PSA 10's

[rdwyer]

Do you get the same amount of 10's today as compared to 2 years ago? Or has the "scandal" made it more difficult to get 10's lately?

[iowadoc77]

Some might say it depends on who is submitting.

[rdwyer]

For me PSA has been real rough on my last submissions.

[The-Cardfather]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

For me PSA has been real rough on my last submissions.

Me too. I agree 100%.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

For me PSA has been real rough on my last submissions.

Agreed, a few crack outs that looked good for the grade, came back a full grade lower.

[Johnny630]

Grades have nothing to do with the card but everything to do with whom submits the card. Bottom line

[glynparson]

never
Mind you aren’t worth the time to fight with.

[forceplay sport]

my 2 cents - if you spend thousands with PSA they will throw you a few bones, otherwise , good luck !!

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by iowadoc77

Some might say it depends on who is submitting.

So true.

[japhi]

Originally Posted by forceplay sport

my 2 cents - if you spend thousands with PSA they will throw you a few bones, otherwise , good luck !!

Agree with this. The way to play the PSA game is to go big.The system is very clearly two tiered.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I debated hopping into this discussion. I am far from a big fish, and to my regret My auction switched from SGC to PSA right before the scandal hit. Been debating switching back. But I am FAR from a heavy hitter. If I grade 1000 cards a year I'd be surprised. I grade every card myself before it is sent in. I average less than half a grade off over all. there are a couple swings in there, but they work both ways. I had an Alcindor rookie I graded 4.5 and it got a 6, I just had a 1956 FB checklist I graded a 6 and it got a 3 (actually still trying to figure that one out, been over the card with a loupe several times)

Anyway my point is there are PLENTY of things to be concerned with as regards PSA, and I am not a fan of the heavy hitters getting in person reviews thus making a sham of the anonymity that they at least imply the process has, but I don't think they're punishing small fry submitters with bad grades. Some people posit that they do it to encourage resubmissions, but those resubmissions would have to offset the defection of people who get sick of undergrades to other companies. Maybe I have the metrics of that equation wrong but I'd have to be damn sure of my plan if it included pissing off a large quantity of submitters.

[milkit1]

Has anyone on here ever submitted a pre war card to PSA and got back a 10? Would love to hear about that.

[rdwyer]

Everyone I talk to where I live, states that PSA has been tougher on all grading. Doesn't matter how much you grade.

[GasHouseGang]

The only PSA 10's I own are ones I purchased that were already graded 10's. I got a PSA 9 once on one of my submissions of a modern card. I figure the odds of getting PSA to give you a 10 on anything vintage you submit yourself has got to be next to zero.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by milkit1

Has anyone on here ever submitted a pre war card to PSA and got back a 10? Would love to hear about that.

Never have. Can't imagine it.

[bigfanNY]

Oldest card I ever got a 10 on was a 1967. Only year I ever submitted more than 50 cards was 2014 submitted around 3k cards that year and later in that year my submissions started coming back with a couple 10's. So my experiance says more cards submitted better grades. And I have no opinion on the topic.

[swarmee]

I got a 9 on a vintage card, along with a bunch of 8s and an 8.5 (highest graded for the entire PSA graded 1909 T51 Murad College Series). The 9 was on a 1930 British wrestling card of Primo Carnera that had a photograph front and paper backing, from a set that I think was sold as complete in a box. So many of those (like the 1915 Cracker Jacks) stayed in great condition because many retained their original packaging for 100 years. Some of those cards that came in glassine envelopes could also get high grades since they weren't really subjected to the elements/corner dings.
The T51s were from a complete set sold by Kit Young, so they were probably from a collector who spent years compiling the most attractive set he could and upgraded it regularly over time. I am about to sell that Master set of 225 cards; will be interesting to see how it goes. Now that COMC has their eBay auctions set up, I may just consign the entire set and have a set break and let the chips fall where they may.

[Leon]

Some cards found in their packaging could be 9s, I guess . But the difference between a 9 and a 10 can't be much apart (or any for that matter). Black Swamp comes to mind.

Originally Posted by swarmee

I got a 9 on a vintage card, along with a bunch of 8s and an 8.5 (highest graded for the entire PSA graded 1909 T51 Murad College Series). The 9 was on a 1930 British wrestling card of Primo Carnera that had a photograph front and paper backing, from a set that I think was sold as complete in a box. So many of those (like the 1915 Cracker Jacks) stayed in great condition because many retained their original packaging for 100 years. Some of those cards that came in glassine envelopes could also get high grades since they weren't really subjected to the elements/corner dings.
The T51s were from a complete set sold by Kit Young, so they were probably from a collector who spent years compiling the most attractive set he could and upgraded it regularly over time. I am about to sell that Master set of 225 cards; will be interesting to see how it goes. Now that COMC has their eBay auctions set up, I may just consign the entire set and have a set break and let the chips fall where they may.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I don't think they're punishing small fry submitters with bad grades. Some people posit that they do it to encourage resubmissions, but those resubmissions would have to offset the defection of people who get sick of undergrades to other companies. Maybe I have the metrics of that equation wrong but I'd have to be damn sure of my plan if it included pissing off a large quantity of submitters.

I think this is true but also not quite on point.

I doubt that PSA ever deliberately punishes small fry. Like you say, they have no incentive to actively piss submitters off.

The real issue is whether they give gifts to big fish.

The biggest opportunity for them to give gifts to favored customers without pissing off less important ones lies entirely with the PSA 10 versus PSA 9 distinction for big value cards. The distinction between these two is so arbitrary that its almost impossible to dispute a call between them. Yet the difference can be worth thousands of dollars to someone who gets a 10 instead of a 9.

In order to maintain the value of that 10, they can't give away too many of them. So they've got a limited number of these gifts to give, and basically complete discretion in deciding when they are going to give them out. Its not hard to figure out how they'll dole them out based on the incentives they have.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I think this is true but also not quite on point.

I doubt that PSA ever deliberately punishes small fry. Like you say, they have no incentive to actively piss submitters off.

The real issue is whether they give gifts to big fish.

The biggest opportunity for them to give gifts to favored customers without pissing off less important ones lies entirely with the PSA 10 versus PSA 9 distinction for big value cards. The distinction between these two is so arbitrary that its almost impossible to dispute a call between them. Yet the difference can be worth thousands of dollars to someone who gets a 10 instead of a 9.

In order to maintain the value of that 10, they can't give away too many of them. So they've got a limited number of these gifts to give, and basically complete discretion in deciding when they are going to give them out. Its not hard to figure out how they'll dole them out based on the incentives they have.

I don't disagree with you, but I was specifically responding to someone who was saying that small submitters don't get 10's. Do they get them at the same rate as whales? Probably not, but I got 10's on my first submission and have gotten them on cards as old as 1968 and I am no whale, never been to a PSA invitational etc.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

The distinction between these two is so arbitrary that its almost impossible to dispute a call between them. Yet the difference can be worth thousands of dollars to someone who gets a 10 instead of a 9.

And this distinction, in prices realized between a 9 and a 10, despite almost undetectable differences, is what drives much of this bad behavior. The thing is that we, the collecting community, ultimately have complete control of the prices.

Say there is really no perceptible difference between a 9 and a 10, at least not one that can be consistently defended. By giving 10s out at a much lower rate than 9s, PSA manipulates the supply of 10s and and we fall right in the trap of believing that a 10 is worth XX times more than a 9, based on the supply - though there is little/no difference. However, with all the money and egos in the hobby, the precious 10 carries with it the swagger that "I have the best" and people are willing to spend crazy amounts of money for that.

[55koufax]

So in 2009 or 2010 I sat down with Joe O. and had a discussion about why it was seemingly so impossible to get 10's? Specifically from the hundreds (now well over a thousand) of '55 Topps AA's fresh out of cello packs I had graded. (Mind you I had already spent $150 per pack to get several packs graded - I actually paid for PSA to obtain a new mold to fit them). 48 of the 57 PSA 10's in the pop report are from my submissions, and I firmly believe 3 others that have somewhat recently popped are from my cards that I sold, and then they were subsequently trimmed to ascertain 10's (sad but true). Anyway, he offered this:

"PSA wants to maintain a certain aura or mystique surrounding the grade of 10".

They had just started with .5 point grades and I then asked him why they skipped the 9.5 grade His response?

"PSA wants to maintain a certain aura or mystique surrounding the grade of 10".

Now I ask all of you, does this make sense?

Looks like PSA feels a 9.5 grade would detract from those "mystical" 10's ??? Not only that, how can you say you are objective when the boss admits in so many words they are not - when it comes to 10's.

I could show you MINT 9's of the same card next to GEM 10's of same, and even with the all the tools of the trade, you would never discern the difference. Not only that, I have had 4 Otto Graham 9's that I compared to the only 10 in existence (from pre 2009 which was one of only six tens in the entire pop report at the time) that belonged to Nate Sanders at the time, and it is a joke. That antiquated 10 is noticeably inferior to all 4 9's...

[55koufax]

So in 2009 or 2010 I sat down with Joe O. and had a discussion about why it was seemingly so impossible to get 10's? Specifically from the hundreds (now well over a thousand) of '55 Topps AA's fresh out of cello packs I had graded. (Mind you I had already spent $150 per pack to get several packs graded - I actually paid for PSA to obtain a new mold to fit them). 48 of the 57 PSA 10's in the pop report are from my submissions, and I firmly believe 3 others that have somewhat recently popped are from my cards that I sold, and then they were subsequently trimmed to ascertain 10's (sad but true). Anyway, he offered this:

"PSA wants to maintain a certain aura or mystique surrounding the grade of 10".

They had just started with .5 point grades and I then asked him why they skipped the 9.5 grade His response?

"PSA wants to maintain a certain aura or mystique surrounding the grade of 10".

Now I ask all of you, does this make sense?

Looks like PSA feels a 9.5 grade would detract from those "mystical" 10's ??? Not only that, how can you say you are objective when the boss admits in so many words they are not - when it comes to 10's.

I could show you MINT 9's of the same card next to GEM 10's of same, and even with the all the tools of the trade, you would never discern the difference. Not only that, I have had 4 Otto Graham 9's that I compared to the only 10 in existence (from pre 2009 which was one of only six tens in the entire pop report at the time) that belonged to Nate Sanders at the time, and it is a joke. That antiquated 10 is noticeably inferior to all 4 9's...

[brian1961]

I for one am very happy PSA didn't install a 9.5 grade. That would create such a wretched mess and mass of hysteria for collectors wondering if they should send in their prized PSA 9s back to PSA, hoping for an upgrade.

PSA 10s are the favored few; we all get that. However, my fellow humanoids are infamous for splitting hairs until something is totally out of control, complicated, no longer enjoyable, and nauseating.

I completely agree with you over the matter that some PSA 9s look just as good as PSA 10s, and even as you described look better than a called 10!

Where many of our fellow collectors fall short in their minds is knowing when a PSA 5, 6, 7, or 8 is either ultra-high for a certain issue or the finest known specimen. Some idiots think it's gotta be a 10, or nothing, to achieve renown significance. I know of a few issues where a PSA MINT 9 is the ultimate and virtually unimaginable at the MINT 9 level for that issue, whereby to think in terms of a GEM MINT card from a profound condition rarity is reckless, ignorant, irresponsible, and dare I say flat-out stupid!

The premiums some collectors will pay for the 10 / DIME/ Double Digit is a world I cannot enter, but let's face it, sure makes interesting reading. It must be recognized, however, that the sky-high price points for some PSA 10s were achieved because of a knocked down auction fight between at least two deep-pocket collectors who both wanted the card at all costs. A decade later, when the winner decides to part with the ultra-expensive card, it may not fetch the money it took to originally win it. Such a shock may also occur if the card falls out of favor for any of several plausible reasons.

Have a swell day. Keep enjoying those beautiful Topps A-As!!!

--- Brian Powell

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

Not only that, I have had 4 Otto Graham 9's that I compared to the only 10 in existence (from pre 2009 which was one of only six tens in the entire pop report at the time) that belonged to Nate Sanders at the time, and it is a joke. That antiquated 10 is noticeably inferior to all 4 9's...

I would suggest that you get Dmitri Young to resubmit them for you...

[55koufax]

Haha....Where be'ez Da Meat Hook these days? No longer at all in da world of cards?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I think this is true but also not quite on point.

I doubt that PSA ever deliberately punishes small fry. Like you say, they have no incentive to actively piss submitters off.

The real issue is whether they give gifts to big fish.

The biggest opportunity for them to give gifts to favored customers without pissing off less important ones lies entirely with the PSA 10 versus PSA 9 distinction for big value cards. The distinction between these two is so arbitrary that its almost impossible to dispute a call between them. Yet the difference can be worth thousands of dollars to someone who gets a 10 instead of a 9.

In order to maintain the value of that 10, they can't give away too many of them. So they've got a limited number of these gifts to give, and basically complete discretion in deciding when they are going to give them out. Its not hard to figure out how they'll dole them out based on the incentives they have.

Yeap. Probably aren't dinging smaller submitters intentionally BUT if they give lenient grades to volume submitters, in effect, it does hurt the others.