Looks like BGS has some explaining to do
schr1st
Posts: 1,677 ✭✭
You might want to save it locally in case it gets deleted. This one goes up there with that trimmed BGS Mark Prior rookie.
Who is Rober Maris?
0
Comments
Minnie Minoso Master and Basic
1967 Topps PSA 8+
1960's Topps run Mega Set
"For me, playing baseball has been like a war and I was defending the uniform I wore, Every time I put on the uniform I respected it like the American flag. I wore it like I was representing every Latin country."--Minnie Minoso
Since you mentioned the Prior, I'll give you another example involving the same seller. I follow 86 fleer auctions pretty closely. When I saw Kevin B. auctioning off several psa 10's from that set, I took a closer look. Here's one of several cards from his first batch. If you punch in the surrounding certification #'s, you'll see the typical results from this seller - 10's, with a few 9's, and numerous evidence of trimmings. Among those cards rejected were Doc Rivers, Robert Parrish, Wayne Cooper, and Byron Scott.
He later auctioned off some more 86 fleers that obviously came from a different submission. Once again, you have 10's surrounded with evid. of trimming. Among those graded...
Robert Parrish
Doc Rivers
Byron Scott
Wayne Cooper
If at first you don't succeed, try try again.
WHAT"S A ROOKIE TO DO???????????????????
Just a newbee perspective...back to Stone's comment on TRUST in Mudflap's thread... is that nobody really has it. Looks kind of like the Nasdaq bubble. I'm sure reality will set in some day but there will be a lot of pain. Guess I'll just keep my collection raw until that day comes.
Stingray
I've always said that the grading company's favour the big shots. There is a perfect example. How many times have we seen a "questionable" 9 and said, "Boy, if that was mine, it would only get a 7."
Shane
At this moment there are 1,656 BGS 9.5 cards listed eBay. This is using the precise phrase "BGS 9.5" as a keyword, so it does not turn up auctions where the seller states "BGS 9 With Subgrades of 9.5!" or "BGS 9 Should be 9.5!" Longtime buyers of Beckett cards, how many hits did you get when you searched for the exact phrase "BGS 9.5" two years ago, or even last summer?
<< <i>For all of us who knew this was going on over there - here is the proof positive. Amazing! >>
It would in my opinion be naive to believe it's not going on with all the companies. Beckett just seems to be the most vulnerable at the current moment.
This Brady probably didn't even have much work to it either...just resubmitted it and boom...BGS 9.5....
<< <i>The reason I'm so sick? I paid $800 to upgrade from my 8.5 to a 9.5 after the super bowl. >>
No way I'ld pay that kind of money for a card like that!
A couple of high grade cards and this puppy is paid for!
This may be true to an extent, but it's not the whole story. What people don't understand-- or if they do understand it they don't keep it in the fore of their conscious-- is that the actual 'grade' of a card exists on a continuum. For instance, there are no '9's' out there. Instead, there are cards with, say, 25% equity in an '8' grade, 65% equity in a '9' grade, and 10% equity in a '10'. One thing that smart dealers know is that if you have a blazer 8 you should just crack, crack, crack it until it comes back in the highest possible holder. Your average collector doesn't do this. He feels like he's 'wasting money' if he resubmits the same card 8 times and it comes back all 8 times as nmt-mt. But a savvy dealer just isn't phased by this. He'll keep sending it back in-- 15, maybe 20 times if he has to-- until it comes back a 9 (or a 10).
Like everyone here, I've submitted what I thought were 'sure fire' 9's and had them come back as 7's. But I've also submitted 'sure fire' 7's and had them come back 9's. I don't know the cert number, but somewhere out there is the worlds ugliest PSA 9 '87 Bonds-- and I'm the one who had it slabbed. Ditto for an '85 Fleer Clemens and a handful of '89 UD Griffeys.
I'm not saying this Brady isn't trimmed. Looking at it it would appear as though it is. But unless you've done any SERIOUS cracking and resubmitting- and by serious I mean sending the same card back over 10 times-- it's hard to appreciate just how subjective grading really is. There are a lot of people who say that an 8.5 should 'never' cross to a 9.5, or that a PSA 6 should never cross to an 8, but these people just don't understand the dynamics behind grading.
Take DSL. Do they get preferential treatment? I don't know. I do know that I had access to Joe Tuttles submission results a few years ago, and I can say without a doubt that he never got a break. So my guess is that this doesn't happen. Instead, DSL is smart enough to say 'you know what, this card came back an 8, but I think it's got a 10% of coming back a 9. I think I'll crack it." If you aggressively crack and resubmit you're going to get some average cards in high end holders-- and it's not because you're business is favored.
Also, one last point. Like I said, this Brady is probably trimmed. But simply because a trimmed card is in a 9.5 holder is NO guarantee that the reason it ended up there is because the dealer who submitted it got a break. If anyone here ever tried to submit trimmed cards to BGS they would probably be surprised at how many they could get slabbed-- even as a small time submitter. These conspiracy theories have one big thing going against them-- namely, that each party has to rely on the other to keep quiet forever. Let's say DSL is getting grading breaks from PSA. Well, what happens if PSA gets a new CEO, and he decides to stop it? At this point PSA is totally beholden to DSL, because if word got out about their arrangement PSA would just go in the tank. Ditto for Beckett. Can you imagine what would happen if a big time submitter suddenly got disenchanted with BGS, and came out and announced that BGS has been slabbing their trimmed cards? Boom! BGS is done. End of story. You look at it from a risk-reward standpoint, and taking this kind of chance is just not worth the extra few thousand you make from a submitter each month- particularly when that submitter may have submitted his cards to you anyway.
<< <i>I'm not saying this Brady isn't trimmed. Looking at it it would appear as though it is. But unless you've done any SERIOUS cracking and resubmitting- and by serious I mean sending the same card back over 10 times-- it's hard to appreciate just how subjective grading really is. >>
But centering isn't subjective. For centering to improve, either the card was trimmed or the dealer got preferential treatment.
This assumes that centering is actually measured-- which I'm almost positive it isn't. The BGS subgrades are a total farce. Somebody looks the card over, decides on a grade, and then slaps on some subgrades.
I've always wondered how many of his vintage cards are bought raw, especially the star cards. I've never sold a graded card to him/them on ebay as far as I know, but, man, that's a lot of gradeable vintage to keep finding raw week after week. I know other dealers buy high end cards all the time, though.
And, yeah, beckett's centering subgrade is very much subjective. I've seen 86 tt cards that were a grade apart in centering even though they were centered the same.
So, Boopotts, since you've done so much resubmitting, how many times on average do I have to submit my high end 9's to get a 10? (This is kind of like the old Tootsie Pop question).
That's actually a really good question. I've cracked out some expensive cards, but I just don't have the stones to bust out something like a 67 Mantle in a PSA 9 holder. Too much can go wrong. Also, I've had PSA damage cards of mine when they were in their possession, and I don't think I could stomach having a four figure card come back in a 7 holder with a corner bent.
So, in sum-- I've never cracked a vintage nine (although I've cracked an ocean of modern nines). And I'm not sure that I will get into that, since it's such a risk cracking the stars and cracking commons is not cost effective.
The surface grade is far and away the biggest joke. Nobody as BGS actually examines the surfaces-- I'm now sure of that. Unless there's a scratch or a surface wrinkle they don't even spot it.
I know...pass it on to the customer as a cost of business. Kind of like 6% realestate commission.
IMveryHO grading should be on a continuous scale...not a step function... with supporting commentary. I guess some sort of do that????
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. (I guess there ARE different results so it can't be stupidity)
Don't fix the problem....reslab on...I love it.
<< <i>And what do expert collectors and dealers pay for this impeccably executed precision evaluative service on an annual basis???
I know...pass it on to the customer as a cost of business. Kind of like 6% realestate commission.
IMveryHO grading should be on a continuous scale...not a step function... with supporting commentary. I guess some sort of do that????
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. (I guess there ARE different results so it can't be stupidity)
Don't fix the problem....reslab on...I love it. >>
I'm really not trying to be a smart alec, but I don't understand what you're saying here.
<< <i> IMveryHO grading should be on a continuous scale...not a step function... with supporting commentary. I guess some sort of do that???? >>
and no two cards are in the same condition...
take a psa 9 - some 9's could have been on a bad day (or in worse cases ARE) psa 8's, while others could have been on a good day (or in best cases ARE) psa 10's. the monetary difference between an 8 and 10 could be 50 times or greater.
i grade all my psa cards like this: (-2) denotes a slider, (-1) for a weak card, (0) for an accurate card, (1) for a high-end card, and (2) for a card that has a shot at being graded higher. i keep an excel file - this way i know which cards to upgrade.
brian
On a board that is skewed towards cards I will tell you that the net result for me is the gradual expansion or diversion of my budget toward "other than cards."
There's nothing new about this discussion other than the participants.
I, like many of my collecting friends, have gradually moved into other areas with a new set of painful problems!
A hobby ceases to be fun when people spend more time debating the crooks, pitfalls and fallacies rather than interesting and informative posts on items of interest.
Ya know, I could consider selling out and collecting rocks and sea shells!
That's your opinion, and I respect that. However, you need to respect the fact that some of us do enjoy discussing the dynamics of card grading. If this doesn't interest you then there are certainly other threads currently active on these boards that you will find more engaging.
Coming from business and manufacturing, there are volumes and volumes written on Comparative Evaluation, Subjective Evaluation Theory, and numerous other tools to define quality or comparison to perfection with a number or level when the characteristic is not objectively measurable. i.e Softness, Sharpness, Focus etc, etc.
Surely those who run these companies are not ignorant of these systems.
IMO both the seller and buyer of grading services are satisfied with the status quo since any change would radically alter their perceived value...or business level...and they can't predict in which way.
So we all line up with a favorite grader, blast the opposition, and reslab trying to work the fringes of subjectivityto our advantage.
Probably not clearer but at least I tried to explain what I see as several glaring deficiencies in the whole game.
Hi Clev--
You're obviously an intelligent guy, and again-- I'm not trying to be a smart alec. But can you tell me what these deficiencies are that you see?
Looks like the dynamic of people who would rather talk about it than do something to change it.
It can be improved and can be corrected but I guess many of you don't think that anything is wrong.
Dynamic Denial ???
Looks like the dynamic of people who would rather talk about it than do something to change it."
Why would I, or anyone else, want to change it? That's an ignorant assumption. Just because I say that BGS's subgrades are a farce doesn't necessitate that I wish they were otherwise.
If I like a card and it happens to reside in a 7 holder, there it remains. if i do not like it I seek out another. I guess it all depends on you want from your hobby.
Steve D
No explaination on variation from ideal or perfection...the old I'll know it when it see it until I see one better method.
We don't know the details of the grading process, training required/given, certification required,etc. (Trade secrets??)
Varying "standards" (Beckett 9.5, as someone mentioned used to be IT,...now ????
Basic lack of " professionalism" for lack of a better word.
Enough blather but these threads are really something to read through for a neophyte....almost unbelievable!!!
To summarize, I would "TRUST" some of you to grade my cards before sending them off to who knows where or who knows who to look at.
The expertise of the hobby is really in the forum members....flex your muscles a little if you want it to change. Does anyone???
After this diatribe I think my collection will stay raw...as it has been for 45 years.
How have you done with the modern 9's?
I've cracked out a fair amount, but I've always sent them to beckett. I know that even if they remain a 9 but get high subs, they'll still sell for a lot more. I've only had a few go up to 9.5.
we were told that we had no muscle, that we were only 1% of the PSA world.
not much muscle there
Knowledge? Plenty of that to go around.
Steve
<< <i>lol - this stuff happens all the time with grading. One day it's an 8, the next day it's "evid of trimming," and another day it's a 10.
Since you mentioned the Prior, I'll give you another example involving the same seller. I follow 86 fleer auctions pretty closely. When I saw Kevin B. auctioning off several psa 10's from that set, I took a closer look. Here's one of several cards from his first batch. If you punch in the surrounding certification #'s, you'll see the typical results from this seller - 10's, with a few 9's, and numerous evidence of trimmings. Among those cards rejected were Doc Rivers, Robert Parrish, Wayne Cooper, and Byron Scott.
He later auctioned off some more 86 fleers that obviously came from a different submission. Once again, you have 10's surrounded with evid. of trimming. Among those graded...
Robert Parrish
Doc Rivers
Byron Scott
Wayne Cooper
If at first you don't succeed, try try again. >>
This is VERY VERY troubling.
I don't know why you bring such things onto the PSA boards. The TRAINED and CERTIFIED PROFESSIONALS at PSA do a very good job of grading and weeding out the altered cards. Is it their fault that they're able to find the trimmed cards? The only pattern I see from the cert #s is that PSA was able to catch a bunch of trimmed cards and that we should be thankful to them for doing this.
PSA is doing a fine job and I will continue to stand by them against these malicious attacks!
I personally think PSA should mix all cert numbers as to prevent things like this from happening. We don't need collectors snooping around in things that really don't concern them. PSA grades the cards, you collect them. NUFF SAID!!
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>"A hobby ceases to be fun when people spend more time debating the crooks, pitfalls and fallacies rather than interesting and informative posts on items of interest."
That's your opinion, and I respect that. However, you need to respect the fact that some of us do enjoy discussing the dynamics of card grading. If this doesn't interest you then there are certainly other threads currently active on these boards that you will find more engaging. >>
Boo
You totally misunderstood the purpose of my statement.
It was NOT directed at what people should nor should not post.
It was meant as a reality statement on WHAT is required to talk about. I'm right there with you guys - we NEED to discuss this. We NEED to keep informing each other.
Unless people are rude to each other, I will never tell someone what is an appropriate post. I have NEVER informed anyone about spam, wrong forum or anything - we all pay the same dues to post here.
I'm disappointed that you would think that I would go down that road.
mike
edit: for the sake of clarity - what I'm saying: I think it's a shame that we have to spend so much time and energy because there's so many problems/hurdles to jump in the pursuit of something we truly enjoy.
I am for the HOBBY....not a grading company.
I am here because I believe that PSA is by far the best.. but
Praise doesn't force improvement nearly as much as constructive criticism and suggestion for improvement
Being the lead dog in a last place sled (comparing our sled - cards to other sleds that grade items) is not very comforting
PSA should, IMHO, either lead, follow or get out of the way in this area...not tell people they will be booted for voicing legitimate concern
The crucible of change always creates a better breed.
Like someone said 8 to 10 can be 50x value...it ought to be as RIGHT, FAIR, REPEATABLE, and as BEAUTIFULLY CORRELATED to a REAL STANDARD as humanly possible.
Bottom line...ITS OUR VALUE / $$$ / HAPPINESS AT LOOKING AT A CARD or whatever....
Wag the dog some more???
Yes, I collect shiny modern crap
All your Shaq are belong to me
<< <i>I don't think any grading company (of cards, coins - you think cards are bad!
Interesting point bjork
On that note - I wonder how big this company truly is? My point - every corporation should be spending money on R&D - some of the assets should be going towards the development of a computer "assisted" grading program IMO. I know...they have tried it in the past....well keep going back to the drawing board till one gets it right - that's called research for the purpose of "progress" and the net result will be a better product and even more customers!
mike
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
I just had a conch shell graded. I thought it was a 10 but it came back an 8 because it had some sand in it. I'm thinking of cleaning off the sand and resubmitting.
<< <i><<< Ya know, I could consider selling out and collecting rocks and sea shells! >>>
I just had a conch shell graded. I thought it was a 10 but it came back an 8 because it had some sand in it. I'm thinking of cleaning off the sand and resubmitting. >>
DON'T DO IT!!! Don't go to the darkside! But if you decide to be very careful since the sand can scratch the surface and it may come back a 4.
Minnie Minoso Master and Basic
1967 Topps PSA 8+
1960's Topps run Mega Set
"For me, playing baseball has been like a war and I was defending the uniform I wore, Every time I put on the uniform I respected it like the American flag. I wore it like I was representing every Latin country."--Minnie Minoso
This assumes that PSA wants to change. What % of their monthly gross comes from crack and submit?
Which issues have you cracked? Some issues just never get the bump; others get it frequently.