Frank,
You bring up some good points. I have certainly had Scenario #1 experiences. I'm sure if I were smarter, I would never have purchased the cards, but the hobby used to be different and I ain't that smaht. We used to buy raw cards all the time.
If you submit the Scenario #1 card low-balling, you're inviting a low grade. It would be nice if the grader was unaware of the submitted service level, but I doubt that, because there's always a time parameter that they have to meet. At least PSA says the cards are submitted anonymously so that 'Big' or 'Small' customers get consistent treatment.
By coupling time and grade estimate, the grading companies are asking us to express our opinion, and while they might not intentionally lean one way or another, human nature is human nature.
I really don't doubt the integrity of the graders, but I know if the card is submitted as a $100 card and it's on the cusp of 6 and 7, as a grader, I would be subconsciously thinking that the submitter would be satisfied with a 6. This is why the have double blind drug studies - honest people are influenced by what they know. We all know the impact of 6 vs 7.
On the other hand, if I was hopeful on it being a 7, and submitted it s a $1,000 card, the grader knows my expectation, and might be similarly influenced to make inadvertent 'allowances'. It a very subjective thing after all.
But this is all simply argumentative, and as far as I know there is no good solution. The flat fee for grading (there could be different price levels for different sets or time periods) would remove most subjective leaning. In my mind, the grader should be taking more time looking at a Mayo Cut Plug Anson than a '33 Lew Fonseca (Sorry Lew).
I guess I'll take the hit and submit it as I see it and hope the best things happen. What's my option?
|