Chicago show grading

bbuckner22

Just back from the Sun Times show in Chicago. PSA was running a "show special" on site grading. Everyone I talked to was livid at the grades they had gotten. Looked like Joe O'. was getting an earful from quite a few dealers.

Goldlabels

My experience has been that they are much tougher at shows.

Boopotts

<< <i>Just back from the Sun Times show in Chicago. PSA was running a "show special" on site grading. Everyone I talked to was livid at the grades they had gotten. Looked like Joe O'. was getting an earful from quite a few dealers. >>



Agreed. I walked by the booth on Saturday, and Joe looked like he could have used a cold beer.

As the supply of graded cards increases, and demand remains stagnant (or declines), the value added by the PSA service is going to continue to trend towards zero. This means that PSA is eventually going to have to address these consistency issues, since most of the cards that will be submitted will be done so on razor thin profit expectations. For example, if a random card sells for $20 raw, and it sells for $300 in PSA 8 and $800 in PSA 9 you aren't too concerned if it comes back an 8 (or lower), since there's still substantial value added. In this case consistency isn't a real concern. But if the submitter can only make $15 if it comes back an 8, and $65 if it comes back a 9, the submitter needs to to have a very, very good idea of how the card will grade before they'll commit to sending it in.

I'm sure addressing the consistency issue will be a nightmare for PSA, since you probably have all kinds of graders who 'don't want to be told how to do their job', but things will soon reach a point where management won't have any choice but to sit everyone down and get all the graders working on the same guidelines.

lsutigers1973

<< <i>For example, if a random card sells for $20 raw, and it sells for $300 in PSA 8 and $800 in PSA 9 you aren't too concerned if it comes back an 8 (or lower), since there's still substantial value added. In this case consistency isn't a real concern. But if the submitter can only make $15 if it comes back an 8, and $65 if it comes back a 9, the submitter needs to to have a very, very good idea of how the card will grade before they'll commit to sending it in. >>



Good point but try being one of us bums that likes subbing modern junk in an effort to take advantage of the registry. Most of the crap I sub that isn't for my PC, is absolutely worthless in a 9 holder while PSA 10's are often golden. A few inconsistent subs in August and September turned out to be my last for a while because of the inconsistencies.

Archaninator

.

perkdog

There will NEVER be consistent Grading a far as Im concerned, and this is not a knock on PSA or its graders its just the human element involved thats the problem.

There is absolutely ZERO chance that everyone will ever be 100% happy with PSA or any grading company, there are billions of cards and billions of variables that happen when the human mind goes to work on card after card after card ect.. ect.. ect...


I do stand by PSA as the best and more than likely will continue to feel that way even after being FURIOUS about several subs involving straight grading/crossover/review services that i entirely disagreed with.

hammered

<< <i>I'm sure addressing the consistency issue will be a nightmare for PSA, since you probably have all kinds of graders who 'don't want to be told how to do their job', but things will soon reach a point where management won't have any choice but to sit everyone down and get all the graders working on the same guidelines. >>



Submitters should remind themselves a grade is only an opinion - a qualified, trained opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. Reasonable variation among graders should be expected.

The fact that 2-3 diff trained graders see each card is enough, in my opinion. But if more consistency is wanted, I'd think having a greater # of graders look at each card would be the best solution. Send the card to 4 graders instead of 2-3. A more costly solution, but if greater consistency brings more submissions, the cost could be easily made up.



<< <i>the submitter needs to to have a very, very good idea of how the card will grade before they'll commit to sending it in >>



This is absolutely true, and I'll bet this is where most collectors' (and dealers') frustration originates. How many of those dealers at the show first examined their cards properly before taking them to the PSA booth?

When I first started subbing to PSA, I sucked. Lots of 7s on what I thought were slam-dunk 9s. I am much, much better today, and PSA and I agree on most of my grades. Because for every lower-than-predicted grade that I whine about, I have to admit there's another 9 of them that PSA got right on the nose.

Mickey71

I'm going to take a slightly different approach to all of this. In my opinion they have been consistant with my subs--- consistantly very tough. I think tough grading is here to stay. I've noticed this for over a year. In summer of 2007 I was swinging 8's and 9's regularly on all kinds of subs. Now, if you send in a high price star card (Mantle) it better be awesome to get an 8. No free bees anymore.

otwcards

I've said this over and over and I'll present the Reader's Digest version here.

Grading is NOT a science, it is an art. While based upon a standardized series of guidelines and rules, the application and interpretation of the guidelines is still arbitrary and subject to personal taste. Certainly, a grader should eliminate any bias relative to the task at hand, but just as with collectors, dealers and everyone else in life, people ALWAYS see things differently from others.

The one thing I tire of is the constant complaining or "insight" that a few offer. These are the folks that tend to be upset because their submissions grade lower than they expected. These are the people that feel that their corner crease is the same as a corner nick. The same folks that contend that the slight paper loss is really a minor printing flaw. These are the same folks that look at their EX/MT to NRMT cards and submit them hoping for NM/MT and better grades and complain because the grader didn't "hook them up."

The graders are getting "tougher" or PSA has "tightened up" are usually code words for, I'm not getting as many gifts as I got before.

Sure, there is an inconsistency that occurs in the grading process. The human element will always be the inherent "flaw" in the system. But it is this same human element that many of us attempt to use to our advantage when we crack and resubmit looking for the higher grade.

To those that like to gripe about their grades submission after submission, maybe it's not PSA, but rather you that needs to reevaluate the process. Our grading eyes can wander from time to time. Isn't it possible that sometimes WE aren't seeing the cards we submit as what they really are?

Oh, and before anyone goes off tangent, keep in mind that I'm speaking of the general case. The predominance of submissions are accurate and spot on. So if anyone thinks that by presenting a one-off or extreme example that they can try to represent such as the general rule, think again...

divecchia

With the 3 groups of freebees that I sent in, the grades were in line with what I thought. I don't think they are any tougher on the freebees than they are on the regular subs..

JMHO...Donato