Quote:
Originally Posted by Kutcher55
Here's another link to the Henderson video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTMS1dmddc&t=216s
If it doesn't work and you care to review the video, simply go to Youtube and search "Vintage Card Curator Henderson." The video is approximately 14 minutes long. He goes through several different analysis to show the statistical improbability of 9s to 10s of the Henderson card (and 10s in general) relative to the rest of the set. At the time the video was made there were over 1,900 PSA 9 Hendersons and only 24 PSA 10s. The ratio of 9s to 10s is 81 to 1! For the rest of the set, the ratio of 9s to 10s is 2.4 to 1. If you understand statistics and probability, you can understand that this is difficult to reconcile logically without some behind-the-scenes wrangling involving the Henderson (and other high-profile cards). Some of the explanations are intriguing but ultimately fail to explain the above anomaly.
As for this suggestion that PSA is hurt financially by not rewarding more 10s, it's not entirely without merit, but if they gave all those 9s 10s, they would be a laughingstock and their brand would suffer, so the mathematics used there are faulty to say the least. I couldn't really follow the rest of the argument. But let's just say you'd make a fine defense lawyer for PSA. |
Ok, that link works.
It's an interesting video, and I can see why it's convincing.
He does eliminate sheet position centering issues, which are common for Topps. And some other procuction stuff indirectly.
I do wish PSA would offer an explanation of exactly what would make one card a 10 and another a 9. There are a few things I can think of that might affect it, and a couple of them his numbers would eliminate, like a flaw related to the anti static stuff used in the press, which should affect the entire row, or very slight damage from the packing machines, which should affect every card from the same position. These usually aren't particularly small defects, and the only way to miss them on the commons is if they aren't looking which I don't think is happening.
The rest of it, he does miss a bit. I know some can't see the manual nature of the production process as being responsible, but if they aren't restricting the grades, it's a possible explanation.
To me the manufacturing process and grading as it is now are absolutely linked. If they didn't include registration/centering etc and only focused on how well the cardboard is preserved That wouldn't be the case.
Unfortunately, While I could prove/disprove that pretty quickly with an uncut sheet and maybe a few 9s and 10's to compare that just isn't within my budget.
The difference to me between a 9 and 10 is very slight.
The places the manual setup could affect a cards future grade -bearing in mind that the differences will be very small.
If the entire card is slightly misplaced on either the original art. Or on the mask (the large sheet sized negative used to make the plate. ) A perfectly cut card will be off center. I can probably round up some numbers later for a couple Topps sets, I'm not sure I have anything uncut from 1980.
Similarly, if one of the colors is slightly misplaced on the mask, every card on that position on a perfectly registered sheet will be out of register. Only a sheet happily printed out of register just so will make a perfectly registered card in the defective position.
If anyone has an uncut sheet with the Henderson and is willing to make some accurate measurements, that would settle that.