A short story on grading consistency
GoSoxBoSox
Posts: 1,103
The following short story is purely a statement of fact. No embellishment needed.
Some of you may remember when I posted the start of this story a couple of months back. Now that the story is over I thought it would be an interesting read.
Most know I’m a 1934 Goudey collector. I have over 300 PSA graded cards from this set with a few SGC and GAI as well. About two months ago I decided to have a little fun and test out the consistency of PSA grading since I’m a bit unhappy with the consistency I see across the range of graded cards I currently have. Actually, I'm a bit unhappy with every grading company. PSA is my grader of choice.
I took five PSA 5 cards and one SGC 6 card from my collection and cracked them out of their holder. I submitted them to PSA and received the following results a couple of weeks later:
The former Brandt PSA 5 came back PSA 5
The former Mooney PSA 5 came back PSA 4
The former Critz SGC 6 came back “trimmed”
The former Hafey PSA 5 came back “trimmed”
The former Ostermueller PSA 5 came back “trimmed”
The former Boken PSA 5 came back “trimmed”
Needless to say I was a bit pissed. I called Joe O and told him the story and he graciously agreed to review the four that came back as trimmed. He told me the card that came back as a PSA 4 was my loss since I cracked the card out on my own instead of using the review service. I totally agreed and was prepared for that. So off to PSA the four cards went.
A month later Joe sent me the results as follows:
Critz again came back “trimmed”
Hafey again came back “trimmed”
Ostermueller again came back “trimmed”
Boken now came back a PSA 5
Fine. When the cards got back to my house I again searched for evidence of trimming under 10x magnification. I couldn’t see what Joe told me existed.
So I decided to send the cards to SGC. A week later I received the cards back with the following results:
The former Critz SGC 6 came back SGC 7.5
The former Hafey PSA 5 came back SGC 4
The former Ostermueller PSA 5 came back SGC 5
I felt a bit better but wondered if SGC missed something as I had (and both SGC and PSA had the first time they were graded)?
So this weekend I decided to take the Critz and Ostermueller cards in their SGC holders to the Ft. Washington show and submit them for next day crossover service at the PSA booth. The next day I received the cards with the following results:
The former Critz SGC 6 and 7.5, and former PSA “trimmed” was crossed to a PSA 7
The former Ostermueller PSA 5 and “trimmed", and former SGC 5 was crossed to a PSA 5.
END OF STORY.
The end result of this exercised has left me somewhat disillusioned about spending a ton of money on a card because it has a number assigned to it. Both companies were inconsistent.
Final take away for me is this….grading is such a crap-shoot. Thus the infamous saying…”if the grade don’t fit, you need to re-submit”.
I’m not saying I could do any better. It’s hard to be perfectly consistent, I know. But than again, nobody pays me to be the expert. PSA remains my grader of choice.
Edit: typo
Some of you may remember when I posted the start of this story a couple of months back. Now that the story is over I thought it would be an interesting read.
Most know I’m a 1934 Goudey collector. I have over 300 PSA graded cards from this set with a few SGC and GAI as well. About two months ago I decided to have a little fun and test out the consistency of PSA grading since I’m a bit unhappy with the consistency I see across the range of graded cards I currently have. Actually, I'm a bit unhappy with every grading company. PSA is my grader of choice.
I took five PSA 5 cards and one SGC 6 card from my collection and cracked them out of their holder. I submitted them to PSA and received the following results a couple of weeks later:
The former Brandt PSA 5 came back PSA 5
The former Mooney PSA 5 came back PSA 4
The former Critz SGC 6 came back “trimmed”
The former Hafey PSA 5 came back “trimmed”
The former Ostermueller PSA 5 came back “trimmed”
The former Boken PSA 5 came back “trimmed”
Needless to say I was a bit pissed. I called Joe O and told him the story and he graciously agreed to review the four that came back as trimmed. He told me the card that came back as a PSA 4 was my loss since I cracked the card out on my own instead of using the review service. I totally agreed and was prepared for that. So off to PSA the four cards went.
A month later Joe sent me the results as follows:
Critz again came back “trimmed”
Hafey again came back “trimmed”
Ostermueller again came back “trimmed”
Boken now came back a PSA 5
Fine. When the cards got back to my house I again searched for evidence of trimming under 10x magnification. I couldn’t see what Joe told me existed.
So I decided to send the cards to SGC. A week later I received the cards back with the following results:
The former Critz SGC 6 came back SGC 7.5
The former Hafey PSA 5 came back SGC 4
The former Ostermueller PSA 5 came back SGC 5
I felt a bit better but wondered if SGC missed something as I had (and both SGC and PSA had the first time they were graded)?
So this weekend I decided to take the Critz and Ostermueller cards in their SGC holders to the Ft. Washington show and submit them for next day crossover service at the PSA booth. The next day I received the cards with the following results:
The former Critz SGC 6 and 7.5, and former PSA “trimmed” was crossed to a PSA 7
The former Ostermueller PSA 5 and “trimmed", and former SGC 5 was crossed to a PSA 5.
END OF STORY.
The end result of this exercised has left me somewhat disillusioned about spending a ton of money on a card because it has a number assigned to it. Both companies were inconsistent.
Final take away for me is this….grading is such a crap-shoot. Thus the infamous saying…”if the grade don’t fit, you need to re-submit”.
I’m not saying I could do any better. It’s hard to be perfectly consistent, I know. But than again, nobody pays me to be the expert. PSA remains my grader of choice.
Edit: typo
There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness"
0
Comments
MS
I often times think about cracking open a few PSA grades that I believe are too low and re-submitting. However, I fear that some of the ones I do that with will come back just as they did for yours- Evidence of trimming.
Sad isn't it?
I am sure that someone has bought a $1000 PSA 7 card, cracked it open, sent it back to PSA and received an "EVID TRIM" . I guess the moral is- keep submitting until you get what you think it deserves, eventually it will get there.
Thanks for the story.
To be truthful...the inconsistency described is down right scary.
aconte
Ken
- Slowly (Very Slowly) Working On A 1952 Topps Raw Set (Lower Grade)
I think PSA has made it's graders a lot more aware of
the trimming issues. I don't think there was a lot of emphasis on
this even a year ago. I think PSA is "paranoid" about trimming
and restoration now. That's why it is not a good idea to resubmit
vintage cards (pre-1950) that were graded a year ago and later.
If you do, you're playing with fire.
marc
Very informative post... it confirms that PSA has some graders that are especially skittish to slab anything that may give the slightest hint of trimming... that is disappointing if you have cracked a card to resubmit, but there efforts are only a reaction to the increased insecurity about altered cards...
As far as the grade changes, I am not as cynical as some other posts... no grade changed by more than one point up or down (not counting SGC's half point)... I think that is acceptable... of course, we'd like grades to be 100% consistent, but we know in our hearts this is not realistic as grading is subjective... grading corners and centering is easy, but how much do you downgrade for toning or low gloss or drab color? Some graders may take it down a point, others 2 points (wouldn't it be funny if the same grader had graded these each time?)... you can't put these cards into one of ten numbered boxes that easily...
The biggest point your post illuminates is that we should not be paying entirely for a number (especially over-paying!), but the eye appeal of the card has to make a up a large portion of that price too!
Thanks again for telling us this story!
1. Take a dozen cards...
2. Measure the centering, check color strike and focus and look for print debris, etc.
3. Tilt and rotate the card under bright light for 10-15 seconds at every angle and look for surface breaks, spider wrikles, or any other stock imperfection.
4. Examine the corners and the edges and secure your findings within a pre-written standard.
5. Assign a grade.
6. Repeat the process on the same dozen cards in one week or any other alotted period of time.
The results may just surprise some folks. I know a mint card all day long. I am also confident in Gem Mint or truly special examples within the sets I collect. I don't really NEED PSA, but want the competitive fulfillment and ego gratification that PSA can, at times, provide.
Third-party authentication has its place, but we don't really use it that way, now do we?
In PSA's and SGC's defense, it does seem that mid-grade cards would be a touch harder to be consistent with. Wear can be subjective and tends to be interpreted differently by each sets of eyes in many different circumstances. These circumstances would include, but would not be limited to; the cards that were submitted as a whole, the cards the grader was looking at prior to examining them, what value the grader places on centering vs. corners, etc.
A mint example is more empirical fact--or should be. Excellent to Near-mint denotes wear in many cases that varies enough to welcome contrary opinions.
Great read, but not an earth-shattering event.
dgf
thanks for posting that- it seems pretty consistant with my experiences lately as well. I'm sure had you submitted those under the crossover service they would have done even worse. A few months ago I sent in an order for crossovers, including a '15 Cracker Jack common in GAI 7. I was told that at best it would be a PSA 2 due to a microscopic stain on the back. Cracked it out, sent it in and it came back PSA 6.
Based on cases like this I wonder how many different cards have been graded of the 7 million claimed?
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Thanks BOSOX for taking the time and your money to do this little experiment.
1954
One more point for the record. I believe that if Joe O reads this thread and comments he would say PSA and SGC certainly made a mistake when originally grading these cards. I think he would also say that all three of these cards are in-fact trimmed and that PSA must have missed the "trimming" when crossing from SGC holders this past weekend.
I don't think Joe would be happy that I went to SGC and then crossed them, but he and I both know that's how the game is played. I actually made it a point to not tell him the results in person at the Fort even though I saw him at the PSA table.
Just my guess on his reaction.
There are many beautiful raw sets out there (in low grade and high grade as well). I sometimes think that the rivarly between grading services is not just necessarily a contest as to who can provide the most accurate grading, but a contest in who can offer the highest grade as well.
Those beautiful MJRoop customized binders (that I haven't brought it) for raw vintage are looking better and better.
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
I think it shows some of the in-"exact"-ness of all of this.
I think collectors in general want to believe that grading is better than this. Or that one company is better at it than another. But I think it each company continues to be driven by its own "interpretation".
As such, it is not hard to understand the grading variations between companies, or the re-interpretation of a grade that comes with re-submission.
The results truly don't surprise me. What surprises me, is how much it surprises everybody else!!!
Live long, and prosper.
S.
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
1) Grading is, and always will be, subjective
2) There's a shortage of knowledgeable and talented graders
3) Grading/authentication has become a commoditized, assembly line style procedure where authentication time per item is reduced to the bare minimum
Some of this is a result of our desire/demand for $5/$6 grading service fees. This is not to get the grading companies off the hook though.
<< <i>I think it's important to keep in mind that third party grading is a service where an "opinion" is being rendered. >>
grillo,
No doubt, they are indeed giving an "opinion". However, in my mind it's an expert opinion that we pay a nice fee for so that our cards can be measured (and susequently valued) against other examples in the hobby.
Let's face it, for any given set of cards it is the population (in any given grade) v. the demand for the set that drives prices. If I believed consistency was always as bad as it was in the test I performed I would NEVER again buy a graded card unless I was able to hold that card in my hand so that a thorough inspection can take place. Because of my love for the competitive nature of the set registry and the thrill of the chase I choose to believe my test results were out of the ordinary. But, I know the truth about the game. We all do.
Tom
<< <i>Interesting but not surprising. I think this proves three things:
1) Grading is, and always will be, subjective
2) There's a shortage of knowledgeable and talented graders
3) Grading/authentication has become a commoditized, assembly line style procedure where authentication time per item is reduced to the bare minimum
Some of this is a result of our desire/demand for $5/$6 grading service fees. This is not to get the grading companies off the hook though. >>
gemint,
Agreed. If we want consistency, we as collectors must first give up our turnaround time expectations. Fee's may not need to change all that much, but you're probably correct.
Tom
!949 Snider I thought was a 5 came back a 5
1953 Mantle I thought was a 5 came back a 5
1969 Mantle WL I thought was a 5 came back a 5 (st)
1955 William I thought was a 5 came back a 5
1955 Robinson I thought was a 4 came back a 4
1949 Robinson I thought was a 5 came back a 2 (nicest 2 u will ever see!)
1955 Herman I thought was 5 came back a 5
1962 Mars attacks crossed to an 8
1952 Berra I hoped for a 6 came back a 5
1962 Mars attacks I hoped for a 6 came back a 5
1955 Rhodes (bought raw on ebay came back a 6 I had hoped for a 6 or a 7
all in all I was happy with the grades as all were grade worthy in my opinion.
now about that 49 robby.................
did i get off topic??
I am not so concerned about the fact that they were graded as trimmed a couple of times, and not as a couple more. My bet would be that they are trimmed, since when they were graded most specificallly by PSA when that was in question, they came back that way. It obviously was a very good trimming job, if they were trimmed. My biggest concern, assuming they were indeed trimmed (which we don't know), is that the trim job can be so good as to pass several graders at two companies. If that is the case, then all of our cards could become worthless as the doctors flood the market with high grade refurbished material.
It would be interesting, if you want to spend a few more bucks, to crack them again, send them to SGC with the PSA trimmed designation, and see what they say this time.
js
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Gemint makes a good point about the subjectivity of grading, but when you get three or four different expert opinions about a card being "trimmed", it has to shake your confidence in the process.
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
<< <i> i think this day and age of submitters submitting 1000's at a clip makes it alot harder to be accurate!this all depends on how many graders are employed at these company's and how many actually handle the card >>
Im not sure if this says anything..but GAI has 5 graders on staff (per Steve Rocchi)
I would like to see every card go through a minimum of seven graders, with the high and low grade automatically thrown out and so as to have as many expert eyes inspecting it as possible for an expert consensus....treat this subjective process like the subjective judging in ice skating or diving. Then we won't ever have to fear that grader-of-death, or the Friday night grader who rushes a card through.
The higher the value of the card, the more graders it passes through.
This may cause an increase in fees, but wouldn't this create more consistancy? Thoughts?
JIM (edited for spelling)
Frank-
I, like most here, have given this issue considerable thought, and have come to the conclusion that wondering how many cards are in the correct holder probably isnt' the best way to look at this. Remember, this is no such thing as an '8' or a '9' until the card gets slabbed; instead, every card has equity in all the grades within a certain range. So, when I submit a very clean looking 1973 OPC Maple Leafs Team card (or whatever), I can't say 'this belongs in a 9 holder'. Instead, I can say this card belongs in a 7 holder (for those times when PSA damages it) 5% of the time, an '8' holder 30% of the time, a '9' holder 60% of the time, and a '10' holder 5% of the time. As mentioned many times before, grading is subjective; it has to be. Which means a card is never 'destined' to be assigned one particular grade. Instead, it occupies a range of grades, and the probability of any one grade being assigned is dependant on the condition. When you look at it this way-- and I think it's the only way you can look at it-- having cards come back in the 'wrong' holder no longer seems like such a cosmic injustice.
It still is a great thread...thanks...
Collector
Topps 58,59,60,61,62,63,64 Sets
Fleer 60, 61-62 Sets
edited for punctuation
Scott
i agree, however if you have little invested in the card then I am at a loss as to why one would expect the higher graded card when it is in fact the lower graded one, now if your meaning was it was purchased raw at the hi price and then fetched the lower grade that was the gamble one decided to take. rarely does a card difer that much in price because of a diference of 1 grade although it is possible. In that case one better know his market and nuance to that particular issue...
<< <i>
<< <i> i think this day and age of submitters submitting 1000's at a clip makes it alot harder to be accurate!this all depends on how many graders are employed at these company's and how many actually handle the card >>
Im not sure if this says anything..but GAI has 5 graders on staff (per Steve Rocchi) >>
Did I miss the number of graders PSA employs? Does anyone know?
This is an important thread, and I echo the thoughts of everyone who is a bit disillusioned. PSA remains my grader of choice also, but this variation (by a wide margin) needs further explanation by someone at PSA. I could see the occasional one grade variance, but consistency seems all over the place lately.
<< <i>Did I miss the number of graders PSA employs? Does anyone know? >>
It was mentioned on the boards awhile ago by someone who contacted PSA that currently there are 11 or 12 graders.
BOTR
Mike
Vintage Football Card Gallery
<< <i>My bet would be that they are trimmed, since when they were graded most specificallly by PSA when that was in question, they came back that way. It obviously was a very good trimming job, if they were trimmed. My biggest concern, assuming they were indeed trimmed (which we don't know), is that the trim job can be so good as to pass several graders at two companies. If that is the case, then all of our cards could become worthless as the doctors flood the market with high grade refurbished material.
>>
Buckwheat,
I agree that PSA has reasons to call the cards trimmed. Like you, my problem is the lack of consistency finding the issue. Remember, on Boken the graded it 5 the first time, "trimmed" the second time, and upon Joe's review with the grader who tagged it as "trimmed" they went back to a 5. What happened the second time? Why the change of heart?
I tend to think the cards are either doctored or that they each show a quality consistent with a doctored card in PSA's expert opinion. It doesn't mean the cards are doctored but it does put PSA in a position to make a judgement call. It's a daunting task for PSA and I don't envy their position. The only thing I can ask is that the review the cases where I strongly disagree and that they give me (the customer) specific feedback. They did that.
The Hafey card may be trimmed. It is undersized (as many Goudey vary). No big concern there. There is a corner slightly under 90% which I can only assume is the reason for calling it trimmed. The toning on the edges is the same all the way around the card and the edges are sharp. My guess is if this card is trimmed it is an expert cut job and the edge that was trimmed was worked to show toning. There is the slightest 1/8" surface wrinkle that can barely be seen under 10x which is the reason for the mid-grade.
The Critz is a touch undersized an tad off-center. Other than that the card has minimal corner wear or it's 8 quality. The card has zero toning, four square corners, and sharp edges.
The Ostermueller card baffles me. The card is the perfect size with four square corners and clean evenly toned edges. The reason for the 5 is the same as the Hafey. 1/8"surface wrinkle only viewable under 10x. I can't see why they ever called this trimmed.
Maybe it's time to pick-up that postcard my eye doctor keeps sending to me which reminds me it's time to check my eyes again?
Tom
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
Meaning besides their "standards" who watches over them? There is no "seperate" committe on the overall standards of card grading. (is there?) Someone to give a "stamp" of approval. I mean we have the FDA checking our meat.
This (grading) is something that needs to be "regulated". That way prices stay consistent and grading criteria stays consistent.
Joe states that PSA has graded 7 million cards. How many of these 7 million were submitted 2 times or more? I know from just reading these boards that several of the members here have frequently resubmitted cards several times. Some of have even submitted a card three or more times trying to get the higher grade. I think that is the mind set that people have. If you submit the card enough times you will eventually end up with the grade that was originally hoped for.
Todd
The bottom line I read in this thread (from the cynics) is that we are taking this way too seriously and holding grading companies to an impossible standard, then criticizing them for not meeting our expectations.
1. If it's about the money for you... then you are shopping for a high number, not a collectible card for yourself.
2. If you mistrust their ability to grade accurately, don't submit. Buy graded cards on the market that meet your personal requirements. Oh, that's right, you want to submit a raw $200 card hoping it comes back a $5000 card.
3. Do you think you can grade better than a paid grader? That's like saying you can wire a house better than an electrician. They have the experience. Let them do their job.
4. Even the pros make a mistake or two. Cut them some slack. A good trim job may fool one grader and not another. They're not robots. For PSA, we're taling 7 million cards graded! Yet, somehow, people find ways to complain about the 7000 they graded wrong. Johnnie Cochrane's success rate is not that good!
5. This is a hobby. And not even an expensive one (see thread about art!). Why on earth would anyone want to regulate it? And if it were regulated and the price of grading any card jumped to $20, the grading industry would go out of business overnight.
6. Enjoy what you have. If you don't enjoy what you have, go pay for what you enjoy having. It's not all about the money! It's about enjoyment and fufillment!
1. There are some in it for the Hobby, some the "Money" and some for a little of both. So your #1 makes no sense. Of course some of us want that card to be worth "money" we would not have put the time, money or effort into it otherwise. Its called making a profit and is the backbone of any business venture.
2. See number 1 above. If you are just a "collector" then yes you are correct.
3. How do you know their level of expierence? Again it goes to who taught them? Where did they go to school to be a grader? An Electrician goes to "school" for his trade.
4. Correct. No problem here but if there is a mistake on their end who should pay for it?
5. It is also a business. Ask any of the store owners. While yes they partake in the Hobby they also have a business they need to upkeep. $20 a card for somethng that you know is "backed" by a regulating standard? Not bad if you ask me, especially when you are talking about cards that can bring well over 2K.
6. Again for some it is a business.
PSA is "The Standard for Sports Collectibles" Who set that standard? Is it just because they said so?
Also it is not just PSA. Just because Im on their boards it may seem like "just" them. Its not. So if regulated by an independent sector and you had PSA, Beckett and GAI on it and FGS, Pro and Greggs Grading Not who would you trust more? Dont you think it would help clean up some of the "stains" on the "hobby" also?
Sorry for the rant... I just get drained by so much grading company bashing. Sometimes to me these threads are akin to road rage.
The main theme in this thread is that PSA and the other companies can't get the job done consistently. My response is that we expect too much from them. Even a 1-100 single point grading scale would not satisfy some (if the price difference between points were substantial). I think too many of us lose sight of simply possessing a nice card and get too caught up in it's grade (ergo, it's inflated value that we desire).
I think all the grading companies do the best they can to make a profit by bringing a product/service to market that we see value in and are willing to pay for.
My point about other, more expensive, hobbies is that those are not regulated either. Art forgeries are sold all the time. Vintage autos with fraudulent numbers are sold all the time. Altered stamps and coins are sold all the time. These imperfections come with any hobby. If we regulated all of it, you'd need the government's help. Personally, I'd rather have the government worrying about infrastructure and defense than the sanctity of the hobby world.
Overall, grading does more good for the hobby than bad. I admit it's not perfect, but what is? This is what I am referring to when I suggest we slacken up and try to find enjoyment in the hobby.
And for dealers in it for business, their livelihood depends upon PSA's or any other grading company's acumen, so their criticism has more validity. They also can absorb the cost of regrading more easily than a collector if they are disastisfied. But I don't read posts by those identifying themselves as dealers in this thread. Plus, I am a collector. Perhaps that's why I overlooked them in my comments.
The problem is not what we "expect" from a grading company, the problem is what we "want" from a grading company.
If people want to play games submitting cards then they should expect aberant results. When the cards in this "story" were submitted raw they were graded consistantly (i.e. "Evid Trimmed"). Then SGC grades the "Trimmed" cards, which doesn't surprise me, because why else would MW use them. When they were resubmitted to PSA in SGC holders this may have biased the results, thus generating the alleged inconsistancy. If my Cliff notes of the story are wrong, I am sorry, but this was my take on it.
Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay UserId : sjeanblanc
----------------------------------------
Collecting Nolan Ryan cards (68-94)
I'm sorry you see this post as bashing grading companies. It surely was not my intent to "bash". I honestly expected a grade fluctuation.
The surprise to me was more centered around the trimming issue I came across and the game that "us set registry participants" must play to get the grade when facing the situation I faced.
On a seperate point, I think trying to "regulate" grading is ridiculuos. This is a hobby...all be it and expensive hobby/investment. This is not food, the stock market, prescription drugs, or any other item that can cause major damage to the economy as a whole or one's health.
I'm actually pro-PSA and will remain so.
Tom
<< <i> When the cards in this "story" were submitted raw they were graded consistantly (i.e. "Evid Trimmed"). Then SGC grades the "Trimmed" cards, which doesn't surprise me, because why else would MW use them. When they were resubmitted to PSA in SGC holders this may have biased the results, thus generating the alleged inconsistancy. If my Cliff notes of the story are wrong, I am sorry, but this was my take on it. >>
Your cliff notes are basically correct. In fact, that bias is exactly what I counted on upon re-submission. And doesn't the fact that it worked to achieve my desired results say something? How 'bout the fact that I chose to use next day service to put a little more duress on the grader?
The point of the first post was that as the old saying goes "if the grade don't fit, you have to re-submit". I think that statement can be changed to add "and be creative on your approach to re-submission!!!"
Tom, I didn't see your original post as PSA bashing... your story was unbiased and included SGC as well. Bashing was too strong a term for me to use, in hindsight. But, it opened the door for many posts that were harshly critical of the grading process, regulating, trim identification, and dollar values. It all seems to result in feelings of cynicism and disillusionment (all because of the emphasis placed on the values of grades over the simple pleasure of owning a nice card). My post was a lame attempt to swing the pendulum back a bit to focus on enjoying what we have regardless of the number on the flip and to acknowledge that no grading is 100% perfect and we set ourselves up for a letdown when we hold graders to a set standard that is unrealistic.
That said, I have enjoyed your post and found it informative. Thanks!
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
<< <i>When the cards in this "story" were submitted raw they were graded consistantly (i.e. "Evid Trimmed"). Then SGC grades the "Trimmed" cards, which doesn't surprise me, because why else would MW use them >>
Then I guess I misunderstand the facts. The cards (except 1) were initially submitted raw to PSA, and all received grades, ie. were not consistently marked as "Evid.Trimmed". So, if they are in fact trimmed, PSA missed each one of them initially. Thus, the remark about SGC and Wentz is gratuitous. While I don't expect to be invited to any Wentz birthday parties, I will stick up for SGC and tell you that I think your statement is an unsubstantiated cheap shot.
Some have opined that PSA is now more acutely aware of trimming, and that they caught it "the second time around". The consesus then seems to be that PSA basically rubberstamped SGC's grades the final time around, rather than carefully spot the trim jobs. SGC is sloppy, but PSA should be forgiven under the "everybody makes mistakes mantra". What a bunch of crap.
First, if SGC consistently grades trimmed cards, then all the more reason for PSA to be suspicious come crossover time. Second, where's the discussion about how PSA missed it the first time? We are not told, or at least I did not see, how long ago these cards were initially graded. The working assumption of this thread is that it must have been some time ago, and that PSA's ability to spot these is now "tighter". I challenge that assumption. Seems to me it wasn't long ago that there were several discussions about how at least a head grader or high caliber grader had left PSA. Then there was basic confirmation that cards are examined by only one grader. Now, in a leap of faith, I'm supposed to conclude that there is someone at PSA who knows a da*n thing about 1934 Goudey's, and especially how to spot trimming?
Most of this thread is right on about collector expectations and how they collide with reality. I also agree that grading subjectivity is to be expected, and one can't whine or worry too much over minor fluctuations. Still, trimming is not subjective--the card is or is not trimmed, and any failures by the so-called experts to properly diagnose this condition is worrisome.
ebay id: nolemmings