Am I the only one who thinks the difference between PSA 9's and 10's is crazy?

[Hankphenom]

The whole system seems crazy to me when a "1" can be a card soaked in diesel fuel and driven over by a tank OR a nice-looking card with rounded corners and some paper loss, whereas the difference between a "9" and a "10" requires an electronic microscope to determine. If the scale is 1 to 10, shouldn't the gradations between them be at least somewhat similar?

[Royalsfan8515]

Seems to be true...if u are collecting for yourself a 9 is waaaaay more sost effective and seems to be identical to 10's to the naked eye... 10's are for making money(for the most part).. I get people like to have the best, but thats my point, seems like at that point you are paying for the holder

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

The whole system seems crazy to me when a "1" can be a card soaked in diesel fuel and driven over by a tank OR a nice-looking card with rounded corners and some paper loss, whereas the difference between a "9" and a "10" requires an electronic microscope to determine. If the scale is 1 to 10, shouldn't the gradations between them be at least somewhat similar?

But grading cards by use of descriptors (EX, Mint, Poor, etc. etc.) predates TPGs, unless I'm severely mistaken. I'm not sure when the grading scale terms entered into the hobby (much less became the standard), but I believe it was a long time before the same terms became associated with the number scales attached to them by TPGs. In that way, the TPGs didn't create the system, they just codified it with numbers.

I'd guess that one of the early hobby publications might be the source of the grading system, but it may have even started earlier. I am pretty sure there are people on this board who can help with when and where it all started (and even any influences from other hobbies - coins, perhaps?).

And considering the long history of the grading system in place, the current terminologies (regardless of having numbers associated or not) have likely been very deliberately created to not have evenly distributed or smooth gradations.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

But grading cards by use of descriptors (EX, Mint, Poor, etc. etc.) predates TPGs, unless I'm severely mistaken. I'm not sure when the grading scale terms entered into the hobby (much less became the standard), but I believe it was a long time before the same terms became associated with the number scales attached to them by TPGs. In that way, the TPGs didn't create the system, they just codified it with numbers.

I'd guess that one of the early hobby publications might be the source of the grading system, but it may have even started earlier. I am pretty sure there are people on this board who can help with when and where it all started (and even any influences from other hobbies - coins, perhaps?).

And considering the long history of the grading system in place, the current terminologies (regardless of having numbers associated or not) have likely been very deliberately created to not have evenly distributed or smooth gradations.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing it was borrowed from coin collectors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have read that way back in the day, guides did not even list a Mint grade. For older cards, that may be a creature of the card doctors.

[drcy]

Authentic is a problematic grade, I and I think could be labelled/noted differently. Noting why it got the grade is important.

There indeed wide ranges for Poor 1 grade-- I certainly have noticed--, but this is a case where you, the buyer, look at the card.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by drcy

Authentic is a problematic grade, I and I think could be labelled/noted differently. Noting why it got the grade is important.

There indeed wide ranges for Poor 1 grade-- I certainly have noticed--, but this is a case where you, the buyer, look at the card.

Understand how it works in practice, just commenting on how odd an outsider might find a system whereby two of the same cards, each graded a "1" for its condition, could have absolutely nothing in common in terms of condition.

[clydepepper]

Well, they say that great minds think alike...


so should it probably hold true that 'not so great' minds (graders) do not.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Understand how it works in practice, just commenting on how odd an outsider might find a system whereby two of the same cards, each graded a "1" for its condition, could have absolutely nothing in common in terms of condition.

I agree. I have seen 1s that are nice looking and 1s that were pemmican.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Understand how it works in practice, just commenting on how odd an outsider might find a system whereby two of the same cards, each graded a "1" for its condition, could have absolutely nothing in common in terms of condition.

The lower the grade the more likely the more difference in visual look. To me, it's the 8s, 9s and 10s that look the same, or close to it. I can't imagine paying a ton more for a card that looks the same or worse than another (in those high grades).

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by drcy

Authentic is a problematic grade, I and I think could be labelled/noted differently. Noting why it got the grade is important.

There indeed wide ranges for Poor 1 grade-- I certainly have noticed--, but this is a case where you, the buyer, look at the card.

I too would like to see the reason for the "authentic" grade noted on the slip. More information would definitely be helpful.

Highest regards,

Larry