PSA vs GAI Wax Grading and Value and perception

CDNHOCKEY

Hey guys, I am into collecting wax and wondered why GAI graded packs in my case "Hockey" seem to fetch significantly less than the same grade as a PSA pack. For instance, a GAI 10 79-OPC have sold from 400-600 meanwhile the PSA 10 from 925-1865 at auction.

The problem i have found is that when buying psa 9 packs, the gum is loose and usually cuts up the pack making it less desireable, meanwhile, the same GAI 9 pack never gets the gum rip from its encapsulation method. Seems weird that us collectors would weigh so heavily on a PSA pack when very often the pack gets wrecked in shipping. I had this happen to me on 3 of 4 recent packs from the baseball card exchange and it really sucks. The few high grade 9.5-10 packs i have got from GAI dont rip.
Enlighten me on your thoughts on these topics please.

Thanks

grote15

PSA graded packs are always going to go for a premium because collectors have more confidence in the PSA brand. It is also much tougher (especially with wax) to get a PSA 9 or PSA 10 grade as opposed to a GAI 9 or GAI 10 grade. That said, the majority of GAI graded packs (especially the earlier graded ones) are perfectly fine and the softer plastic design of the holder does a better job at immobilizing the gum and preventing it from shifting during transit and tearing the wrapper. PSA has made a great effort to address this issue with the holder design, and the problem is not as bad as it was previously, but it is still an issue. I have seen more recent wax packs kept in place by shrinkwrap in the holder space an an effort to immobilize the gum from shifting inside the pack, and hopefully that will improve matters as well.

DCanfield

<< <i>Hey guys, I am into collecting wax and wondered why GAI graded packs in my case "Hockey" seem to fetch significantly less than the same grade as a PSA pack. For instance, a GAI 10 79-OPC have sold from 400-600 meanwhile the PSA 10 from 925-1865 at auction.

The problem i have found is that when buying psa 9 packs, the gum is loose and usually cuts up the pack making it less desireable, meanwhile, the same GAI 9 pack never gets the gum rip from its encapsulation method. Seems weird that us collectors would weigh so heavily on a PSA pack when very often the pack gets wrecked in shipping. I had this happen to me on 3 of 4 recent packs from the baseball card exchange and it really sucks. The few high grade 9.5-10 packs i have got from GAI dont rip.
Enlighten me on your thoughts on these topics please.

Thanks >>


I posed a similar question recently as to opinions as to why this happens with PSA packs and where the problem lies. I was told that the problem used to be worse. Ouch!. I wanted to get some packs encapsulated and the tearing worried me. I haven't had packs done in probably 10 years so everything I have was done by GAI including boxes (both empty and full). Never had a problem. Personally, I've just decided to wait, keep them raw, and hope that this problem gets corrected. I assume PSA is aware of it as they must get complaints daily so hopefully they are working on a fix. With PSA's name and using Steve Hart it certainly gives the item more credibility and value, i.e. higher auction prices. Just a dilemma that needs to be solved.

CDNHOCKEY

Thanks for the reply guys, as for the PSA putting a clear plastic inside the holder, i just got a psa 10 87-88 that had this inside of it and the top left corner split from shipping. kind of pissed about it.

The gum is on the top of the packs, so the thin plastic sheet being on the bottom doesnt address the gum sliding issue. I noticed on the 87-88 pack that the holder was way too large for the pack size, hence why they put the clear plastic inside. I wish a psa employee would chime in on this issue.

grote15

<< <i>Thanks for the reply guys, as for the PSA putting a clear plastic inside the holder, i just got a psa 10 87-88 that had this inside of it and the top left corner split from shipping. kind of pissed about it.

The gum is on the top of the packs, so the thin plastic sheet being on the bottom doesnt address the gum sliding issue. I noticed on the 87-88 pack that the holder was way too large for the pack size, hence why they put the clear plastic inside. I wish a psa employee would chime in on this issue. >>



As long as a hard plastic holder is used, this problem will never be fully resolved and some degree of risk is going to be involved. If the gum is moving inside the pack, there's always going to be the possibility of a wrapper tear during transit, as the gum after all those years is petrified and quite sharp and the wrapper is very thin to begin with. If the gum is not moving inside the pack, wrapper tears is not an issue. The shrinkwrap, whether it's on top or in back of the pack, will help prevent movement of the pack to some extent, but the only real way to solve this problem is to design a holder that will immobilize the pack similar to the softer plastic slabs that GAI uses, but I don't see PSA investing that kind of capital in a totally new holder design just for wax packs. Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that PSA stated publicly that they were not interested in pack grading as an enterprise at all, so I'm just glad that they grade the packs they do, though it certainly can be frustrating when a wrapper gets torn during transit. You don't have any of those issue, otoh, with cellos.

Edit to add: Paul has none of these problems--he collects mostly racks and rips everything in sight so what's a couple of wrapper tears in that case..

Tedw9

Personally, I wish PSA would do away with pack grading because of this issue. I have an 86-87 Fleer basketball pack with the Jordan sticker showing on back that's graded PSA 7. The issue lies in there is a 1/2" tear on top where the gum slid and tore the wrapper. This pack is no longer a 7 other than the flip saying so. I kinda wish they would just do authentication and encapsulation, leave the grading to the buyers and sellers because the grade can change in a heartbeat.

As far as PSA vs GAI, it's the perception of GAI that causes prices to stay lower. Grote has stated many times that older GAI flips are fine (and I trust what he says), but the overall view of them through the hobbies eyes is not as good as PSA.

DCanfield

<< <i>Personally, I wish PSA would do away with pack grading because of this issue. I have an 86-87 Fleer basketball pack with the Jordan sticker showing on back that's graded PSA 7. The issue lies in there is a 1/2" tear on top where the gum slid and tore the wrapper. This pack is no longer a 7 other than the flip saying so. I kinda wish they would just do authentication and encapsulation, leave the grading to the buyers and sellers because the grade can change in a heartbeat.

As far as PSA vs GAI, it's the perception of GAI that causes prices to stay lower. Grote has stated many times that older GAI flips are fine (and I trust what he says), but the overall view of them through the hobbies eyes is not as good as PSA. >>



Sounds like the solution for wax. At least cellos can be done and the condition and centering of the top and bottom card are factored in.

grote15

I understand the reasoning behind not numerically grading packs, but if you're going to send your packs in for grading, you want a grade to go along with it, especially when you factor in the set registry for packs, which is the sole reason for the recent prices these packs have been commanding. Although there are issues with wrapper tears caused by gum, it's not like this happens all the time. Out of the last 20 packs I've submitted, maybe 1 or 2 have a wrapper tear. I suppose it just comes down to how much you want your packs graded, and whether you're willing to take that chance.

CDNHOCKEY

<< <i>I understand the reasoning behind not numerically grading packs, but if you're going to send your packs in for grading, you want a grade to go along with it, especially when you factor in the set registry for packs, which is the sole reason for the recent prices these packs have been commanding. Although there are issues with wrapper tears caused by gum, it's not like this happens all the time. Out of the last 20 packs I've submitted, maybe 1 or 2 have a wrapper tear. I suppose it just comes down to how much you want your packs graded, and whether you're willing to take that chance. >>



Wow, you are lucky, I had 2 of 3 rip in one order. and two others rip.

StarPaxMan

I think all common packs should be riped and starpacks collected!
if you like looking at wrappers! do just that collect wrappers and if you like looking at star cards
collect them in their untouched state in top of a cello or rack packs....

DCanfield

<< <i>I understand the reasoning behind not numerically grading packs, but if you're going to send your packs in for grading, you want a grade to go along with it, especially when you factor in the set registry for packs, which is the sole reason for the recent prices these packs have been commanding. Although there are issues with wrapper tears caused by gum, it's not like this happens all the time. Out of the last 20 packs I've submitted, maybe 1 or 2 have a wrapper tear. I suppose it just comes down to how much you want your packs graded, and whether you're willing to take that chance. >>



Everything you say makes sense. I do have one thought. Would a tight tamper-proof shrink wrap of the pack done under vacuum (after the gum is centered) keep the gum fixed and allow the pack to be encapsulated without tearing? Perhaps the actual shrink wrapping process may cause wax tears. Just an off the wall idea. If it did work it might be the perfect thing for Steve to do after authentication with PSA offering an authentication service and a second service that encapsulates and grades (for those real nice packs) similar to the service for autographs. You could include boxes in the authentication only service and still include a numbered hologram so the authentic products could be registered. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking but I'm just bothered by beautiful pristine packs being torn by a process meant to preserve them but at the same time I realize how important authentication is allowing BST from coast to coast when you can't personally examine it.

grote15

<< <i>I think all common packs should be riped and starpacks collected!
if you like looking at wrappers! do just that collect wrappers and if you like looking at star cards
collect them in their untouched state in top of a cello or rack packs.... >>



LOL, we all know what side of the pack field you are on, Jose! Of course, there are some who would say, just buy a PSA graded star card instead of buying a cello pack where the grade of that star card on top is likely a PSA 8 at best.

But as one who collects both wax and cello packs, and as much as cellos are visually appealing with star cards on top, there's also great beauty in a mint vintage wax pack with perfect folds and a nice clean seal on back. The design of the wax wrapper is also very appealing visually, too.

grote15

<< <i>

<< <i>I understand the reasoning behind not numerically grading packs, but if you're going to send your packs in for grading, you want a grade to go along with it, especially when you factor in the set registry for packs, which is the sole reason for the recent prices these packs have been commanding. Although there are issues with wrapper tears caused by gum, it's not like this happens all the time. Out of the last 20 packs I've submitted, maybe 1 or 2 have a wrapper tear. I suppose it just comes down to how much you want your packs graded, and whether you're willing to take that chance. >>



Everything you say makes sense. I do have one thought. Would a tight tamper-proof shrink wrap of the pack done under vacuum (after the gum is centered) keep the gum fixed and allow the pack to be encapsulated without tearing? Perhaps the actual shrink wrapping process may cause wax tears. Just an off the wall idea. If it did work it might be the perfect thing for Steve to do after authentication with PSA offering an authentication service and a second service that encapsulates and grades (for those real nice packs) similar to the service for autographs. You could include boxes in the authentication only service and still include a numbered hologram so the authentic products could be registered. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking but I'm just bothered by beautiful pristine packs being torn by a process meant to preserve them but at the same time I realize how important authentication is allowing BST from coast to coast when you can't personally examine it. >>



As long as the gum is loose in the pack and as long as PSA uses the hard plastic holder they are using to slab packs now, there will always be some degree of risk of wrapper tears caused by loose gum in transit. The reason this is not an issue with GAI graded wax packs is because the softer plastic holder essentially immobilizes the gum in the pack inside the holder. I do believe you have a good suggestion regrading the shrinkwrap idea and I think that's one of the reasons that PSA is experimenting with this in more recently graded packs. Basically, the trick is to keep the gum from shifting inside the pack during transit. For packs with gum that's stuck to the top card, the problem of a wrapper torn during transit is virtually nil to begin with.

Sean1125

I don't actually grade packs so I can not attest to that, but for eye appeal I prefer the GAI holder over the PSA holder. PSA holder is bulky and looks junky, the GAI packs just look so nice and clean.

NCDOLFAN

There is another point that goes to final sales price and potential value here and that is authenticity. A pack graded by PSA has a much better chance of being a un-opened pack vs. a GAI encapsulated one. I have had the misfortune to crack open packs graded by GAI only to find cards with differing amounts of wear and even gum stained cards in the center of the group. IMO you cannot trust authenticity of a GAI pack as much as a PSA graded one.

DCanfield

<< <i>There is another point that goes to final sales price and potential value here and that is authenticity. A pack graded by PSA has a much better chance of being a un-opened pack vs. a GAI encapsulated one. I have had the misfortune to crack open packs graded by GAI only to find cards with differing amounts of wear and even gum stained cards in the center of the group. IMO you cannot trust authenticity of a GAI pack as much as a PSA graded one. >>



Well that's disheartening. Do you know how long ago these were encapsulated? I know Grote has mentioned that the older stuff from GAI is OK and didn't Mark Murphy authenticate for them years ago? I never had a problem with material I got from Murphy.

CDNHOCKEY

I thought the older stuff was the bad stuff from GAI as they were letting everything through.

Griffins

<< <i>I don't actually grade packs so I can not attest to that, but for eye appeal I prefer the GAI holder over the PSA holder. PSA holder is bulky and looks junky, the GAI packs just look so nice and clean. >>



I agree completely. I had 4 packs graded by PSA in the first batch they did in '06, and absolutely hated the holder. Way too big and didn't protect the pack. Plus each pack was overgraded by 1-2 full grades. Ended up crossing them back to GAI and while they are in the newer flip I know they are good-the seals are correct, bought them from Steve, and had them later graded by both PSA and GAI.
The PSA holders are not funtional or aesthetically pleasing.

I also don't see the point in numerical grades on packs. The eye appeal can be judged better by the person holding the pack at the time, since they are so prone to damage over time. It's not so bad if you submit a pack, get it back, and display it. But if you buy the pack from someone who has shipped it back and forth between shows the chances are very strong that it's not in the same condition it was as when it was graded.

Griffins

<< <i>I thought the older stuff was the bad stuff from GAI as they were letting everything through, i heard this from rick at baseball card exchange. >>



Depends on a lot of factors. GAI had a few graders at various times- Paul Wright (good), Ryan Rutter (horrible), Mark Murphy (who touted Xmas rack packs as real, so draw your own conclusion) and probably a few others. But even during those times there were good packs submitted to bad graders and vice versa, and no one was perfect. Same with PSA, although I have faith the batting average is much much higher. I've got a few packs in the newest GA holder that were cracked out of PSA holders and I have no doubt they are good, but I have little faith in the current authenticating team there.

The key thing, whether you're buying cards or packs or autographs, is to know what you are buying and use authentication as a strong guide- how strong being dependent on how much faith you have in both the authenticator and the provenance.
Buy the card (pack/auto/bat/etc), not the holder.

grote15

<< <i>I thought the older stuff was the bad stuff from GAI as they were letting everything through, i heard this from rick at baseball card exchange. >>



No, that is not correct. By and large, GAI packs in first generation holders (the silver flips with serial numbers starting in 100XX through 103XXX) are perfectly fine. Of course, there are some noted exceptions to this (the bogus early 70s grocery cellos with serial numbers starting with 102XXX), but if you know what to look for and do your homework, you can buy with a reasonable degree of confidence. I have opened a large number of GAI graded packs over the years, and can count on one hand the number of packs that were questionable or NG. Steve Hart himself used to sell quite a few GAI graded packs with the old silver flip before PSA started grading packs. Some of the packs that were graded later by GAI were very questionable and resealed, including a large number of homemade 1977 and 1978 baseball wax packs. In short, you should always buy the pack not the holder.

grote15

Buy the card (pack/auto/bat/etc), not the holder.

Anthony, you beat me to it, lol..

DCanfield

<< <i>

<< <i>I thought the older stuff was the bad stuff from GAI as they were letting everything through, i heard this from rick at baseball card exchange. >>



Depends on a lot of factors. GAI had a few graders at various times- Paul Wright (good), Ryan Rutter (horrible), Mark Murphy (who touted Xmas rack packs as real, so draw your own conclusion) and probably a few others. But even during those times there were good packs submitted to bad graders and vice versa, and no one was perfect. Same with PSA, although I have faith the batting average is much much higher. I've got a few packs in the newest GA holder that were cracked out of PSA holders and I have no doubt they are good, but I have little faith in the current authenticating team there.

The key thing, whether you're buying cards or packs or autographs, is to know what you are buying and use authentication as a strong guide- how strong being dependent on how much faith you have in both the authenticator and the provenance.
Buy the card (pack/auto/bat/etc), not the holder. >>



Well yes and no. If I can personally hold it or in the case of an autograph see a GOOD scan, then I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately, when it comes to a card or a wax pack and I'm miles away, I need a 3rd party to pass judgement. Unfortunately, the holder is a large contributing factor to whether I buy or not. That is, to its authenticity.

Griffins

Agreed, but besides authentication (and absent of a decent visual) the provenance and sellers reputation should also be taken into account. Steve Hart is able to get strong prices for his packs in large part due to his reputation- and that preceded his association with PSA.