Two plus years of half point grades. Has it helped or hurt the hobby?

RonBurgundy · April 12, 2010 5:26AM

What is the consensus from you good strongs?

leadoff4 · April 12, 2010 5:31AM

Helped...

toc1000 · April 12, 2010 6:19AM

Ten grades gave insufficient resolution... I think now it's just right.

Incidentally, I definitely don't agree with those who want a 100-point fine scale, or the need of a detailed breakdown.

And again, kudos to PSA for wisely not doing a 9.5 grade. (I tend to be too harsh with criticism, so recently I've been balancing that out with what deserves praise.)

Mickey71 · April 12, 2010 6:24AM

Ron,
I think it has done very little to help the hobby. In my opinion, just before the .5 came around inconsistant grading was making the headlines. Then you add the .5 and some subs have been very bizarre to say the least.

It's been 2 years and have we viewed pricing for stuff in the 60's and 70's in the SMR?

Also, the criteria for the .5 being heavily reliant on centering.... to me is just not accurate. If the corners are not extremely sharp they don't even get to the centering part. --I'm generally talking about 8.5's. To me this creates the unknown of "What do I send in for review."

I've purchased about six PSA 7.5 Mantle's and Aarons and 1 was tremendously undergraded and the other five were terribly overgraded with bends and creases.

Sorry to be negative; but I just haven't seen much in the way of positive things with the .5 and I have done well with a few big cards.

The thing that I would like to know is this: Let's say I have a PSA 8.5 1964 Mantle- how much are dealers charging for a card like this and how much do they shell out to buy cards like this? I heard in a thread a while back that they do not like to pay much of a premium for an 8.5 yet list it at like $2100 or something like that.

Mickey71

Garabaldi · April 12, 2010 6:29AM

What are the Cons against a 100 point scale?

toc1000 · April 12, 2010 6:30AM

The grade that was most needed is a PSA 6.5 (given the big jump in quality between a 6 and 7), then followed by a 7.5. And then the 1.5. The other half-point grades seem much less important to me.

toc1000 · April 12, 2010 6:36AM

<< What are the Cons against a 100 point scale? >>

We might ask, why not a billion-point scale? There's such a thing as over-resolution.

A piece of cardboard simply doesn't differentiate that much. And the market wants some simple, understandable standards (e.g. registry 8 set), and that's what each of the PSA grades does: it sets a standard.

Those reasons explain why SGC's 100 scale is such a miserable failure; they don't even use most of their point scale.

hammered · April 12, 2010 6:47AM

I think the half-grades closed the gap all that it needed to be closed.

itzagoner · April 12, 2010 6:59AM

concept is still generally the same, "Buy the card, not the holder", however.......the majority, but not all of the cards which would appear deserving of an increase in value based on a point five system are creating a more recognizable separation......it's still up to the buyer to decide where that exists, particularly when there's such a huge gap in value between a vintage PSA 8 and a PSA 9 star or HOFer.

as i suggested in another thread several days ago, this all begs the question of what if the throngs of people in possession of nice vintage PSA 8s all decided to send them in for bumps at the same time??

Mickey71 · April 12, 2010 7:01AM

I never can understand when people nail SGC for the number scale. They act like SGC is assigning 18, 29, 64, 90 for grades. 10 =1, 20=1.5, 30=2, 40=3,50=4, 60=5, 70 =5.5, 80=6, 84=7, 86=7.5, 88= 8, 92=8.5, 96 =9, 98=9.5, and 100=10. PSA has 18 possible grades. SGC has 15. What's the big deal with this? SGC also puts both numbers on the flips. It all seems okay to me.

Mickey71

storm888 · April 12, 2010 7:02AM

Some money has been made on the new scheme.
I guess that has "helped" the hobby.

......

The standards lingo that plays up the importance
of centering, AND THEN immediately opens the
potential for discounting/ignoring centering is VERY
flawed.

BPorter26 · April 12, 2010 7:59AM

I'm not sure if this .5 is $10K more, but to this guy the .5 is a huge deal.

Clemente 8

Clemente 8.5

mike22y2k · April 12, 2010 8:08AM

For the cards that I collect it's helped alot. The biggest help is from the 7.5 for low pop cards. When there's only one 8 and you know it's not a 8 but not a 7 either the new .5 works the best. To tell you the truth most my 8.5's look like my 10's. Most aren't willing to pay extra for the extra .5 though I've learned.

EagleEyeKid · April 12, 2010 8:11AM

Wow, has it really been 2.5 years already?

Morgoth · April 12, 2010 8:11AM

In a nutshell for me.

I quit buying 8.5s unless they were a really good deal. Centering is not the main criteria and in reality I haven't noticed a huge upgrade in quality in the 8.5 vs. 8.

I have been soorly disappointed in the 7.5 cards I have bought vs SGC 86's. I think there has been more grade inflation there than anywhere.

PSA sometimes seems to ignore the 0.5 compeletly. I have seen 100 to 500 card subs with no 0.5s given out.

Dealers will not pay a huge premium unless its a huge card. Your PSA 8.5 1965 Frank Robinso is a great card but a dealer isn't going to pay you $150 for it. If it sells for $70 in a 8 you might get 75 yo 80 in a 8.5 from a dealer. He might list it at $150 but wont sell it.

I have seen some 0.5s sell very well but normally those are cards hard to get in the card above AND below the 0.5.

A PSA 8.5 1962 Gibson sold very well recently because an 8 is tough and a 9 is insane.
A PSA 8.5 1963 Gibson didn't sell so well compared to its 8 counterpart.

ShawnyD · April 12, 2010 8:31AM

how about choice 3: its a wash at this point.... more study needed... and why not a 9.5 ?

toc1000 · April 12, 2010 8:32AM

<< I never can understand when people nail SGC for the number scale. They act like SGC is assigning 18, 29, 64, 90 for grades. 10 =1, 20=1.5, 30=2, 40=3,50=4, 60=5, 70 =5.5, 80=6, 84=7, 86=7.5, 88= 8, 92=8.5, 96 =9, 98=9.5, and 100=10. PSA has 18 possible grades. SGC has 15. What's the big deal with this? SGC also puts both numbers on the flips. It all seems okay to me.

Mickey71 >>

The SGC scale is all messed up.
- If they never planned on using a 100 point scale why add the extra zero for first 8 grades?
- Why suddenly begin using the ones column from 80 to 100? And not even use same digits for the 80s and 90s. This system is soooo poorly thought out...
- They don't use qualifiers.
- They don't give out enough SGC 98s or SGC 100s.
- They shouldn't have an SGC 98.

The PSA system is soooo superior...

leadoff4 · April 12, 2010 10:59AM

I agree on the 7.5s. The ones I've seen seemed to focus solely on centering... the corners were barely "7ish".

thehallmark · April 12, 2010 11:16AM

Slightly better for sellers, slightly worse for buyers. PSA will make more money from optimistic vintage card owners looking for a bump, which I guess is good for those of us that are not involved in that.

In general, I believe that PSA having a more detailed scale in which they can thoroughly explain the differences is eventually going to be GREAT for the hobby, since they are the industry leader.

Nugen · April 12, 2010 11:16AM

I don't know if it has helped or hurt. In my grades I have been hurt. I liked getting a bump up to the next grade. Since the switch it seems there is only the .500 bump for a nice card for the grade.

MULLINS5 · April 12, 2010 11:57AM

I'm for a 100 point scale or better breakdown, to me it explains the grade better. Seems to me that more people question PSA's grading than SGC or Beckett's, but PSA's bring in more money. I think if Beckett can get their website and registry together it could do better, but more importantly, Beckett either should do away with sheet cut card grading, or designate on the flip if it is a sheet cut or not. Then again, it's probably too late for this. Regardless, I like their breakdown for grading and appears to be a good system for the overall grade.

SGC, I am not too familiar with their cards. I just picked up my first one and to be quite honest, I like it, even though it is a little bulky. The card shows well with the black background, but shows scratches on the case more because the backdrop is so dark. But I do like the 100 point scale. Where they could approve is having a breakdown of why the grade is assigned (sort of like Beckett) This is why I think there is room for another major grading company, all three major graders have something that the others don't.

As for the .5, well, I see it as an all around money grab. Collectors look for good cards to bump for profit, PSA collects more cards for review, and collectors pay more for them. As we have seen, there really is no science behind the .5 bumps, and they seem to be arbitrarily given.

perkdog · April 12, 2010 12:19PM

The .5 Grading scale is one of the reasons I dont collect Graded cards anymore however the big reason is the inconsistency.

saucywombat · April 12, 2010 12:30PM

Both Beckett and SGC suffer from poorly conceived grading schemes.

SGC as pointed out, bizarre scaling, I suppose they are trying to indicate not much separates top end cards where the lower end of the scale is more clearly delineated, but still why this couldn't be expressed on a 1-10 scale is puzzling.

Beckett - Gee can I have 95% of my top end collection receive the "silver" medal or perhaps the god awful "white" label. Everyone values their cards as "gold" no one wants 2nd place. Yet very very few cards qualify for the most attractive Beckett holder. Also card values are not helped by these clear visual representations of value. If Beckett would have went with a standard look and label, they probably could have used the Beckett name to be #1 in the market. They made a major mistkae bu trying to be gimmicky with their approach. When I got back into the hobby (and card grading) five years ago, I had alot more trust for the Beckett name but hated the idea of an inconsistent look to the holders, especially if you are putting together a graded set. Going with PSA was largely a choice based on aesthetics but ended up being a good choice.

The 18 possible PSA grades are probably appropriate.

bking · April 12, 2010 12:38PM

<< What are the Cons against a 100 point scale? >>

For me, it goes back to an old adage - "There's a difference between precision and accuracy". Just because the numbers are closer together doesn't make them any more right.

When it's a subjective call from 8 to 8.5 to 9, how the hell do we accurately decide on 86 to 88 to 90, etc????

JHS5120 · April 13, 2010 12:04AM

I completely agree!!!!

How many people will receive 96's and try to get it bumped to 98's what is the difference from a 48 and 49? It gets to a point where it gets a bit ridiculous. Maybe if the system was computerized it would be able to consistantly render an accurate grade but I don't see it happening. SGC's 100 grading scale is a completely useless tool more people advertise the "PSA" grade then the "SGC" grade. I don't think it will ever work. Just an opinion.

BTW. The half point system has helped the hobby

Garabaldi · April 13, 2010 12:27AM

I think the 100 point scale is the way to go. There is too much variation between grades on cards and it would give us a better breakdown. There is so much information that goes into deciding a grade that it leaves too much open. I know grading is very difficult, but instead just having a PSA8 a PSA80 and a PSA88 would fill in some gaps.

Stone193 · April 13, 2010 12:43AM

I'm not happy - I think it's contributed to Global Warming!

BugOnTheRug · April 13, 2010 2:07AM

I don't like the .5 grades. Wish it would have stayed as it originally was.

Buy the card and not the holder.

Blacklabelsociety · April 13, 2010 8:11AM

<< 

<< I never can understand when people nail SGC for the number scale. They act like SGC is assigning 18, 29, 64, 90 for grades. 10 =1, 20=1.5, 30=2, 40=3,50=4, 60=5, 70 =5.5, 80=6, 84=7, 86=7.5, 88= 8, 92=8.5, 96 =9, 98=9.5, and 100=10. PSA has 18 possible grades. SGC has 15. What's the big deal with this? SGC also puts both numbers on the flips. It all seems okay to me.

Mickey71 >>

The SGC scale is all messed up.
- If they never planned on using a 100 point scale why add the extra zero for first 8 grades?
- Why suddenly begin using the ones column from 80 to 100? And not even use same digits for the 80s and 90s. This system is soooo poorly thought out...
- They don't use qualifiers.
- They don't give out enough SGC 98s or SGC 100s.
- They shouldn't have an SGC 98.

The PSA system is soooo superior... >>

I would argue that sgc's system is superior. Qualifiers are stupid.

Brick · April 13, 2010 9:47AM

<< I'm not happy - I think it's contributed to Global Warming! >>

Not many people realize how additional printing uses more energy and hurts the environment for all of us. Many do not realize one of the main causes of climate change is Daylight Savings Time.

rbdjr1 · April 15, 2010 4:13PM

Helped!

Helped Collectors Universe's "bottom line", that is!

rd

Two plus years of half point grades. Has it helped or hurt the hobby?

Comments