PSA 1 revisted

[Archive]

Posted By: Carl

Hi, I'm an infrequent poster to the board, but as a low grade collector of vintage cards, I do have a great deal of interest in this topic. I also hope it is okay to restart the thread - if not I apologize. It appears to me (and I hope you can follow me) that there is a bigger difference between the most beat up PSA 1 and the least beat up PSA 1 then there is between the best looking PSA 1 card and a typical psa 4 or even 5 - for example, I bought the following card a few months ago for a very fair price (hopefully the link will work)


.

A pin hole dropped it to a one. I have also seen nicer looking PSA 1's then this.

I think in this case, having the card graded actually lowered the potential selling price - I have bought worse looking raw t206's for more money.

In terms of what will hold their value better, if you look at percentages, low grade cards appear to be a safer bet. The fair T206 Mordecai Brown card I bought for 25 bucks might lose half it's value (thought I doubt it), but I would lose only 12.50....if it had cost me 300 bucks, I might be out a whole lot more.
I live in the Northeast, and though it may not be a good analogy to compare housing and real estate, the mid and low price houses are still selling well, while the homes over 600,00 dollars are sitting on the market longer. I'll always have 50 bucks to throw at a card here and there....will people always be willing to toss out a thousand bucks or more for a high grade common? Take it easy on me, this is my first post of any size.

Carl

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

not a 1, but one of the best looking 3's Ive come across (and no, that is not a spot of paperloss on this card):




and here is a 1 (sgc 10) that looks pretty good - creasing accounts for the grade, but not too noticable IMO.



PS - I hope we can keep this reincarnation on topic.

[Archive]

Posted By: cn

sometimes you have to shake your head when you see a card like this graded a 1 and a creased card a 2 or a 3.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Thank you guys, as I really wanted to discuss this topic in the first place.

Both of those cards are astounding for their grades. Without that pinhole, the Tinker would grade a solid 3 and possibly a 4.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

PSA is really tough on those pin holes. The card could have all the attributes of a MT card but the pin hole automatically drops it to a "1". I've seen SGC grade cards as high as a "2" with a pin hole. After seeing some of the cards in the other PSA1 thread it is quite apparent that a grade of "1" has an obviously wide range of aesthetics.

Should a small pin hole automatically lower the grade of a card to a "1"? I've seen paper loss on cards that have been assigned grades of up to "3". I don't understand why PSA makes such a difference between a small pin hole and the loss of paper. It may depend upon the diposition of the grader at the time the card is viewed.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Barnes

These arent pre war but they are on topic.

I submitted these at the same time a couple months back.

[img][/img] Clean back

[img][/img]
[img][/img]

dirty, taped, and it's written on, and it gets the same grade as the decent presentable koufax.
Seems like there needs to be some destinction between fair and poor.
John

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith O'Leary

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

the same 1949 bowman robby in a 2


steve d


not sure if I did that correctly.....maid and gardener are off.

card had a slight crease in the upper right habd corner that was flattened out by the seller. it presents well. PSA downgrades a card 2 points if that is done.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chuck R

I don't generally buy graded cards (or I release them from their tomb when I do buy them), but as someone who works with numbers at work it seems like the problem here is fairly simple. PSA decided to go with a 10 point system and then tried to cram in a grading scheme that has more than 10 levels. PSA 3,4,5 gives you the nuances of VG, VGX and EX. When you get below that, you really need G-VG, G, Fair and Poor to pick up some of these differences....but you've only got two PSA levels left. Seems to me they should have gone to a 12 point scale: Poor, Fair, G, G-VG, VG, VGX, EX, EXMT, NM, NM-MT, MT, Gem MT.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I'd still like see someone use a true 100 point scale breaking the areas into corners, surface, edges, centering and maybe something else. Each area is on a 1-20 scale. Total up the 5 areas for the score.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Carl

The variation between PSA 1's is exactly why I like the grading system. The weakness gives me a chance to get a good looking card for a good price just because it's graded a 1 - break it out of the holder, and it can stand up nicely to a 3 or 4. Since I buy the card, not the holder, it makes sense to me to look for a good 1 rather than a higher grade card (well a 3 or 4 anyway). Of course, if I had unlimited funds at my disposal, I would prefer to get the nicest looking, highest grade card available, but, alas, I don't - Carl

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Don't know how that Schalk card only got a 1. In comparison, I think SCG was a little generous with this one.

[Archive]

Posted By: BcD

I have a PSA 1 Washington T-200 team card that is a solid 4 that is unbelievable. They are all over the map on that issue~

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimi

The problem I find with grading is that centering issues count for a whole lot!! I'm looking at some of the cards posted above and am thinking, "man, had some of those had 40/60 centering at least, the grades would be much higher." I never even paid attention to centering until the last couple of years. To me, centering shouldn't deter from the overall grade unless it is a miscut or 0/100. Of course the point in getting that "perfect card" you'd need to get one well centered. I just hate the fact that cards are degraded because of something that happened on the printing press. Someone couldn't cut straight.

Jimi

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

In response to the comment above, the schalk is definitely a 1 - their is creasing throughout the bottom half of the card (look below the waist and you will see numerous faint lines - all creases that are not very apparent even when holding the card in your hand). Also some paperloss on the reverse. I just posted it as an example of a nice looking 1.

[Archive]

Posted By: The TruthTeller

I believe that grading is so subjective that you can have a "1" that looks as good as a 3 or 4 if the flaws are not as readily visible.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

lumping poor and fair together. To me, Poor is basically the equivalent of authenticating the item while Fair means very worn but not destroyed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I'd still like see someone use a true 100 point scale breaking the areas into corners, surface, edges, centering and maybe something else. Each area is on a 1-20 scale. Total up the 5 areas for the score.

Jay



Ive had enuff with inadequate grading, if you need help count me in.