high-end 8's (8.5) some middle of the road (8.0), and some low end (7.5). If you buy your graded cards over the Internet based on a scan, it is difficult enough to distinguish whole grades in many instances, let alone half grades. But, on average, you'll end up with 8's. So, at this point, under the current system, if you have 300 PSA 8's, you'll have 100 high end, 100 middle of the road, and 100 low end.
Now PSA institutes the half grade system. Obviously, PSA 8.5's will be worth more than PSA 8.0's. So if you have PSA 8's under the old system, you are likely to resubmit these to get 8.5's. Everyone else knows this too. So the universe of old PSA 8's will no longer contain the high end 8's, only straight 8 and low end 8's. Everyone knows this as well. So they know if they are buying an old 8, on average, they will no longer be getting an 8, but rather a 7.75 (the average of straight 8's and low end (7.5). So the price of old 8's will fall. The problem gets worse. Assume you've already submitted your high end 8's to get 8.5's, but you didn't resubmit your straight 8's. But now the market is assuming that an old 8 is really, on average, more of a 7.75. Forget that, you say, my 8's are really 8.0's. So you submit those too to get the new 8.0. So now what is left in the market, old 8's that are low end 8's (7.5). Even if you have a reason for not resubmitting your cards (cost, don't care about half grade, etc.), people will still assume that your old 8's are low end.
This is not to say that there aren't good reasons for switching to a half grade system. Some good reasons to switch: (1) more precise grades (hopefully); (2) could use the opportunity to introduce a better holder (and bolstering customer confidence that the card has not been tampered); and (3) could use as opportunity to correct pops of cards such as 52 Topps Red/Black backs (when card resubmitted, designation would be made). Downside would be the current PSA customer dilemma of either shelling out a lot of money to have cards regraded/reholdered or having the value of the collection go down to due public perception of the failure to resubmit.
John
Do a search under past threads. This topic has been beaten to death . The overwhelming opinion of the board is they dont want a change to half grades
If there going to change anything fix the damn holder to make it more tamper proof. Beckett doesnt have much going for them but ever tried cracking a BGS card . i almost killed myself last weekend cracking one to send to PSA . Its been proven PSA, SGC etc all can be opened and resealed with sometimes very minor damage to the holder
<< <i>Right now, the population of PSA 8's contains cards that would be 8.5, 8.0, and 7.5 under a half point grading system. >>
The only problem with this contention is that, a while back, somebody put forth the idea (fact?) that a PSA "8" represented a range of grading from 8.0 to 8.9 -- and nobody disagreed with it. I contended what you are contending -- and nobody agreed with it.
Scott
Half grades, quarter grades, Or even a 100 point grading scale ( SGC tried, but a 7=84, 7.5=86, 8=88, 8.5=92 and 9=96, so incremental math is not their strong point), may have been a bit clearer or more presice.
A stronger, more attractive, more tamper-proof holder could have been used. Nice to have card info on the top of the slab as well.
Perhaps centering, the only truly objective facet of grading, could be posted on the improved label and not necessarily be a part of the card's assigned grade. All other qualities of the card could be rated and given an overall grade but centering could be an "outside" listed factor and thus allow the collector to decide what degree of centering is suitable for his taste along with that card's corresponding other subjective total quality composite.
PSA could have hired only true experts with perfect eyesight, who enjoy cards and grading so much they do so on an almost "voluntary" basis, thus they could keep regular fees very very low.
It does appear the current system is doing pretty good, never perfect of course, but good enough to be the top value in most cases. Steadfastness, uniformity, consistency, regularity, and whatever, do promote a dependable feeling when submitting. Change does not always equal improvement.
There would certainly be high end and low end 8.5s if half grades were used. The 1 to 10 scale may have drawbacks but a half, quarter, or 1/100 scale will also. Maybe change the holder eventually, but leave well enough alone per the grading scale.
A radical change like doubling the possible number of grades would undermine the confidence of many people in the service to some degree. You can see it in play now. You often see in auctions phrases like,"This was graded back when PSA started and was much tougher on grading," or "This was graded recently after PSA toughened grading standards." Contradictory, maybe, but there is often a perception that things used to be easier/tougher in the past. The phrase "high end (fill in the grade)" is thrown around a lot, too, especially with 8s and 9s, because, when you come down to it, assigning one of 10 empirical numbers to something as subjective and variable as the condition of a small piece of cardboard is a rough science at the very least. Both of these ideas seem to me to show that there is a perception that the grading system is always in flux, even if the same set of numbers are used on the flips.
Here's one theoretical but realistic situation of how prices would be affected. I think there's a strong possibility that a change in the system could lead to a change in collecting habits. Right now, a grade of 8 is the target, the most desirable grade for the largest segment of set builders, for the post-war vintage collectors, who are responsible for the huge increase in the population the last few years. If an 8.5 grade appeared, 8 could very well no longer be the target. It might not be good enough. That would cause 8s to slide because people would go for the next increment, which would still less than a mint price, but better discernably better quality than NM/Mt. Current 8s would be resubmitted in droves, if not for the value but the grade, and the value of 8s would slide. It's possible that people building in 7 could jumping up over 7.5 to 8s if prices fall far enough, but they wouldn't prop them up. I see this already with 75s, where sometime last year, most of the top 10 guys seemed to decide that their sets weren't complete with 100% 8+, and there's been fierce competition for 9s, with most 8s now to be had somewhere between grading cost and $10, even HOFers and formerly "tough" cards that would routinely sell for $20-50.
Three somewhat more concrete reasons why prices would shift. First, PSA used to grade Star basketball cards from the mid-80s. They don't anymore. Why? I'm not real sure of the story, I'm sure someone will fill in the blanks, but IIRC, Star themselves reprinted the cards years later when they turned out to be worth thousands. Now, a PSA-graded Star card raises eyebrows because a) PSA doesn't grade them anymore and b) people know why. These cards consequently sell for much less than they used to because PSA backtracked on their ability to authenticate this issue. This is a change in the grading system, not in the scale but in what they will take on. While the root cause lies in the doubt about the whole product pool, PSA's refusal to continue grading them and going so far as to remove them from the Pop Reports and I think from the cert lookup database was a large part of spreading the doubt.
Second, SGC changed their system slightly, adding a 10-point number to their rather unwieldy 15-point system. How much has this impacted their prices? I don't know as I don't really go for SGC stuff, but if you ask Brian Wentz, it's important. Wentz, depite what most people would call a questionable personality, does know more about cards than most people, and has this on his website's most-wanted buying page where he offers to pay up to a million dollars for SGC graded cards:
"These outrageously generous prices are for SGC graded cards only. Each card must have the 1-100 as well as the 1-10 scale printed on the grading tag."
If he has so much confidence in SGC cards, why aren't their original slabs good enough? If I offer up a SGC 88 Wagner in an original slab, or a PSA 8 Wagner for that matter, would he really turn it down? Or just "discount" his offer?
Third, BGS added BVG. When they started up, BGS graded vintage stuff really harshly, saying there was no difference between the standards that should be applied to a 1949 card and a 1999 card. Ideally, that's true, but of course it's not. A card printed on metal with computer-controlled presses and cut with a titanium blade is not the same item at all as a card printed on the second-coarsest wood pulp available with a hand-operated press and cut with a wire. So naturally, people got upset when their nice 50s and 60s cards came back as 5s and 6s. So upset were they that BGS had to retract their adherance to those standards and start a new brand. Of course, they went so far in the other direction that they blighted their own name, but the point is that again a standard, if not the scoring system, was changed, and the market reacted.
Anyway, I don't think PSA needs to change their system as I think a 10-point plan is sufficient, easy to understand, and stable, rough though it is. Consistency and transparency are really all that are needed to perfect their service. I like BGS's 4-subgrade slab, and I can appreciate the finer degree of evaluation of SGC's 15-point system, especially at the top end, and in certain cases I think BGS's 20-point system is the way to go. There is also the CGC comics system, where a book is graded on overall grade, but flaws are noted, as in "9.2 NM-, 2" crease in back cover". Comics are much more complicated than cards, and their system therefore has a much wider tolerance within grades, but it's an option. The bottom line is that human nature is slow to accept change, especially when money is involved, and if the 7 million cards in PSA slabs were suddenly put under the harsh light of reevaluation, it couldn't help but cast a huge shadow across the hobby.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
I have no idea whether, in the mind of PSA, an 8 is anything 7.5 to 8.5 or 8.0 to 8.9. But assuming a current 8 is anything 8.00 to 8.99, my explanation of why the price would drop is still valid. Under this interpretation, people would currently be assuming that the average 8 is really an 8.5. So everyone who has a high end 8 will want to resubmit to get the 8.5. If you don't resubmit, people will assume you have a low end 8 (range 8.00 to 8.49, with an average of 8.25) and will devalue the 8. Under this view of how the scale currently works, if an 8 is worth $50, with a range of $40-$60 on sales, I think the 8.5's would move toward the $60 number, and the 8.0's would move toward $40. If you kept the old 8, people would assume 8.0 under the new system, and the card would drop from a value of $50 to $40.
I think that, at least as a matter of PR, the interpretation that an 8 is really 8.0-8.9 would be good because then people would not fear a downgrade on a resubmission. At worst, they would get the 8 they already had, at best go up to 8.5. As a matter of raw grade, you can't lose. But I think with respect to the market, the 8.0 would sell for less than the old 8 did before the switch.
Incidentally, if an 8 is 8.0 to 8.9, does that mean a 9 is 9.0 to 9.9 making every 10 out there a true 10? Isn't a PSA 10 equivalent to a 9.5 on a half point system?
John
<< <i>
I have no idea whether, in the mind of PSA, an 8 is anything 7.5 to 8.5 or 8.0 to 8.9. >>
There is no ambiguity. According to PSA, an 8 is 8.0 to 8.9.
I would prefer that the system in place now remain.
To use a half point system at this time would harm all the cards graded up until then.
It would just create even more grading imconsistency as you would find hi end 8.5 low end 8.5 and average 8.5.
my 2 cents
<< <i>Do a search under past threads. This topic has been beaten to death . >>
Amen. Many times, too.
But, this is exactly why you will never see it (well stated by justthefacts):
<< <i>Now PSA institutes the half grade system. Obviously, PSA 8.5's will be worth more than PSA 8.0's. So if you have PSA 8's under the old system, you are likely to resubmit these to get 8.5's. Everyone else knows this too. So the universe of old PSA 8's will no longer contain the high end 8's, only straight 8 and low end 8's. Everyone knows this as well. So they know if they are buying an old 8, on average, they will no longer be getting an 8, but rather a 7.75 (the average of straight 8's and low end (7.5). So the price of old 8's will fall. The problem gets worse. Assume you've already submitted your high end 8's to get 8.5's, but you didn't resubmit your straight 8's. But now the market is assuming that an old 8 is really, on average, more of a 7.75. Forget that, you say, my 8's are really 8.0's. So you submit those too to get the new 8.0. So now what is left in the market, old 8's that are low end 8's (7.5). Even if you have a reason for not resubmitting your cards (cost, don't care about half grade, etc.), people will still assume that your old 8's are low end. >>
GAI and the rest need a niche to be different from PSA, so let them have this half grade stuff. I think PSA got it right the first time, no need to complicate things. Not to mention the obvious fact that you cannot erase 7 million gradings already done under the 1-10 scale. This topic needs to end, and I'm glad to hear Joe Orlando tell you exactly that.
<< <i> As such, I probably have as objective opinion on this "half-grade issue" as anybody.
But eventually, other professional card grading companies came along and instituted a new, better system -- a system that included half-grades.
Scott >>
Scott, since you state that a 1/2 point system is a "new better" system, then how can I consider your's an objective opinion? You have openly stated your bias.
<< <i>
<< <i> As such, I probably have as objective opinion on this "half-grade issue" as anybody.
But eventually, other professional card grading companies came along and instituted a new, better system -- a system that included half-grades.
Scott >>
Scott, since you state that a 1/2 point system is a "new better" system, then how can I consider your's an objective opinion? You have openly stated your bias. >>
I fail to see where "new better" represents a bias. I have no agenda. "New better" -- unless taken completely out of context -- refers to the "better" accuracy of a half-point system. Do you disagree that a half-point system is more accurate?
Scott
I think the 1/2 point scale change at this point in PSA's maturity would, to a degree, undermine its previous work. To further clarify, it undermines their grading consistency and competency.
However, improving the aesthetics and protection of the holder is something that all companies should consider. More tamper-proof, UV protection, quality of paper and ink used and the novel concept of card information on the lip like GAI are improvement to the product.
Erik
Those are just gimmicks. We have all seen the posts where a number of GAI cards get stuck and damaged between the ill-fitting gaskets.
Give me PSA's custom sized two piece holders anyday.
<< <i>I fail to see where "new better" represents a bias. I have no agenda. "New better" -- unless taken completely out of context -- refers to the "better" accuracy of a half-point system. Do you disagree that a half-point system is more accurate? >>
Scott, I think you mean more precise, not more accurate. A grading scale with greater incrementation, by definition, would reflect a more exacting or more precise method of grading. In this respect, you are correct; it would be considered "better" based on standards of precision. As far as accuracy is concerned, that is wholly dependent on the ability of the grader to match a card to the proper grade or "slot" on a grader scale, however precise or imprecise that scale may be.
BTW, I think your analysis of the half point grading scale is fairly sound. Like you, I see no devaluation since a PSA 8 already reflects a weighted grade greater than 8.0. In my opinion, any loss of market value in PSA 8s will be offset by gains in 8.5s. I think that the phenomenon of half point grading would act to further stimulate an already strong set registry.
1/2 grades would be a dealers delight. Buy all these high end 8's that had not been regraded by their selling customers and put premium prices when they regrade them as an 8.5. I'm not interested in figuring out more ways to make dealers rich. The value of an 8 would drop if there is an 8.5. Without a doubt! The writer of this thread says he wants proof of all these opinions. The only way you can get proof would be to inact this ill conceived idea and then we would all have to live with it. Let's just use a little common sense instead.
Lastly, frankly PSA (who is the best we have in the hobby) is having enough trouble with consistency with full grades. Add 1/2 grades to the equation and it would really be a joke.
I am primarily a PSA 8 grade collector and the advent of half grades would be at this point for me a total turnoff.
Yankee Collector 1958-60
Retired complete 1960 Topps set
The half-point grading is a more accurate system, but I guess I agree with those who say PSA has gone too far with the grading system they current use and that it is too late to change now.
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
"Do you disagree that a half-point system is more accurate?"
Not necessarily. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Grading is as much art as science, subjective (eye appeal, degrees of corner wear) as objective (centering).
If I feel my card is close to the next grade up, I'll crack and resubmit. If I'm wrong twice, I'm out a couple grading fees. If I continue to crack and resubmit, I may be borderline insane (continuing to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome).
Scott, I respect your quest to "get caught up" in the nuances of our hobby, but your philosophical questions grow tiresome for me. Perhaps a better way to handle this would be to pose a question, "Any recent threads that discuss half-point grading?"
Bottom line, the majority on this board don't want it. PSA has no plans to go to it. SGC & Beckett have it. It's a free country, so switch if you want to.
<< <i>I have never had a GAI card slip through the gasket on me-- >>
Grillo,
I think you can count yourself as one of the lucky ones. I have a 1947 J Robinson card and a Cassius Clay sticker that were not so lucky. Caused indentation and damage to the surface of both cards. I'm sure that you have read on all the forum about the problems with these holders. You might not want to move your cards around too much.
Koby
Igloo feels that my logic is flawed. Perhaps he didn't understand what I meant. I'm talking long range value and perhaps he was talking short range. After 8.5's are on the market for say a year or two I believe an 8 would have lower interest and therefore lower value than it does now. One of the things that make an 8 desirable is there is really only one grade higher that you can get in a vintage card. (10's in true vintage cards, 1960 and before, are extremely rare). Maybe I just don't want someone messing with the system this far into the game.
Yankee Collector 1958-60
Retired complete 1960 Topps set
loth
<< <i>Scott, I respect your quest to "get caught up" in the nuances of our hobby, but your philosophical questions grow tiresome for me. >>
Nice. Do you POSSIBLY think this might have been better said in a private email? But I'll still show YOU respect ...
About a dozen or so people have told me they are enjoying the threads I've started -- then there's you. Who's holding a gun to your head forcing you to read the threads that I've started? Just skip on by 'em if you're that tired.
Scott
About a dozen or so people have told me they are enjoying the threads I've started -- then there's you.
Disingenuity at it's finest.
"About a dozen or so people have told me they are enjoying the threads I've started"
I doubt it. In this very thread alone, I see comments such as,
(1) "this topic has been beaten to death."
(2) "Do a search under past threads. This topic has been beaten to death . The overwhelming opinion of the board is they dont want a change to half grades"
(3) "Amen. Many times, too."
(4) "Scott, since you state that a 1/2 point system is a "new better" system, then how can I consider your's an objective opinion? You have openly stated your bias."
Let's move on.
dgf
Congrats on the new tens for the 77s, But does not the fine 77 Blair card come very close to not being 40/60 left to right ? No slam or dig or anything like that, just wonder if the scan is not too good or whatever. How does it look in person to you ? Maybe a 9.5 if the purported perspective of the original thread topic was invoked ?
I feel the same way.
Scott...most of your posts have either been done many times over
(if you had been around a little longer than a few months you would know that) or are just nauseating.I respect your right to post anything you want ...just as nobody forces me to read your posts.
You should have a bit more respect for people that have been around alot longer than yourself who offer valuable knowledge on this board.
DGF,
Sorry I missed you and the Gator in Chicago but its probably better off cause Scott Susor(low pop king) got in there 5 hours early and cleaned out all the nearmint 7 cards with PD (snow) before I coulda got in.lol
Later
BTW, those are some sweet new 10's, dgf! Especially the Freddy...
<< <i>Maybe a 9.5 if the purported perspective of the original thread topic was invoked ? >>
i think that it would be a 9.5 because on the half point scale a 9.5 is 10 and a 10 would be an eleven or 100 but a 100 is not like a 9.5 even if it is 60/40 on the back but the 98 or 9.5 would be a 10 and a 8.5 would be an 8 on most occasions because the 92 would be a 8.5 when submitted again but don't be alarmed by the 88 which is an 8 on the 100 point scale and the 92 would now be an 8.5 under the old standards?i think that the blair would either be a 98 or a 100 depending on how many hairs the grader has to split but it's not a 10 or a 100 but it is a ten so i guess its a 9.5?
thoughts?hog wash?hair splitting?yes its a 9.5?no its a 10?yes it could be a 98?but it is definitly a 10 under the old scale?so its a 10 under the new scale? i am confused.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
I appreciate your posts, even though I don't agree with the logic. This topic has been beaten to death over the past couple of years, but new opinions are always welcome in my book.
That being said, I certainly do not agree that half point grades are better or any more accurate. To tell you why, just think that if we can't agree whether a card is a 7 or an 8, how will we ever agree whether it is a 7, or an 7.5, or an 8, or an 8.5. If you think that if all cards were submitted twice, about 10% would get a different garde, (as I do), then if there were more divisions of grades, then the chance that a card would get the same grade would be much less. It is the cards at the margins that get different grades. With twice as many margins, there will be twice as many "misgrades". Or put another way, a card that is 8.25 currently will get an 8 almost all of the time. But if there were half grades, half the time it would get an 8, and the other half it would get an 8.5. Hardly more consistent or accurate.
The one area where I think this might have merit would be to create a 1.5 for Fair cards and leave 1 only for Poor cards. With rare exceptions, the only cards which get 1s (aside from sentimental value and submitters overlooking things like pinholes) are high-dollar vintage cards, and many which are expected to grade as Fair are submitted to other grading companies for the very reason that they will get a higher grade.
The numbers of these cards to be resubmitted would be readily manageable, the distinction between the two grades would often be obvious, the likelihood that it would cause cards in other companies' holders to be converted to PSA would be high, the number of affected collectors would be fairly small, the potential for a lower grade upon reevaluation would be nonexistent, and the market has already to some extent accepted a great price disparity between high and low end for the grade (witness '52 Topps Mantles).
In the meantime, I would be far more interested in seeing PSA offer a low cost reholdering to include additional flip information of the following sorts (which would be included in the Pop Report):
'52 Topps low series red vs. black back
T-206 back variety
[There are other sets where this sort of distinction matters; these are just the most widely known and collected.]
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Having said that...let me add my 2.5 cents (half-grade)...what is the purpose of a 1/2 grade...well if you're one of the other grading companies and you want to differentiate yourself from PSA...you might create a 1/2 grade...what other purpose would it hold...to better grade cards? For what purpose?
Does a 7.5 sell for more than a 7?...a 8.5 more than an 8?...
Doesn't the market already take care of this already...don't "great" looking 7's demand more money then "lower" 7's...same with 8's? So what do 1/2 grades do?
I submit that you might look into quarter grades then too...gee...this 8.5 looks almost like a 9...why it's a 8.75!!!
Collector
Topps 58,59,60,61,62,63,64 Sets
Fleer 60, 61-62 Sets
The Blair is awesome...one of my favorite cards from this set. It is well within 60/40. It actually sits at 55/45 when measured in person. Absolutely a difficult card--ironically not too difficult for centering, but rather pd, color and registration. You can get a better look at some of my cards in my set as I am adding random scans weekly. For some reason, when you make a scan really small the centering becomes skewed. Why is that? It takes a SLIGHT o/c and makes it look awful. Also, it's hard to get the darned thing to sit centered in the holder sometimes. Glad you liked the cards.
dgf