Cards and unopened packs deemed "altered" by PSA, what does it really mean?
detroitfan2
Posts: 3,342 ✭✭✭✭
Hi,
Jdurg just posted some interesting thoughts on this thread regarding grading of unopened packs (see italics below), but I'd like to apply my questions to both cards and packs.
For both cards and packs, there are 3 categories (at least in the grader's mind) with regards to alterations: Definitely not altered, definitely altered, and "not 100% sure".
For cards, when a grade comes back as "Evidence of Trim" or "Evidence of Re-coloring", does the term "Evidence" imply that the grader is 100% sure that a card was trimmed / re-colored, or is it possible that this card simply falls into the "not 100% sure" category? I always thought the "minimum size requirement not met" label was for the "well, it doesn't show signs of trimming, but it very well might be" situation.
For wax packs, essentially the same question.
I guess what I'm really asking is this: What percentage of cards or packs do you think fit into the "not 100% unsure" category, and what happens to those? It would seem this percentage would be a lot higher for packs? Anyone have an opinion on what percentage of packs fall into this "not sure" category? Is it closer to 0% than I think?
Does any of this make sense at all?
-Tom (detroitfan2)
From Jdurg:
I'm still not 100% confident in a "graded" pack anyway. I can almost guarantee you that if five different people each independantly looked at one pack, you'd probably get at least 3 different grades and perhaps an "altered" indication on one of them. It's not like cards where you can break out some calipers and take measurements, highlight everything under specific wavelengths of light to see if there are any ink variations, etc. etc. With cards there are hard set signs and symptoms that you know could not have been done at the factory.
With packs, it's all really a matter of opinion. You can look for certain tell-tale signs of a pack being altered, but even those signs can be spotted by a novice. The "pack graders" are going under the assumption that every single pack was sealed in the same way for all runs of cards by the company that year. In an "art" as subjective as pack grading, there needs to be a way to validate the authenticity of a pack and that is VERY difficult to do.
In science when working with something that has the potential for error or bias in it, you ALWAYS run control samples. One that is 100% certain to be positive, and one that is 100% certain to be negative. If you positive comes out negative, or vice-versa, on ANY of your test runs for that one unknown sample, then the entire analysis of that unknown sample is thrown away.
In the grading of packs, it is almost impossible to have a positive control sample. As a result, I really take any indication of "altered" with a grain of salt. If you want to go ahead and believe them without questioning the validity of that analysis, then be my guest. It's just that I wouldn't someone convicted of burglary have the keys to my house even if they were only convicted once.
Jdurg just posted some interesting thoughts on this thread regarding grading of unopened packs (see italics below), but I'd like to apply my questions to both cards and packs.
For both cards and packs, there are 3 categories (at least in the grader's mind) with regards to alterations: Definitely not altered, definitely altered, and "not 100% sure".
For cards, when a grade comes back as "Evidence of Trim" or "Evidence of Re-coloring", does the term "Evidence" imply that the grader is 100% sure that a card was trimmed / re-colored, or is it possible that this card simply falls into the "not 100% sure" category? I always thought the "minimum size requirement not met" label was for the "well, it doesn't show signs of trimming, but it very well might be" situation.
For wax packs, essentially the same question.
I guess what I'm really asking is this: What percentage of cards or packs do you think fit into the "not 100% unsure" category, and what happens to those? It would seem this percentage would be a lot higher for packs? Anyone have an opinion on what percentage of packs fall into this "not sure" category? Is it closer to 0% than I think?
Does any of this make sense at all?
-Tom (detroitfan2)
From Jdurg:
I'm still not 100% confident in a "graded" pack anyway. I can almost guarantee you that if five different people each independantly looked at one pack, you'd probably get at least 3 different grades and perhaps an "altered" indication on one of them. It's not like cards where you can break out some calipers and take measurements, highlight everything under specific wavelengths of light to see if there are any ink variations, etc. etc. With cards there are hard set signs and symptoms that you know could not have been done at the factory.
With packs, it's all really a matter of opinion. You can look for certain tell-tale signs of a pack being altered, but even those signs can be spotted by a novice. The "pack graders" are going under the assumption that every single pack was sealed in the same way for all runs of cards by the company that year. In an "art" as subjective as pack grading, there needs to be a way to validate the authenticity of a pack and that is VERY difficult to do.
In science when working with something that has the potential for error or bias in it, you ALWAYS run control samples. One that is 100% certain to be positive, and one that is 100% certain to be negative. If you positive comes out negative, or vice-versa, on ANY of your test runs for that one unknown sample, then the entire analysis of that unknown sample is thrown away.
In the grading of packs, it is almost impossible to have a positive control sample. As a result, I really take any indication of "altered" with a grain of salt. If you want to go ahead and believe them without questioning the validity of that analysis, then be my guest. It's just that I wouldn't someone convicted of burglary have the keys to my house even if they were only convicted once.
0
Comments
<< <i>I remember reading somewhere (either on this board or an article about grading packs), that Steve Harts approach is if he isnt 100% sure, than its best to reject the pack. I think its this point that is making the difference, good or bad, between PSA and GAI no matter how you want to twist and turn it. If GAI is 95% sure its good, it gets slabbed. If PSA is 95% sure its good, it gets rejected.... >>
What is your basis for that statement? It may well be true, but how do we know?
<< <i>
<< <i>I remember reading somewhere (either on this board or an article about grading packs), that Steve Harts approach is if he isnt 100% sure, than its best to reject the pack. I think its this point that is making the difference, good or bad, between PSA and GAI no matter how you want to twist and turn it. If GAI is 95% sure its good, it gets slabbed. If PSA is 95% sure its good, it gets rejected.... >>
What is your basis for that statement? It may well be true, but how do we know? >>
We know it's true because we all love Steve Hart. He did mention in a post here that it was impossible to make sure that all resealed packs didn't find their way into a holder, but who needs that kind of ambiguity?
Caveman say: "PSA GOOD, GAI BAD. ME NEED TO EAT MORE MUTTON LEGS."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I suspect PSA has many positive control-samples and is
working on obtaining many more.
There are those that are clearly hacked or altered in some way. Those are an automatic rejection.
Many are subject to individual interpretation based on experience, knowledge and a gathering of objective findings. As an example, for trimming, edges are key. A clean cut on a vintage card may look perfectly normal but let’s say it has some stray micro-cut marks on the edge or loss of edge tone or the cut is too straight. These findings are now grouped together to form a fairly accurate opinion. Some collectors would put these in the “not 100% unsure” category, when they are actually “for sure.”
On the flip side, as the skills of the card doctors get better the “possibility” or “not 100% sure” factor increases as well because it is more difficult to interpret or there are less of those objective findings grouped on one card.
Just a thought.
Kevin Saucier
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
///////////////////
Yup.