Half Grades hard to come by?

Big80s · March 26, 2008 2:51PM

I've been noticing in a few of the other threads that people aren't getting a lot of half grades unless they're resubmitting already graded cards. I just had a 103-card order with zero half grades. Anybody else?

VitoCo1972 · March 26, 2008 3:00PM

I had a 10 card sub a couple weeks ago with none (submitted after new grading instituted)

11235813 · March 26, 2008 3:04PM

FrankHardy, smtjoy, and uniship also recently got back submissions with a total of 1 half-grade out of 357 cards combined.

My bet is that graders have been instructed not to give out half-grades the first time around in order to drive the resub business.

Big80s · March 26, 2008 3:07PM

That's lame. Not to mention - my grades were all over the place. Did they just hire a new batch of graders with the addition of the new half grades?

css23 · March 26, 2008 3:07PM

No profit for PSA in a 1st sub half grade.

Big80s · March 26, 2008 3:09PM

It makes sense for them, I guess.

11235813 · March 26, 2008 3:19PM

We should keep a running tally on this thread:

FrankHardy: 0 out of 70
uniship: 1 out of 256
smtjoy: 0 out of 31
Big80's: 0 out of 103
VitoCo1972: 0 out of 10

TOTAL: 1 out of 470

As someone else said....unreal.

storm888 · March 26, 2008 3:26PM

"My bet is that graders have been instructed not to give out half-grades the first time around in order to drive the resub business. "

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

TOTAL nonsense.

VitoCo1972 · March 26, 2008 3:39PM

<< "My bet is that graders have been instructed not to give out half-grades the first time around in order to drive the resub business. "

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

TOTAL nonsense. >>

I would tend to agree that an order is nonsense, but those numbers are way too suspect to not be questioned.

BobaFett72 · March 26, 2008 3:41PM

the numbers don't lie.
the half grade is a farce. nothing more than a marketing tool to drive resubmissions.

shagrotn77 · March 26, 2008 9:07PM

<< FrankHardy: 0 out of 70
uniship: 1 out of 256
smtjoy: 0 out of 31
Big80's: 0 out of 103
VitoCo1972: 0 out of 10

TOTAL: 1 out of 470 >>

shagrotn77 o out of 30

You can add mine in too. 0/30. That makes the total 1 out of 500. What an absolute farce. If they think this is going to drum up business, I'm pretty sure it will have the exact opposite effect. I got drilled on 2 subs and won't be submitting for a long time after this fiasco.

Post25 · March 26, 2008 9:20PM

As someone said on another thread, it could be that the 'old school' graders have just not bought into the half point system and are hesitant to give them out. I agree though that is it a way to get people to resubmit. I always try to remember, to me collecting is a great hobby, to PSA it is a great business.

Stingray · March 26, 2008 9:33PM

<< As someone said on another thread, it could be that the 'old school' graders have just not bought into the half point system and are hesitant to give them out. I agree though that is it a way to get people to resubmit. I always try to remember, to me collecting is a great hobby, to PSA it is a great business. >>

DBH??

frankhardy · March 26, 2008 9:52PM

frankhardy: 0 out of 70
uniship: 1 out of 256
smtjoy: 0 out of 31
Big80's: 0 out of 103
VitoCo1972: 0 out of 10
shagrotn77: 0 out of 30

That is 1 out of 500! That is staggering.

ONE out of FIVE HUNDRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SDavid · March 26, 2008 10:47PM

Not for me. On two 100 card bulk orders with primarily 50's and 60's commons, I had 23 out of 100 half grades on one order and 13 out of 100 on the other.

RonBurgundy · March 26, 2008 11:33PM

Well there's an exception to every rule and obviously you are it.

Ron

BobaFett72 · March 26, 2008 11:37PM

we should track all the subs from this board since the new implementation

dig up those old threads peeps!

bobbybakeriv · March 26, 2008 11:43PM

I just received a 15 card sub with zero half-grades. I am waiting on another submission now.

cwazzy · March 26, 2008 11:47PM

I may be in the minority here but I think it is a good thing they aren't handing out .5 grades like candy. Otherwise it wouldn't be a big deal if a card is a 8 or an 8.5. After all, buy the card, not the plastic.

Chris

leathtech · March 27, 2008 12:19AM

On my last 2 subs 34 cards total, I received 2 .5's

OnlyThe10s · March 27, 2008 12:22AM

My last sub was 11 cards and I got one .5.

stown · March 27, 2008 12:26AM

<< We should keep a running tally on this thread:

FrankHardy: 0 out of 70
uniship: 1 out of 256
smtjoy: 0 out of 31
Big80's: 0 out of 103
VitoCo1972: 0 out of 10

TOTAL: 1 out of 470

As someone else said....unreal. >>

Why don't you calculate all subs rather than selective samples.

But when someone only wants to bash PSA, guess you should stick with subs that fit your agenda.

Leiascards · March 27, 2008 12:52AM

Its funny everyone was complaining about the half grades when announced. Now that they are not being given out alot people are complaining.

I agree I think it is good they are not giving them out. By the explanation alone of the half grade system it seemed to me they would be on exceptional cards for the grade. Like one that has a surface of 9, edges of a 9 and centering of a 9 but the over all eye appeal was that of an 8 this would get the 8.5.

I am getting a 100 card bulk order ready to send in the next month or so. It will be interesting but am I looking for halfs no I would rather have straight grades.

MeteoriteGuy · March 27, 2008 1:03AM

<< 

<< We should keep a running tally on this thread:

FrankHardy: 0 out of 70
uniship: 1 out of 256
smtjoy: 0 out of 31
Big80's: 0 out of 103
VitoCo1972: 0 out of 10

TOTAL: 1 out of 470

As someone else said....unreal. >>

Why don't you calculate all subs rather than selective samples.

But when someone only wants to bash PSA, guess you should stick with subs that fit your agenda. >>

Also, please figure in (or figure out as it is) the number of 9's and 10's.

frankhardy · March 27, 2008 1:07AM

<< Its funny everyone was complaining about the half grades when announced. Now that they are not being given out alot people are complaining.

I agree I think it is good they are not giving them out. By the explanation alone of the half grade system it seemed to me they would be on exceptional cards for the grade. Like one that has a surface of 9, edges of a 9 and centering of a 9 but the over all eye appeal was that of an 8 this would get the 8.5.

I am getting a 100 card bulk order ready to send in the next month or so. It will be interesting but am I looking for halfs no I would rather have straight grades. >>

I'm not complaining necessarily about the .5 . I am complaining about the lack of consistency. I hate the idea of a .5 anyway, but if your going to use it, HOW ABOUT BEING CONSISTENT WITH IT!

Sure, these are selected examples, but it does show inconsistency, in my opinion.

paleocards · March 27, 2008 1:17AM

Guess I beat the odds...

Order #20164707 / Submission #633052
Line # Item # Cert # Grade Description Type Country
1 1 10566784 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1963 TOPPS 242 POWER PLUS E.BANKS/H.AARON Card US
2 1 10566785 NEAR MINT 7 1963 TOPPS 1 NL BATTING LEADERS Card US
3 1 10566786 EXCELLENT 5 1965 TOPPS 3 A.L. HOME RUN LDRS. KILLEBREW/POWELL/MANTLE Card US
4 1 10566787 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1959 TOPPS 150 STAN MUSIAL Card US
5 1 10566788 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1959 TOPPS 543 CORSAIR OUTFLD.TRIO SKINNER/VIRDON/CLEMENTE Card US
6 1 10566789 NEAR MINT+ 7.5 1968 TOPPS 247 REDS ROOKIES J.BENCH/R.TOMPKINS Card US

Total Items: 6

Date Received: 2/7/2008

Date Shipped: 2/15/2008

Order Status: Shipped

Leaffan · March 27, 2008 1:18AM

I had 4 .5s out of 24 cards in my last sub.

CDsNuts · March 27, 2008 1:23AM

MeteoriteGuy is right- You need to exclude all 9s and 10s from the sample size because it is impossible for those cards to be 9.5s. Then, like Leia said, factor in the fact that only exceptional cards for the grade only get the .5 bump and you have your answer. There probably are some graders that don't quite know how to use the .5 scale (frank's sub) so they avoid it altogether. All in all, it's a new system that isn't being implemented to it's full potential (or even close). I personally liked the idea of a .5 scale, but I think they're being ridiculous about it. The logic that Joe used in explaining why they're doing it was to close the gap between what a PSA 8 sells for and what a PSA 9 sells for. That's a noble intention, but when they're not giving 8.5s to cards that are half-way between an 8 and a 9, they're defeating the purpose of a .5 scale.

nam812 · March 27, 2008 1:44AM

<< MeteoriteGuy is right- You need to exclude all 9s and 10s from the sample size because it is impossible for those cards to be 9.5s. Then, like Leia said, factor in the fact that only exceptional cards for the grade only get the .5 bump and you have your answer. There probably are some graders that don't quite know how to use the .5 scale (frank's sub) so they avoid it altogether. All in all, it's a new system that isn't being implemented to it's full potential (or even close). I personally liked the idea of a .5 scale, but I think they're being ridiculous about it. The logic that Joe used in explaining why they're doing it was to close the gap between what a PSA 8 sells for and what a PSA 9 sells for. That's a noble intention, but when they're not giving 8.5s to cards that are half-way between an 8 and a 9, they're defeating the purpose of a .5 scale. >>

You're stupid.

CDsNuts · March 27, 2008 1:50AM

Joe Mama

detroitfan2 · March 27, 2008 2:04AM

<<That's a noble intention, but when they're not giving 8.5s to cards that are half-way between an 8 and a 9, they're defeating the purpose of a .5 scale.>>

Maybe it's just my small brain, but this is exactly how I thought it was going to work; that is, roughly 50% of the already graded 8's are 8.5's and the other 50% are not. This is certainly not how it is happening.

It's not a huge deal to me, but it would be nice to understand what the .5 designator is supposed to represent. Is it the top 10% of the cards for the grade?

Also, if for argument's sake, one out of every ten PSA 8's is an 8.5, wouldn't that make the market price for a an 8.5 closer to a 9 than an 8, or at least closer to 1/2 way between an 8 and a 9 than what is being seen thus far?

BigDaddyBowman · March 27, 2008 2:23AM

<< There probably are some graders that don't quite know how to use the .5 scale (frank's sub) so they avoid it altogether. All in all, it's a new system that isn't being implemented to it's full potential (or even close). >>

If this is truly the case, then it is pretty scary to me. I would have no confidence in sending my cards to a company that has graders who are not educated and trained properly in the new grading scale. I would really hope this is not the case.

My take on the situation:
I could see PSA being very strict on half grade bumps on purpose. If they give them out like candy, the market would not place a premium on the .5 grade bump, and there would be very little incentive for others to resub their cards. A year from now, who would resub their cards if there is no noticeable difference in the sales price of cards with .5's? PSA is thus creating scarcity by being very strict on their bumps. Perceived scarcity will result in higher sales prices, which will result in more people willing to shell out the coin to continue to resub their cards in hopes of the lucrative bump. RESULT=MORE PROFIT FOR PSA

11235813 · March 27, 2008 2:34AM

<< Why don't you calculate all subs rather than selective samples. >>

Stown, these aren't selective samples...these represent every bit of data on this topic that I can find on the boards. If you can find subs that have higher percentages of half-grades in them, I'll be happy to add them to the list as well.

<< But when someone only wants to bash PSA, guess you should stick with subs that fit your agenda. >>

In this case, it's the numbers which are bashing PSA, not me. In case you haven't noticed, it's not just me who thinks that PSA provides lousy value for money anymore. But if you want to continue mindlessly defending everything PSA does, be my guest.

As to the topic at hand, I would have expected that probably 20-30% of all cards qualify as being "high end for their grade", to use Joe's definition of which cards should receive a half-grade. Quite clearly, the percentage of cards which PSA is deeming "high end" is much lower than that (although it's probably more like 5-10% overall, not the 0.2% this data set represents right now).

Now there may be perfectly benign reasons why more cards are not receiving half-grades, but given that PSA is a VOLUME DRIVEN BUSINESS, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that they are systematically giving people slightly lower grades in an effort to get them to resubmit. After all, if you can get someone to pay you two or three times for the exact same service, why settle for getting paid just once?

stown · March 27, 2008 2:58AM

<< 

<< Why don't you calculate all subs rather than selective samples. >>

Stown, these aren't selective samples...these represent every bit of data on this topic that I can find on the boards. If you can find subs that have higher percentages of half-grades in them, I'll be happy to add them to the list as well.

<< But when someone only wants to bash PSA, guess you should stick with subs that fit your agenda. >>

In this case, it's the numbers which are bashing PSA, not me. In case you haven't noticed, it's not just me who thinks that PSA provides lousy value for money anymore. But if you want to continue mindlessly defending everything PSA does, be my guest.

As to the topic at hand, I would have expected that probably 20-30% of all cards qualify as being "high end for their grade", to use Joe's definition of which cards should receive a half-grade. Quite clearly, the percentage of cards which PSA is deeming "high end" is much lower than that (although it's probably more like 5-10% overall, not the 0.2% this data set represents right now).

Now there may be perfectly benign reasons why more cards are not receiving half-grades, but given that PSA is a VOLUME DRIVEN BUSINESS, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that they are systematically giving people slightly lower grades in an effort to get them to resubmit. After all, if you can get someone to pay you two or three times for the exact same service, why settle for getting paid just once? >>

A simple search will put up a couple threads. Since you want to keep a running tab, do the homework yourself.

Again, it's YOUR selective numbers. 20% - 30%? 0.2%? Where in the he|| are you pulling out these numbers?? Your rear or something?

You can twist and play with your hypothetical numbers all day long. Go ahead and knock yourself out.

However, it's only mental masturbation at this point because the system was recently implimented, which makes the sample size minimal.

So go ahead and keep posting percentages that fit your agenda. Maybe if you spoke with Joe Orlando, he could give you a more accurate picture of what's really happening.

But we all know you won't do that... Your time is waaaaaay too valuable to make a simple phone call yet spend hours here, posting nothing more than conspiracy theories.

11235813 · March 27, 2008 3:12AM

Stown,

Your rant is not even worth responding to....

Here are the numbers updates to reflect submission data added to this thread since last night:

frankhardy: 0 out of 70
uniship: 1 out of 256
smtjoy: 0 out of 31
Big80's: 0 out of 103
VitoCo1972: 0 out of 10
shagrotn77: 0 out of 30
SDavid: 36 out of 200
bobbybakeriv: 0 out of 15
leathtech: 2 out of 34
Onlythe10's: 1 out of 11
paleocards: 1 out of 6
Leaffan: 4 out of 24

TOTAL: 45 out of 780 = 5.8 percent

TheVon · March 27, 2008 3:46AM

If you guys really want to track the percentages of how many cards are getting the .5 grade assigned to them it would be better to look at the population reports instead of relying upon anecdotal evidence provided by board members that make up a very slight percentage of the total submitters. Choose a few sets, write down the pop report numbers and then check back in a couple months.

storm888 · March 27, 2008 4:30AM

"If you guys really want to track the percentages of how many cards are getting the .5 grade assigned to them it would be better to look at the population reports instead of relying upon anecdotal evidence provided by board members that make up a very slight percentage of the total submitters. Choose a few sets, write down the pop report numbers and then check back in a couple months. "

//////////////////////////////////////////

Absolutely CORRECT!

quincunx · March 27, 2008 4:56AM

Well all you need to do is get a hold of a couple of 4SCumbags submission where they are all .5 unless 9 or 10's of course.......

stown · March 27, 2008 5:10AM

<< Stown,

Your rant is not even worth responding to....

Here are the numbers updates to reflect submission data added to this thread since last night:

frankhardy: 0 out of 70
uniship: 1 out of 256
smtjoy: 0 out of 31
Big80's: 0 out of 103
VitoCo1972: 0 out of 10
shagrotn77: 0 out of 30
SDavid: 36 out of 200
bobbybakeriv: 0 out of 15
leathtech: 2 out of 34
Onlythe10's: 1 out of 11
paleocards: 1 out of 6
Leaffan: 4 out of 24

TOTAL: 45 out of 780 = 5.8 percent >>

My rant isn't worth responding to? Why, because you see how your logic is flawed?

"these represent every bit of data on this topic that I can find on the boards."

1) The system was recently implimented; so only a few orders, relatively speaking, have been posted.
2) Every single PSA customer does not post their grades here.
3) I've seen quite a few .5s available on eBay but according to your "research", they don't really exist.

To use your conclusions using a non-representative sample (regardless if you think it is), is akin to getting breaking news from The National Enquirer.

I'm guessing you didn't take statistics, along with economics, at Carnegie Mellon.

storm888 · March 27, 2008 5:24AM

"2) Every single PSA customer does not post their grades here."

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

As a percentage of total submissions, those reported by
posters on this board are NOT even a blip on the radar.

storm888 · March 27, 2008 5:36AM

There are currently about 500 EBAY listings (store+CORE) that display on the search, "8.5 PSA."

Many of those are the garbage that SGC cranks out with 92 labels.
Titles like: "SGC 92 The Same As PSA 8.5."

SGC proponents bash PSA, until they try to sell their own garbage;
then, they use PSA as a positive comparison to justify their inferior
brand.

The market spoke on the whole issue a long time ago. They prefer
PSA slabs.

VitoCo1972 · March 27, 2008 5:39AM

<< 

The market spoke on the whole issue a long time ago. They prefer
PSA slabs. >>

Not to be a stickler for details, but the market has said they prefer PSA's grading standards and resale values.

...the slabs themselves leave a lot to be desired

storm888 · March 27, 2008 5:41AM

<< 

<< 

The market spoke on the whole issue a long time ago. They prefer
PSA slabs. >>

Not to be a stickler for details, but the market has said they prefer PSA's grading standards and resale values.

...the slabs themselves leave a lot to be desired >>

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I agree that the SGC slabs can make for a nice presentation.

BUT, when I see a stack of PSA slabs, I see MONEY.

123Slider · March 27, 2008 5:48AM

On my last sub - 5 out of 100 were .5's.

VitoCo1972 · March 27, 2008 5:48AM

agreed

storm888 · March 27, 2008 6:00AM

I have a personal grievance with 4SC. Thus, nobody can say
I am defending them.

If you search ALL of the 4SC listings, you will be surprised to
see that they have VERY few .5 items currently listed.

smtjoy · March 27, 2008 6:00AM

"SGC proponents bash PSA, until they try to sell their own garbage;
then, they use PSA as a positive comparison to justify their inferior
brand.

The market spoke on the whole issue a long time ago. They prefer
PSA slabs."

Lol, I guess you dont collect many cards older than 1950's because if you did you would see that anything pre WWII, SGC sells for as much and many times more than what PSA cards will bring. On issues like any 19th century series like N172's, most of the E series and many of the T series, SGC could be called the market leader. As far as 1950's to 1980's cards, yes I agree PSA brings more money and is clearly the market leader in these years. You could even say Beckett is the market leader on Modern cards. I collect both PSA and SGC and they each have their advantages and I am happy for the competition, its makes them both better.

BigDaddyBowman · March 27, 2008 6:14AM

<< There are currently about 500 EBAY listings (store+CORE) that display on the search, "8.5 PSA."

Many of those are the garbage that SGC cranks out with 92 labels.
Titles like: "SGC 92 The Same As PSA 8.5."

SGC proponents bash PSA, until they try to sell their own garbage;
then, they use PSA as a positive comparison to justify their inferior
brand.

The market spoke on the whole issue a long time ago. They prefer
PSA slabs. >>

"Garbage that SGC cranks out" Yes I am one of those SGC proponents. I will take SGC graded "Garbage" any day of the week...Storm, thanks for not buying them and saving them for me!
I don't see this huge price difference for vintage football that "the market supposedly spoke on a long time ago" Maybe post 60 cards...but 50's and prior star football...I just don't see it. I have about 200 SGC and 200 PSA graded vintage football in my collection...so I feel that I have enough buying experience to speak from. I do agree with commons prices, PSA has the edge due to the registry, but pretty even for stars.

I can provde examples...and I am sure that you could find examples to counter my examples of SGC out selling PSA and vice versa. Sometimes there are steals out there in both. I recently bought a SGC 7 52 Small Van Brocklin which SMR's for 375 for 245. Another CU poster on this site recently found a PSA 7 52 Large Baugh for 250...SMR's for 325. Both were steals. I have also seen people severely OVERPAY for both PSA and SGC cards.

To refer to SGC as "garbage" is ignorant in my opinion....just as if I would refer to PSA as garbage. Both are legitimate grading services..neither are garbage.,,now PRO that's garbage!

I am not quite sure why you turned this post about the .5 scale into a bashing of SGC.

storm888 · March 27, 2008 6:20AM

"I am not quite sure why you turned this post about the .5 scale into a bashing of SGC. "

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

THIS is a PSA-bashing thread; nothing more.

I am offering the other view.

BigDaddyBowman · March 27, 2008 6:53AM

<< "I am not quite sure why you turned this post about the .5 scale into a bashing of SGC. "

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

THIS is a PSA-bashing thread; nothing more.

I am offering the other view. >>

It is a thread that was discussing the experiences of PSA customers and the results of their submission and lack of getting a .5 bump. I don't recall anyone bringing up SGC until you did. Were some of the posters critical of PSA and the apparent low percentage of bumps...of course...do they have a right to question it? As paying members of PSA and customers who have sent cards in for a review they have the right to voice dissatisfaction for what they perceive is a strategy on PSA's part to limit .5 bumps.

storm888 · March 27, 2008 6:55AM

"As paying members of PSA and customers who have sent cards in for a review they have the right to voice dissatisfaction for what they perceive is a strategy on PSA's part to limit .5 bumps. "

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Just as I have a right to have an opposite view.

Half Grades hard to come by?

Comments