Half Grades: A Slight To The High-End Set Builder?
MattyC
Posts: 1,335 ✭✭
The PSA missive regarding the new grading system states:
"...there is no question that the half-point grade will impact the ratings, thus the rankings, in a major way. Just imagine…if a collector has been very picky about the quality of their cards and owns a substantial percentage of cards that will achieve the half-point increase, that set could make a serious climb in the rankings. The difference between a PSA NM-MT 8 and a PSA NM-MT + 8.5, multiplied many times over, can make a big difference, especially when the set contains hundreds of cards.
Not only will this further distinguish high-quality sets within the PSA Set Registry, it will also properly reward those who have selected their cards carefully, those who have most likely paid a premium for the cards they own. This was a key factor behind making this decision. With the graded card market continuing to evolve and as it becomes more advanced, we felt that this system will make the grading more accurate and help protect the investment of the buyer."
Now...
All this system does (aside from netting PSA new revenue due to the re-grading of already-graded cards) is narrow the gap between sets with many 9s and sets with many 8s. Thus, this move hurts the collector who paid serious premiums for 9s.
In the uber-competitive Set Registry, sets previously composed of all lower cost 8s stand to gain 50% new ground against sets with mostly expensive 9s. Put another way, with the advent of the 8.5-grade card, the 1pt advantage one previously paid for in obtaining a PSA 9 has been effectively halved. That's just great if you bought 8s that you now pay a nominal fee to get raised to 8.5, but not great if you paid top dollar for 9s that cannot move up to a 9.5.
In short, this system stands to reward ONLY the collector who owns (much cheaper) PSA 8s. We all know one of the biggest price gaps lies between 8 and 9. In the zero-sum game of the competitive Registry, one man's gain is always another's loss, and so who is on the short end of this new system? The high end collector, who, in his rearview, sees a much less expensive set now much closer. Owners of these newly minted 8.5s (or "high end 8s") see all this new value, both in their Registry sets and for resale. But if you paid dearly for many PSA 9s? No soup for you. Your investment hasn't been "protected," it's likely been UNDERMINED. Maybe not to a great extent, as the truly high-end collector will still prefer 9s and resent these new 8.5s.
Spending the serious money on 9s is no longer worth it. Does PSA realize they've hurt the value of their highest end cards? Why would one pay the big bucks for a 9 when it's now only .5 better than an 8.5? In an attempt to broaden their cards' resale market and value, PSA has slighted the collector of very high-end material. They've narrowed the gaps in the Registry competition, which they no doubt believe (probably correctly) will create more intense competition and more business, but the savvy, highest-end collector must be turned off. PSA has made a (likely good business) choice, to embrace the broad middle at the cost of putting off the top end.
PSA is more than "protecting the investment" of those who bought "high-end 8s," they are giving those collectors new money, new value-- in exchange for re-grading fees. What positive is in this new system for a collection of 9s? Zilch.
In the end, I suppose this will save some of us hundreds of thousands of dollars, as we're completely turned off by these massive benefits given to inferior cards previously known as 8s. Still, it's a smart business move by PSA; the goal is satisfying the masses, it's better to open a hundred McDonalds than one Peter Lugers. Better to sell ten Honda Civics than one SL 65.
If you'd rather have the porterhouse and the Benz and you collect PSA cards, this system is just not palatable.
If our feedback is truly valued, as was written, let's see.
In the words of a Simpsons character:
Smell ya later, PSA.
Smell ya later forever.
"...there is no question that the half-point grade will impact the ratings, thus the rankings, in a major way. Just imagine…if a collector has been very picky about the quality of their cards and owns a substantial percentage of cards that will achieve the half-point increase, that set could make a serious climb in the rankings. The difference between a PSA NM-MT 8 and a PSA NM-MT + 8.5, multiplied many times over, can make a big difference, especially when the set contains hundreds of cards.
Not only will this further distinguish high-quality sets within the PSA Set Registry, it will also properly reward those who have selected their cards carefully, those who have most likely paid a premium for the cards they own. This was a key factor behind making this decision. With the graded card market continuing to evolve and as it becomes more advanced, we felt that this system will make the grading more accurate and help protect the investment of the buyer."
Now...
All this system does (aside from netting PSA new revenue due to the re-grading of already-graded cards) is narrow the gap between sets with many 9s and sets with many 8s. Thus, this move hurts the collector who paid serious premiums for 9s.
In the uber-competitive Set Registry, sets previously composed of all lower cost 8s stand to gain 50% new ground against sets with mostly expensive 9s. Put another way, with the advent of the 8.5-grade card, the 1pt advantage one previously paid for in obtaining a PSA 9 has been effectively halved. That's just great if you bought 8s that you now pay a nominal fee to get raised to 8.5, but not great if you paid top dollar for 9s that cannot move up to a 9.5.
In short, this system stands to reward ONLY the collector who owns (much cheaper) PSA 8s. We all know one of the biggest price gaps lies between 8 and 9. In the zero-sum game of the competitive Registry, one man's gain is always another's loss, and so who is on the short end of this new system? The high end collector, who, in his rearview, sees a much less expensive set now much closer. Owners of these newly minted 8.5s (or "high end 8s") see all this new value, both in their Registry sets and for resale. But if you paid dearly for many PSA 9s? No soup for you. Your investment hasn't been "protected," it's likely been UNDERMINED. Maybe not to a great extent, as the truly high-end collector will still prefer 9s and resent these new 8.5s.
Spending the serious money on 9s is no longer worth it. Does PSA realize they've hurt the value of their highest end cards? Why would one pay the big bucks for a 9 when it's now only .5 better than an 8.5? In an attempt to broaden their cards' resale market and value, PSA has slighted the collector of very high-end material. They've narrowed the gaps in the Registry competition, which they no doubt believe (probably correctly) will create more intense competition and more business, but the savvy, highest-end collector must be turned off. PSA has made a (likely good business) choice, to embrace the broad middle at the cost of putting off the top end.
PSA is more than "protecting the investment" of those who bought "high-end 8s," they are giving those collectors new money, new value-- in exchange for re-grading fees. What positive is in this new system for a collection of 9s? Zilch.
In the end, I suppose this will save some of us hundreds of thousands of dollars, as we're completely turned off by these massive benefits given to inferior cards previously known as 8s. Still, it's a smart business move by PSA; the goal is satisfying the masses, it's better to open a hundred McDonalds than one Peter Lugers. Better to sell ten Honda Civics than one SL 65.
If you'd rather have the porterhouse and the Benz and you collect PSA cards, this system is just not palatable.
If our feedback is truly valued, as was written, let's see.
In the words of a Simpsons character:
Smell ya later, PSA.
Smell ya later forever.
0
Comments
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
"Voted dislike. My reasoning, if they're doing it with the collector in mind, why aren't they doing FREE reviews on already graded PSA cards. They're the ones that changed the rules while the game is still being played, but their loyal customers foot the bill."
A great point, guy.
PSA should offer to review these for free or I see this as just a scam that makes me want to sell every one of my registry sets. Even if they do offer to review for free what am I to do with the 100's of other PSA 9's?? They will be worthless in 6 months.
Kirby Puckett Master Set
I do agree, however, that soon down the road, PSA 7's and 8's will be "worthless." Well, maybe not quite that melodramatic; but, I think PSA 7's and 8's will be affected the most. (The dollars are not large enough to negatively affect 6 and below, I believe.) Why?
Because: if you DON'T resubmit your 7 and 8 cards for the new half-point scale, buyers will think that those PSA 7 and 8 cards are "not worthy." And I fear that we'll have one horrible time moving legacy PSA 7's and 8's from the 50's, 60's and 70's.
I'm sure that a big motivating factor in PSA's revising the sysytem is: to scare us into resubmitting.
GULP!
JMO
Steve
<< <i>Hope you're right, Win. I really do. >>
I am sure Win is right. The market will and has decided....just as it does on any collectible. Look at the sales from any auction house, or the same of ebay from just the last 24 hrs.....high end sport cards are not going to be worthless and will always sell for more slabbed.
Having said that, a recession is likely around the corner, or we are turning that corner now and all collectibles are going to hurt. But I foresee little effect because PSA added a 0.5.
In the meanwhile, feel free to send me all your graded HOF RC's with those dreaded whole grades.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
PSA 8 Old Holder! UPGRADE POSSIBLE
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
another hot promotion: "combo paper trimmer & slabbed card lot (gem, sgc, bvg, gai, psa, etc...)" or "combo paper trimmer & raw card lot, the sky is the limit!"
graded cardboard free enterprise system eats itself alive....
j
RIP GURU
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
As someone who collects 7's 8's and 9's I'm kinda happy as I have always believed in "BUY THE CARD NOT THE HOLDER" so my cards may have just increased.
Those that blindly buy the holder will feel this change.
I submit fewer than 50 cards a year as I prefer to buy on the Bay or auction houses I may submit a great many of my cards in the future as I have tried to buy SOLID and FAIRLY graded cards AFTER looking a the card and not the holder.
Braves
I think there will be a bunch of folks standing for a few days after they send their re-subs, as sitting down would be a little painful.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Also, in the short term, you might see a big spike in PSA 7 and 8 sales. There are going to be many, many people buying them to crack and regrade in hopes of a profit. A very nice profit could be made doing this on the right cards. Being that there are millions of PSA cards out there, that spike could last a few years. I really don't see anything tanking in price right now. This reminds me of the late 90's with PSA when every dealer and their grandma were searching down raw cards to submit to grade for a profit. There should be an absolute frenzy in the next couple months for regrading.
Bad thing is, there will probably be a HUGE spike in submissions almost immediately so don't look for good turnaround times.
PSA has no intrest in resale value, its all about the grading fee!
Here's an example. Say you have a 1957 complete set that is all 7's and 8's. Would you rather buy a complete 1957 set that is all 7.0's and 8.0's or all 7's and 8's? Obviously a person looking to make a profit, would rather buy your set because the other set obviously won't get any bumps.
My advice would be either to get your cards bumped up now or hang on to the set you have without upgrading. Dumping right now would be crazy, IMO.
That being said, if PSA doesn't make a way to tell the difference between an old 8 and a new 8, then my whole theory is out the window.
Make sense?
<< <i>The market will dictate what these cards will be worth. All the talk here is just that, talk. Wait and see what the market decides. Just because a card stays in the whole grade does not mean it is a dog.
JMO
Steve >>
Steve,
The problem is by the time the market has reacted...it will be too late to change anything if found to be of harm.
PSA is killing brand loyalty, something they have worked years to build.
Kirby Puckett Master Set
<< <i>In an attempt to broaden their cards' resale market and value, PSA has slighted the collector of very high-end material.
PSA has no intrest in resale value, its all about the grading fee! >>
EXACTLY!!
Grading is subjective enough with a whole point scale...now a half-point scale?
Can it be about anything but $$?
Kirby Puckett Master Set
Regardless of Joe's attempt to suggest that collector value will increase (should he really even be worried about secondary market value?), the market will set itself.
Joe should be more concerned with making certain that there is a specific and distinguishable difference between the 17 years of 1-10 full point grades and the new 1-10 half point grades. Anything less will be a complete disservice to those that have supported PSA for any portion of the past 17 years!
My simple suggestion, to maintain the uniformity of the product, would be to decimalize every grade in the new system. Hence a PSA 9 would now be a PSA 9.0. The use of the decimal will afford the protection to the old school cards while defining the "accuracy" of the new sytems offspring.
Just my humple opinion . . . Flame away!
One of main problems is with those that recently had their cards graded without the reasonable warning that things were going to change. Of course PSA notified it's members (customers) on short notice as they didn't wish to effect their submission numbers. Notifying the members to early would have had a dramatic impact on submissions short term. Lets say they indicated in 6 months they would make this change...... there would have been a dramatic decline in submissions during the time of notification of change and actual change. Now there will only be a small time frame in which submissions decline..... then a spike..... at least that's what it appears PSA is hoping for. And it would appear re-submissions of PSA 8 cards will no doubt increase dramatically!
As far as there being no 9.5 grading..... well this certainly saved the high end group of collectors.
PSA should at least honor the high end collectors in a small way by either increasing the weight of a PSA 9 and PSA 10 card to offset the halve point increase for cards below 9's and 10's or just simply not increase the weighting of halve pointed cards. After all with no benefit whatsoever for the 9's and 10's it really is most unfair in that regard. Surely something could be done to benefit the 9's and 10's in the Set Registry?
The Registry math must be retooled to bolster the 9s in light of these new 8.5s.
<< <i>I think this is kind of a good thing. For one, it will eliminate a lot of the "High End 8" BS that gets spewed in ebay auctions. Now the seller can prove it instead of just saying it.
>>
Unfortunately what you'll get now is "This card is a really high end 8.5"
Steve
Since it looks like PSA is not asking for our opinions, the .5 appears to be here to stay. I won't repeat what everyone has already said about how this will have a negative impact on certain cards' values. But I wanted to see what everyone's thoughts are on how PSA could address how this affects the PSA Set Registry.
Let me start by saying that I've always felt that the rating system was somewhat flawed, especially when looking at certain sets . . . for example, I collect the All-Time Red Sox set. The cards in this set composition start in the early 1900s and go all the way through 1997. With the way the set registry is set up, I can spend $20 on a PSA 10 Jason Varitek rookie and that card is worth 10 points because the Varitek only has a grade weighting of 1.0. But if I went out and spent $1000 on a PSA 1 Babe Ruth card it would only be worth 10 points as well. This gap between what cards are worth financially and what they are worth on the set registry is enormous and nonsensical.
Obviously most sets won't have this big of a difference between cards though so let's just look at the 1975 Minis which a couple of us in this thread collect. As MattyC pointed out, people with a bunch of 9s and 10s in their sets just saw the distance between them and those with PSA 8s evaporate. How can PSA "ensure the value" of the cards in our sets? The idea that I'm mulling over is to use a much more complicated set registry weighting system. First off, I want to say that I believe we should keep the grade weightings as they are now so we can avoid the "moving target" that 75 mini collectors experienced a few weeks ago. So the George Brett rookie card still has a grade weight of 10 and a common card still has a grade weight of 1. The difference in cost between a PSA 10 Brett and a PSA 9 Brett is substantial and yet, you get a measly 10 point bump for your registry if you choose to spend thousands for the PSA 10. Ten points is not very much when the set divisor is 763!
To fix this, I think it might be more fair if we adjusted the multiples by which we figured the cards grade weight. Rather than a Brett 10 (at a weight of 10) being worth 100 points, why not calculate the grade weight for 9s and 10s by using a higher multiple? I'm having a hard time articulating this, but if I could express this mathematically it would go from looking like this: Grade (10) x weight (10) = 100 to a new calculation of Grade x bonus x weight. The same could be done for 9s but the bonus would be a lower bonus. The bonus for a 10 could be 2x and the bonus for a 9 could be 1.25 x. All other cards graded 1 through 8.5 would be calculated the old way.
I think the bonus levels could be adjusted for each set since some of the older sets will never see a 10, but each set has its own nuances anyway so that shouldn't be a big deal.
Like I said, this is just a rough draft in my thinking process, but I wanted to see what everyone else that participates in the registry thinks of this. I won't be offended if you all hate the idea, but I think something should be done to "ease the pain."
-Chad
You're not gonna live long enough for those at PSA to change the compostion of any set in the Registry. Somebody originally submitted the composition of cards within the existing set and at some point Orlando signed off and presto, you now have a new Registry set. Like it or not, it ain't gonna change, fair or not, blah, blah.
As you are aware, I own the #1 set in the All-Time Red Sox set. You simply can't compare Varitek to anyone else, regardless of what his point value is, it is now written in stone that his value is one point. You gotta keep in mind there are a whole bunch of Varitek 10s and very few nicely graded earlier cards, thus the point value being higher. Kinda ECON 101, the more of an item the lower the price and vice versa.
FWIW, although I enjoy Jerry Remy as an announcer, I certainly don't think he belongs in the All-time set. I think he hit 3 home runs with the Red Sox while playing 2nd base. Nice guy, but he ain't no All-Time Red Sox player. Why does Pete Runnels deserve an 8 point assignment, or Jackie Jensen? Beating a dead horse my friend.
Moving on...I've made my voice LOUD and clear to Orlando over this half-point fiasco. Kinda reminds me of how the Baltimore Colts snuck out of Baltimore in the dead of night as they shipped all their stuff to Indy. Do I like the idea of half-point? Nope! Anyone reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read Orlando's 2003 post about not going to a half-point system, even writing "we'd be crazy to do that". I also read where Orlando, while giving a presentation at Atlantic City, was also adamant that PSA would never go to the half-point system. Well, so much for integrity.
I've had my say to him...I've taken a deep breath and have gotten over it. Fact is, it's here to stay, like it or not. Does it impact me? Don't know, time will tell, as I wrote some time ago that I was selling my entire collection. My decision had nothing to do with the half-point business, I wasn't even aware of it when I made my decision, just simply want to do other things with my money. I suspect I may take a whack or two along the way, but I have no intention of giving anything away. Call it a high 8, low 8, middle 8, blah, blah, to me it's still a PSA 8.
Perhaps what irks me most about this change is the supposed people that were contacted over this change. I think I have a dozen or more sets in the Registry (mcmlvtopps), I never got the memo. I never was given an opportunity to give any feedback or my opinion, just got it shoved down my throat like everyone else. To whom did they speak? Certainly nobody in the Registry that I'm aware of...geez, at least ask those that have the top tier Registry sets, if not everyone in the Registry, after all, we are the ones that supported and defended PSA as the leader in the industry, state-of-the-art stuff and all.
Now what are we to conclude from this change? Does anybody really believe Orlando gives a rip about the folks that have Registry sets? Of course not! Perhaps there are rare exceptions, like Davalillo, but few and far between methinks. Now we are told we can resubmit, with a guarantee that our PSA 8s will never come back as PSA 7s (wow, what a consolation). The kicker here is that we are told we have to pony up submission fees, kinda like a double dip for PSA, adding more coin to Orlando's coffers. Bad form Joe!!
I firmly believe the system should have remained as it was. Grading is subjective of course, what will the grading standard be for a PSA 8.5? One microscopic fiber found vs. one or two on a corner? It's really nothing more than a shell game to create revenue, no more no less. What else could one conclude from this change? Because a 55T Clemente PSA 7 costs $2.2k +/-, and a PSA 8 costs about $5.5k, etc, etc, so what? This is supposed to be a free market place, whatever a ready, willing, able buyer pays for a card is the business of the buyer and seller. Orlando is trying to bridge the gap, giving some sort of false impression that a PSA 8 is now more valuable as a PSA 8.5. Clemente of course is a super star card and will I suspect always hold his value no matter the grade, others I think will be impacted and not for the better. I could give you many examples of the horrible SMR values assigned to cards in the 55T set, but I'm beyond bored with that battle. Orlando chooses to do almost nothing in spite of emails between he and I over this topic...I just don't care anymore.
It was the way this all came down on us that irks the S*** out of me. Change is fine, but let's be fair across the board, this was poorly done and not openly discussed.
So, here we are, we have to take a deep breath and get over it (me too) and move on. I have no intention of resubmitting my 119 PSA 8s in my 55T set, the cost is simply prohibitive. I still intend to sell them all and continue with my life. P*ss*ng and moaning will do little help the situation, we are where we are.
I may sell my All-Time Red Sox set last, so there's still hope to get my cards -Chad.
Best to all, enjoy the playoffs. When life gives you lemons, you gotta make lemonade. However, we should never forget the mantra of the President of PSA...
NEVER GET CHEATED (ponder that Joe)
Regards,
Al - mcmlvtopps
I wasn't actually advocating that we change the weighting of cards. I understand why Varitek has a Grade Weight of 1 and Ruth a 10. That part of the registry makes sense. Although, as you pointed out, some of the other assigned weights don't make any sense at all and I really wouldn't be opposed to seeing that changed. When looking in terms of cost vs. grade weight, the Ruth should really have a grade weight of 100 and the Varitek should remain at 1.
What I was trying to say though is that for other sets, specifically single issue sets like a 1955 Topps or a 1975 Topps Mini set we should calculate the set rating differently based on the grade of the card. PSA wouldn't have to change the grade weights, but instead of each card being multiplied PSA Grade x Grade Weighting, cards with a certain grade (9s or 10s in most cases) would be multiplied this way: PSA Grade of 9 or 10 x an undetermined bonus x existing grade weight.
I guess that in the end, my point is that as long as things are changing maybe now would be the best time to make some changes to the way the PSA Set Registry works. If they do it right it really could go a long way to helping participants not feel so betrayed.
-Chad
I hear you, but they are not gonna change any Registry set compostion. I suspect Orlando has more biting at his heels than trying to appease those that try to improve the Registry and set composition. Your points are well taken, but you might as well be at Phantom Ranch at the bottom of the Grand Canyon hollering for help. Nobody's gonna listen, and it's a helluva long walk back to the parking lot, I know. BTW, If I had my way, Remy would be removed from the AT RS set, again, it is what it is. Great guy to party with I'm sure, but an AT Red Sox he ain't.
As for betrayed, yup, I think I feel betrayed by Orlando, but, that's on him, he's gotta live with himself. Like I said, I'm selling and moving on. There is nothing Orlando can do at this point to appease me, he is what he is, and he certainly isn't a man of his word.
NEVER GET CHEATED...Joe Orlando - look in the mirror Joe, who is the cheater?
Regards,
Al
I guess PSA is really counting on the dealers to cooperate. The market really hasn't demanded that PSA change the scale. Has the vintage cards out there worth grading dwindled to the point where this is necessary?