Grading Competition????
ChicagoGlen
Posts: 371 ✭
So are these results known yet? Anyone from the board win the $2500?
Thanks,
Glen
Thanks,
Glen
0
Comments
on the holders. The King did not beat Mr. Snyder (as Bob mentioned to him several times) but we'll leave that story for Larry to tell.
Setbuilders Sports Cards
Ebay: set-builders & set-builders2
Unfortunately PSA has no plans to divulge what the correct grades for each card were.
<< <i> Unfortunately PSA has no plans to divulge what the correct grades for each card were. >>
That is unfortunate - perhaps if you kept a copy of your scoring sheet - you could compare with some of the other contestants to help figure out the "right" grades.
<< <i>
<< <i> Unfortunately PSA has no plans to divulge what the correct grades for each card were. >>
That is unfortunate - perhaps if you kept a copy of your scoring sheet - you could compare with some of the other contestants to help figure out the "right" grades. >>
Why would they not "divulge" the grades. That sounds hokey as all get out.
If this is true, am I the only one who find this completely ridiculous??? If the point is to have the contestants end up with the same grade as what the PSA grader came up with, doesn't it seem a bit unfair that the contestant cannot evaluate the card in the same way as the original PSA grader? I mean the grader got to look at the raw card when making his assessment. To make the contestant look through a holder and expect the same answer just doesn't seem realistic - or a true test of how well one can grade a card.
Most of the people here know how hard it is to spot surface wrinkles through a holder - I would go so far as to say it's nearly impossible to do while maintaining a rate of 30 seconds per card.
And I agree with Aknot. . .why not divulge the grades? Would PSA have anything to lose by doing so?
Mike
It does seem like it misses the full effect, but on the other hand, I don't think PSA had any other choice. If they let people handle raw cards, the condition of the cards could very well decline over the course of the competition.
<< <i>If this is true, am I the only one who find this completely ridiculous??? If the point is to have the contestants end up with the same grade as what the PSA grader came up with, doesn't it seem a bit unfair that the contestant cannot evaluate the card in the same way as the original PSA grader? I mean the grader got to look at the raw card when making his assessment. To make the contestant look through a holder and expect the same answer just doesn't seem realistic - or a true test of how well one can grade a card.
It does seem like it misses the full effect, but on the other hand, I don't think PSA had any other choice. If they let people handle raw cards, the condition of the cards could very well decline over the course of the competition. >>
Well they could "grade" low dollar cards, put them back in a soft sleeve/Card Saver and go from there. At $50 a pop they could have put some better thought into it. How many "players" were there? Give each person 5 (one from the 50's/60's, 2 from the 70's, one from the 80's/90's and one from 2002) "pregraded" (low dollar) cards in soft sleeves/Card Savers and have them go from there. Each player has his own "set" that was pregraded.
- PSA sets a limit on how many contestants can enter the contest.
- PSA obtains 20 raw cards for each contestant.
- PSA has their graders grade those cards.
- PSA records the grades and cracks those cards out and put into CS1s.
- PSA has that stack ready for the designated contestant.
- Each contestant receives their own spefic stack and evaluates those cards in a designated amount of time.
- The contestant's grades are then compared to the slabs from which the cards were removed. Highest percentage wins.
This setup accomplishes a couple things -
- Each contestant sees a stack of cards which they know will be untouched by anyone else.
- Since the "target" cards will have been graded recently, that filters out time as a factor of inconsistency. Cards graded 5-10 years ago will almost certainly be slightly different than cards graded today. This is natural and expected in the collecting world, but would be an unfair variable in the context of the contest.
Mike
The cards we able to handle were some of the coolest cards I have ever seen and cards that I will never be able to afford. Mantles, Mays, Robinsons, and even an early Ruth, all in nice shape. Oh well.
Does anyone know who won yet?
-Ian
<< <i>The cards we able to handle were some of the coolest cards I have ever seen and cards that I will never be able to afford. -Ian >>
Hmmmm but with the "scratches", (shudder) drool, etc. do you think it was worth it? They will probably reslab them. And no it was not cool at $50 a pop.
While I do understand that the only way to provide companies with a way to improve is to offer constructive criticism, I feel that you guys are really shooting yourselves and everyone else in the foot. The majority of those who post here own atleast 1 card graded by PSA. They put their best effort forward in an attempt to start something new and creative to garner interest in their company. By bashing them and their ideas, you are simply bashing your collections, your investments, and your own bottom line. You want to be a troll by trashing PSA's every move? That's fine, just don't do it here.
And yes, it was very cool. Did you participate in the contest? If you did, than you can judge it. However, I assume you did not, therefor, please leave your opinion out of this discussion. I will never in my wildest dreams be able to hold and look at Goudeys and '51 Bowman Mantles in that kind of shape ever again and I found the experience to be awesome. I got a free T-shirt and had the opportunity to win $2500, that's fine by me.
-Ian
Glad you had such a good time. At the end of the day - this was the first time PSA ran such a thing - and it sounds like it went pretty well. Yes - there may be some Lessons Learned - but much more good will come out of this than anything else. Hopefully some of this criticism will be utilized to make the event better next year - but I really agree with you overall. For $50 - you can't even buy a single modern pack for many issues. If people want to pay, play and see what happens, let them! It helps all of you become better graders, I think.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the 1955 Bowman Mays. Did you think it was an 8 or something better? I think I might actually have scans of all five of the PSA 9s from the Population Report - and if it might have been one of those, I would be interested to confirm one way or another.
Best-
Marc
<< <i>This negativity is absolutely ridiculous on this board anymore. Two years ago, this board was about helping eachother out in what was pretty much an experiment, the PSA Set Registry. Now these boards have simply become a cesspool for people to gripe and moan. If you have a problem or a suggestion, don't make it open to the public. Tell Joe Orlando personally and privately. He listens and is always willing to listen to your feedback.
While I do understand that the only way to provide companies with a way to improve is to offer constructive criticism, I feel that you guys are really shooting yourselves and everyone else in the foot. The majority of those who post here own atleast 1 card graded by PSA. They put their best effort forward in an attempt to start something new and creative to garner interest in their company. By bashing them and their ideas, you are simply bashing your collections, your investments, and your own bottom line. You want to be a troll by trashing PSA's every move? That's fine, just don't do it here.
And yes, it was very cool. Did you participate in the contest? If you did, than you can judge it. However, I assume you did not, therefor, please leave your opinion out of this discussion. I will never in my wildest dreams be able to hold and look at Goudeys and '51 Bowman Mantles in that kind of shape ever again and I found the experience to be awesome. I got a free T-shirt and had the opportunity to win $2500, that's fine by me.
-Ian >>
Wait for it.
For the record a forum (open at that) is for opinions and views. If you do not like my opinion or views I suggest you do not leave your opinions about my opinions.
You asked and or stated an opinion. If you do not like my response come up with something a little more intelligent then telling me to leave my opinion out of a discussion that I have EVERY right to be in.
No I do not think $50 to "look" at a card that I will never be able to touch or buy, a deal.
No I do not think they handled the "contest" that well. Did I say they are jerks and failures for the way they handled it or did give another way that it MIGHT have been handle to provide a better GRADING expierience for those involved?
The "contest" was about grading. Not about the "cards" themselves so to speak.
As for negativity on the boards. Whats wrong with it? It provides a venue for discussion and debate, and possible improvement or enlightenment.
Sorry as mush as I use PSA (or anything else for that matter...well except for my Web Hosting company) No one is perfect.
I think you're off the mark, pal.
While I wasn't at the National and hence not at the competition, there are issues, concerns, and insights that are just basic common sense. Items such as 1) why not reveal the winners along with the grades, 2) grading raw vs. slabbed: so what is so wrong with bringing these basic common sensed questions for discussion to the board???
Sure, it's the first time through, bla-bla-bla, but does that mean we should say nothing about the particulars and just accept the status-quo?
Remember, over the years there's been plenty of discussion here that directly or indirectly has found it's way the PSA program mainstream.
I agree that sometimes things get overblown and negative, but I see nothing wrong with constructive criticism as posted here.
Mcastaldi and Aknot bring up issues that first occurred to me when this contest was announced. And I disagree with your statement about contacting Joe O.: I'm a nobody PSA-wise and I won't get the time of day, but if enough 'nobodies' voice concern whether privately or publically, maybe that can benefit all of us..............and at least it may get noticed by PSA.
BTW, wouldn't you like to know how well you did in the contest and what the real grades were? If you know, please share it with us!
BOTR
<< <i>
Mcastaldi and Aknot bring up issues that first occurred to me when this contest was announced. And I disagree with your statement about contacting Joe O.: I'm a nobody PSA-wise and I won't get the time of day, but if enough 'nobodies' voice concern whether privately or publically, maybe that can benefit all of us..............and at least it may get noticed by PSA.
>>
BOTR:
I'm a nobody, too - I just post here a lot. That being said - every time I have contacted Joe whether by phone or e-mail, he has always been responsive to me. I don't always agree with him - and he does not always respond to me with the tone of my best friend - but I'm happy that the president of a grading company would spend 30 minutes with me on the phone to discuss minutae of grading modern Mike Schmidt oddball cards. I'm likely one of the few who cares - and my "caring" equates to $6/card in grading fees. There are many bigger fish out there - and he was happy to speak with me.
See me contacting Joe "feels" though Im right and he needs to do something. While his "open door" policy is great I feel it can be abused. I wouldd not use it unless it was a dire issue.
Here on the forums I state my opinion and someone can:
Explain to me whats wrong with my opinion
Explain to me why my opinion is right
Tell me other things about my opinion
Etc.
Which I do not mind. I also am not perfect, and have and will continue to eat the occasional crow. What I do mind is when people tell me (or other people for that matter) that they have no right to express their opinion.
Of course everyone has a right to express their opinion. Of course, on these forums, CU can elect to modify them in any way that they deem fit (of which I do not often agree, but whatever....)
Here's the thing, though: PSA/CU/Joe O. do not read these forums that much. They actually work (like I should be doing right now). That being said - it is easy to be critical and negative about something - especially something new. You've heard from a teenager participant in the competition who feels like he got his money worth. Since you didn't participate - and weren't there, why take away from someone who enjoyed it? PSA seems to have sold all 50 slots - so, it was probably a success from their standpoint.
That being said - if you passionately agree with and defend your opinion - a short, concise summary e-mail to Joe O. might elicit some helpful feedback for next year's competition. The only way it is going to get better is if feedback is given. I'm sure that the participants there gave some if they felt so inclined - but I definitely think that those who paid for and willingly went through the process are probably a much better proxy for effective feedback than the rest of us sideline experts who haven't had to go through the entire process either logistically, from the front-end, or from the back-end.
~ms
<< <i>That being said - if you passionately agree with and defend your opinion - a short, concise summary e-mail to Joe O. might elicit some helpful feedback for next year's competition. The only way it is going to get better is if feedback is given. I'm sure that the participants there gave some if they felt so inclined - but I definitely think that those who paid for and willingly went through the process are probably a much better proxy for effective feedback than the rest of us sideline experts who haven't had to go through the entire process either logistically, from the front-end, or from the back-end. >>
That's what I meant to explain and in just about all of the words I should have. I apologize for my tone if it was taken as offensive. I will say nothing more.
-Ian
Glad you've had luck in dealing with Joe on your issues. While I have not contacted him about anything in particular as of this date, there seem to be at least a few (from what I read on these boards) that haven't had such luck. (See Hartlandman's "National" post for a different flavor).
Regardless, as I originally stated, "either privately or publically" to Joe, rational and level-headed discussions on these boards - regardless if agree/disagree with Joe/PSA should be a-ok. I agree that some things definitely should be kept private but see no reason on more muldane concerns (such as this contest) why we shouldn't post 'em here.
BOTR
PS) There is one nagging issue on my favorite modern issue of cards that has left several hundred of them still in their card-savers and not converted to PSA slabs. Maybe now's the time to test those waters with Joe and see how well I do..............
I would much rather you say more. What does not kill us makes us stronger (or more knowledgable). I do not mind a healthy "discussion". It would really suck if we all had the same opinions and beliefs.
MS,
They say they dont read the boards....now Im not calling anyone "out" or saying they are lying but they read more then what they lead us to believe. They have to, this is as close to the customers pulse you can get. Joe might not himself but Im sure others do. I would be disappointed and upset if they didnt. (not to much though)
<< <i>So who won? >>
Well the winners "slip" needs to be authenticated, graded and slabed and then Joe submited it under the 45 day plan.
A couple of quick notes:
1) I will announce the winner this week. We actually decided to award the 2nd place finisher as well - we are going to give him a PSA NM-MT 8 Willie Mays for his efforts.
2) I will release the correct answers too - please be patient.
3) Last but not least. I am one who supports sharing opinions, ideas, etc...but, the bottom line is that this was our contest....our rules. The cards were holdered for a reason (so the cards could not be damaged by any of the contestants and thus changing the answers). In addition, when I am reviewing cards for the public at shows or at home or when the graders are verifying cards - the cards are in holders. We have to find wrinkles and defects that are hard to see - but we find them. No one said the test was easy and, trust me, by looking at the scores - it was a lot harder than even we thought.
Take care and thanks for your patience,
Joe Orlando
PSA President
CEO, Collectors Universe, Inc.
<< <i>So who won? >>
The best and most knowledgable card grader in the entire hobby.
Andy Broome came in second place in the competition and, although PSA had announced before the event that only one prize would be awarded, the company presented a 1955 Bowman Willie Mays card graded PSA NM-MT 8 to the runner-up. This card had been used as one of the subjects in the test, and Broome was ecstatic with the news.
Refs- Just ask!
<< <i>Andy Broome is on here somewhere isn't he? >>
I am here! I read the boards from time to time but I just started posting.
Hello to everyone here!
Andy