Will this BGS error bring PSA more business?
NamesJay
Posts: 328 ✭✭
BGS just recently graded the newsworthy Stephen Strasburg 2010 Bowman Superfractor a BGS 9.5.
All you have to do is look at the centering to see that this grade was obviously not deserved.
Do you think that this error might attract more business to PSA?
The article here shows pictures of the card graded: http://beta.beckett.com/group/475619/?tab=tabArticles&p=1177153#ViewArticle
All you have to do is look at the centering to see that this grade was obviously not deserved.
Do you think that this error might attract more business to PSA?
The article here shows pictures of the card graded: http://beta.beckett.com/group/475619/?tab=tabArticles&p=1177153#ViewArticle
0
Comments
It has been at least two days since someone else started a thread on this card. And yet, I did not think 24 hrs was possible.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
If you can link me to a previously started thread I would be much obliged.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
The grader mentions "defects" but there is no such thing as a perfect card. If you look hard enough you can find flaws in any card. The key is he says the flaws are within guidelines. Paper is pourous, it has holes, maybe too small for you and I to see. Print card stock is never 100% flat, it has wrinkles, but too small for us to see.
<< <i>How bad do you think the centering is? >>
I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. The point ( as I see it) isn't that the centering isn't within guidelines for a 9.5-- it's that if you, or I, or anyone else sent in some low profile card like '93T Jeter and it exhibited this kind of centering there is virtually no chance that it would end up in a 9.5 holder. The problem people have with this is that it seems like a publicity stunt on BGS's behalf- it does not at all appear as though the card was graded objectively.
Can someone find an example on Ebay of a BGS 9.5 that exhibits equal (or worse) centering than the Strasburg Superfractor? I'll bet there isn't one, or at most just a couple. Which leads us to believe that either a) it's just a shocking coincidence that one of the most poorly centered cards ever to find its way into a BGS 9.5 slab happens to be one of the five hottest cards on the market right now, and probably the most valuable raw card ever distributed in packs, or b) the BGS knew exactly what they were grading, and had decided beforehand to grade this card a 9.5. You can choose either door, but I (and most) are choosing door 'b'.
<< <i>Can someone find an example on Ebay of a BGS 9.5 that exhibits equal (or worse) centering than the Strasburg Superfractor? >>
I'm withdrawing my comments on centering. While PSA will give a mint 9 to a card with 60/40 centering, I just noticed that Beckett restricts 9s to cards with no worse than 55/45. The Strasburg is around 57/43, and thus the 9 in centering is .5 higher than it should have gotten. You may resume bashing Beckett.
However, BGS didn't overgrade the other hot superfractor from that set...
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Can you find examples of errors in the assignment of a grade by PSA or BGS? Sure. However, you can scan countless images on ebay and 99.9% of the cards will be assigned the "appropriate" grade based on the defined criteria. If this was not the case, then graded cards would not demand a premium compared to raw cards.
I also find it funny when people complain a certain card is "over-graded" in their opinion. If you fall into that group, I have to ask if PSA assigns one of your cards a grade of 10 that you thought was a 9 do you send the card back to PSA to have the grade lowered? Doubtful...doubt it has even happened once in the history of grading.