Current Grading Process Flawed?

willsr

I think that many folks will answer an empatic yes.

As a PSA Set Registry participant, I evaluate card after card after card in order to select the best examples for submission to PSA. I use a jeweler's loupe to look at the corners. I look at the card at every angle I can under a lamp. I only choose cards that are aesthetically pleasing with as close to 50/50 centering without actually pulling out the calipers.

How could I, who looks at more cards than PSA has ever graded in my set to select my 20 cards for submission, be so far off about my card's condition? Out of over a 1000 cards which has 66 unique cards in the set, I selected 40 cards to submit to PSA. All of these cards were 50/50 centering, sharp corners, straight edges, smooth surfaces, great print registry, etc. I have submitted several submissions now. I know more or less (and I am thinking that I know far less nowadays) what PSA is looking at. But, with all my screening which might take 10-20 minutes per card before I finally submit, I got ONE PSA 9 from that submission.

Worse yet, I split the 40 cards into 2 batches by just dealing the cards out into two stack by alternating through the cards and guess what? One submission came back with an average score of .25 lower than the other. On an absolute scale, I feel that the cards were all 1 grade lower than they should have been. And you know what, I look at far more off these cards that PSA does, so who would know better. I have plenty of examples in my collection of cards that have received higher grades, yet I would consider lower quality.

So what is the problem here? Am I not a good grader? Is consistency at PSA a problem? Perhaps yes is the answer to both of these, but there is something more. This anger and dissapointment that I feel comes from a large gap in expectations.

PSA, although states what the grades mean, doesn't really state what the grades mean. What I mean is this, read the description for a PSA 9 grade:

A PSA Mint 9 is a superb condition card that exhibits only one of the following minor flaws: a very slight wax stain on reverse, a minor printing imperfection or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

But really, what does this mean? What are the criteria for grading? This is not sufficient in my opinion. I think that without a lack of published standards of what an 8, 9, or 10 are for each particular make of card excpectations will continue to fall short and customers, like me, will remain unhappy. I don't like submitting cards one week and getting all 9s and 10s and then submitting cards from the same batch the next week and getting 8s and 9s (yes, I have had this happen). When that happens, I just want to screem and tell PSA to go ahead and give me the work schedule for "grader of death" so that I won't send in my cards on those days.

Honestly, I think that there should be published specifications and far more detailed information about the types of defects that are looked at and how they are weighted. It is not cool at all to pay for such subjective grading. There really needs to be an accounting for the grades. Why is it that when our cards are returned that a note is not made about how the grade was arrived at. All grades should be justified. They must have "scored" the cards somehow. Those "scoring" sheets should be provided to us for review. What is the harm of righting down why the card received the marks that it did?

My confidence in PSA grades is waning quickly. When you see a PSA 8 or 9 card on eBay, can you really trust those grades? No, not really. I have 8s that are far superior to some of my own 9s. But the 9s would command far better prices at auction. For the owner of the PSA 8s this might not be a problem because you have holdered a card you think is really great. When it comes time to trade those high quality 8s for other cards, guess what, you aint gonna be getting any 9s.

So what am I looking for? A kind of reform I guess. I want the following:

1) A justification for the grades given - referring me to the PSA grading guidelines is far from sufficient. I want to know why each and every card being graded the way it is.

2) Published specifications for cards. How big should the borders be, what should the card stock look like, etc.

3) Published examples of graded cards and indications for why the grades were assigned to help us all become better submitters.

gregm13

I don't disagree w/ receiving a brief reason why a card was graded a certain grade, however that would most likely drive up the price of grading. If the average card is graded in one minute, how much longer would be added to the process to write a brief description of EVERY flaw found on the card?

Personally, I would like there to be a brief checklist with the major flaws listed, which would print on the back of the flip. This way, if a card graded a 5 or 6 instead of the 8 I expected, the back would list "hairline crease" or "centering outside of tolerance", ect... to help me understand why my card graded lower than my expectations.

Unfortunatly, you can't demand $5 grading fees and a lengthy write up of the defects at the same time.

IMHO

Greg M.

Axtell

Was this your first submission? Most (if not everyone) first submissions are far below what is expected. Time and submissions make you a better pre-grader. Just spending 10 minutes with a card isn't really enough. Are you looking with a 10x loupe? Are you putting your cards down and coming back a few days later to get a fresh eye on them? And if you sat there and looked through 1000 cards in one sitting?

I am not saying PSA is perfect. I am saying there is a reason they are the biggest and most highly regarded in the field. Yes they make errors (even if dabighurt doesn't want to admit it), but to state there is some widespread problem with grading, or that there needs to be a massive overhaul is both undue and unwanted.

For a while people have clamored for the fees to be reduced, that it's too costly. At the same time, people are wanting more information and writeups on why a card received certain scores. You can't have it both ways.

My suggestion would be to gather some examples of your cards in grades 5-10, to see exactly what it is that warrants those scores. You will then be able to ascertain the grades much easier.

transparent

I think that PSA should retain a scan of each card that they grade, if they don't already.

What if they offered a SEPARATE review service, where you could pay some amount to have cards that were previously graded reviewed from the scans. This service would provide you with a detailed review of how the particular grade was ascertained (for a charge). A potential buyer could even request this service for a card that they did not own, but were considering purchasing from a seller.

If, during the review process, the reviewer decides that the original grade was wrong - the review service would be free and the customer could send the card in (if they own it) for regrading at no charge. If the reviewer decides that the original grade stands, of course, the charge of the review service would be incurred. This service could even be used to determine if a card with a qualifier (which some collectors prefer) would be downgraded by 1 or 2 grades if regraded (many collectors would pay well to get a qualifier removed at the cost of 1 grade, but not 2).

Just like you asked if this was Sean's first submission (which is was not, by far)... I think that sometimes the graders may be new at either grading, or at grading a certain card set - and the grading will differ from the grading done on the same set by other graders. In all fairness, PSA should make some sort of attempt to compensate when this happens - even if the customer has to bear part of the cost. Cracking and resubmitting is just not practical.

I will agree that a lot of my high end 8's rival my 9's... and I have plenty of 8's that are worse than my high end 7's. For the most part, I only see real consistency with 9's and 10's.

Paul H.

Mefer

>>

3) Published examples of graded cards and indications for why the grades were assigned to help us all become better submitters. >>



I think this would be a great idea and economically feasible. As a start, it would be helpful for PSA to pick a couple of different years and brands, and go up the scale for the same card (i.e., 1985 Topps McGwire in 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 condition). A brief writeup could then be given. I would find this invaluable and helpful in learning more about the grading process.

As far as a grade sheet for each card, I just don't see this as economically feasible. Also, it would slow the process down. It seems us as a group want cheaper grading fees and faster turnaround times. Adding a grade review step into the process would slow grading down and increase the cost.

A good alternative would be the exemplar discussion noted above. A good place for this would be in the SMR. Maybe make it a monthly special with a different card each month? This would also help us learn the nuiances of different issues. It would also be more interesting reading than some of the things currently in the magazine.

willsr

My submission credentials:

BSG Stickers

Star Wars Stickers

Star Wars Cards


I think that a lot of money is being sent into PSA. I hate the idea that people are cracking cases and getting better grades, but more money ends up with PSA because of it.

I am saying, set our expectations. Tell us the "secrets" to grading so that we may follow them as well and not have the missed expectations. If a grader has a checklist that they must run through to grade a card (and boy I hope they have at least that), then provide a copy to us. Make it a service that you can pay an extra dollar per card and have copies of the checklists sent back to you.

I am sure that all of the PSA customers have great suggestions on how to make the process better. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more per card if I could get some of the information that I mentioned above because I think that would save me money over the current process.

softparade

willsr .... I have never used a loupe, measuring device or anything else besides my eyes and a good light. I don't say that to sound stuck up, but it is true. So far I have had outstanding results with my submissions. I have been critical of PSA in the past for what I perceived as inconsistent grading, however, as time goes on and I see more and more PSA graded cards ... I believe they do a very good job all things considered.

Mac53

I've said this before, and I'll say it again--it would certainly help me, since I can't figure out what they are looking for, if PSA would create a video or even a series of still photos which would say, for example, "here's the corner of an 8, and here's the corner of a 10. And, here's what is wrong with the corner of that 8 such that it is not a 10." I have examined graded cards, looking for what I thought PSA was looking for, and my experience is best described as hit and miss. At the advice of other board members, I have examined graded cards with a 10x loupe. I can see differences between, say, a 7 and a 10, but, frankly, I cannot see any differences between any 2 grade variants (10 vs. 8, 9 vs. 7, 8 vs. 6). Maybe it's just a talent that I don't have, but I'd still like to know. In any event, I'd pay a reasonable price for a video or set of instructional photos like I've described.

softparade

Mac, thing is cards with "7" corners might have a "10" surface with "8" centering and so on. Thus we get low end 8's and high end 8's and on and on.

Mac53

Soft, I understand that. But it would really help me to actually see what they are talking about. It seems that there are certain objective things that the graders see, ie: surface wrinkle, frayed corner, etc. I would like to see some examples. The centering criteria seem to be very precisely set out, and I understand them. I can push the buttons on a calculation and count the number of marks on a ruler. I also understand that certain things are so subjective that they can't be otherwise described, ie. eye appeal. Show me an example of the eye appeal of an 8 vs. the eye appeal of a 10, that's all I'm asking. There has been a post that talks about the training of the graders. If that training occurs, I can only assume that the trainees must be shown some examples of what it is they are supposed to be looking for. I accept that, like shooting pool, grading comes easy to some guys, like you and Eagle Eye. It apparantly doesn't come easy for me, so I'd like to be able to have some understanding of what I should be looking for.

softparade

Mac, surface wrinkles I have plenty of experience with. If you have a great light, even the smallest wrinkles appear and once you see them for the first time, your eye will remember them. I am not talking about big nasty wrinkles, but the small oh so subtle ones that KILL the grade of your otherwise perfect card. Man, I have some great looking cards with perfect centering and gloss and corners that have these wrinkles ........ they are so disappointing.

pandrews

LINK

Mac53

Thanks, soft.

PA, very impressive. I'm going to study this closely. There's a lot to be learned here, and this seems to go a long way. Nice. Thanks.

Carew29

It took longer to read all that crap than it did for PSA to grade the card in less than 2 minutes!!! Other threads have already been written on these boards about this subject. CTA was one of the company's to actually give you a score card with your card. But they are nowhere to be found today in the marketplace. They also did not have the large submissions coming in like PSA has. I think PSA has answered this topic by not doing anything, yet Joe Orlando does read these boards. If they can run a special, as they are now for $5, they can afford a slip with the grading along with each card. But PSA has chosen not to. There is your answer, plain and simple.

softparade

<< <i> I think PSA has answered this topic by not doing anything, yet Joe Orlando does read these boards. If they can run a special, as they are now for $5, they can afford a slip with the grading along with each card. But PSA has chosen not to. There is your answer, plain and simple. >>



Let me say that I am no PSA apologist, however, these threads lately wreak of sour grapes rather than substance.

As for the above comment, am I the only saying to myself "WTF are you talking about???"

willsr

Great link PA.

yawie99

<< <i>As for the above comment, am I the only saying to myself "WTF are you talking about???" >>



No

mcastaldi

*shrugs*

If you're unhappy, say so with your wallet.

Mike