Post-War PSA Grading

jchcollins · #1 11-03-2022, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

Probability has little to do with manufacturing processes. The processes are designed to make identical objects, and when those processes fail they make identical objects that don't meet specs. Especially specs developed later that they were never intended to meet.

The video link above only went to a video saying something like you tube doesn't work on this machine. A nice prank, but not a card video.

The argument presented re: math / ratios in the videos referenced are about the subjective awarding of 9's v. 10's to truly mint cards, not the manufacturing process, or cards that don’t get 9's or 10's because they aren't truly mint anymore and thus did not deserve them. You can certainly choose not to believe that PSA is doing anything intentionally with the rest of it, but right now it seems we are still trying to compare apples to oranges. The argument is that PSA is being biased between the (two) mint grades based on the very subjective bump of cards that are already 9's to 10's - not that sorry, just not that many cards deservedly get to true mint grades on their own, and thus they are "controlling" by somehow seeing flaws that aren't really there. Does this makes sense?

If they are pop controlling only the 10’s as alleged, then yes, your point that they are leaving a lot of money on the table in doing that would in theory be correct. Does anyone know how PSA handles this in reality if someone gets a 10 on a huge card and is unprepared to pay the hefty fee bump? Would they get the option maybe of taking the 9 and paying less? Surely not...

steve B · #2 11-07-2022, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The argument presented re: math / ratios in the videos referenced are about the subjective awarding of 9's v. 10's to truly mint cards, not the manufacturing process, or cards that don�t get 9's or 10's because they aren't truly mint anymore and thus did not deserve them. You can certainly choose not to believe that PSA is doing anything intentionally with the rest of it, but right now it seems we are still trying to compare apples to oranges. The argument is that PSA is being biased between the (two) mint grades based on the very subjective bump of cards that are already 9's to 10's - not that sorry, just not that many cards deservedly get to true mint grades on their own, and thus they are "controlling" by somehow seeing flaws that aren't really there. Does this makes sense?

If they are pop controlling only the 10�s as alleged, then yes, your point that they are leaving a lot of money on the table in doing that would in theory be correct. Does anyone know how PSA handles this in reality if someone gets a 10 on a huge card and is unprepared to pay the hefty fee bump? Would they get the option maybe of taking the 9 and paying less? Surely not...

See my other answer.
Basically, the manufacturing process is absolutely part of a cards grade as grading is done now, as it considers defects in production as part of the grade.

Or to try to put it simply, if a card is produced in a way that makes nearly every one produced so that it could never qualify as being higher than a 9 there will be a very low percentage of 10's.

jchcollins · #3 11-07-2022, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

See my other answer.
Basically, the manufacturing process is absolutely part of a cards grade as grading is done now, as it considers defects in production as part of the grade.

Or to try to put it simply, if a card is produced in a way that makes nearly every one produced so that it could never qualify as being higher than a 9 there will be a very low percentage of 10's.

Steve, my perspective is that the difference between a 9 and a 10 has absolutely nothing, zilch - to do with the manufacturing process. Both grades are already "Mint" cards. Unless maybe you are talking about a sliver worth of centering one way or another. A 10 is simply supposed to be a 9 with extra eye appeal. What that means in reality is of course widely open to interpretation. Anything that would be resultant from the manufacturing process that would render the card "not a 10" I would think means it's also not going to be a 9. That is how I have understood PSA to grade for years now.

I suppose if your argument is that slight discrepancies in the process produce noticeable 10's over 9's, then that is fair - but to your earlier point - the discrepancy there making a card centered 58/42 instead of 50/50 was not something that would have remotely been considered a defect for vintage cards when they were made. So my argument is that human construct has more to do with PSA 10's there than any significant manufacturing process difference.

raulus · #4 11-07-2022, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Steve, the difference between a 9 and a 10 has absolutely nothing, zilch - to do with the manufacturing process. Both grades are already "Mint" cards. Unless maybe you are talking about a sliver worth of centering one way or another. A 10 is simply a 9 with "extra eye appeal". Anything that would be resultant from the manufacturing process that would render the card "not a 10" would mean it's also not going to be a 9. That is how I have understood PSA to grade for years now; if you know something I don't in terms of that please enlighten me.

I think I agree with you, although it seems like the manufacturing process still might have something to come into play when it comes to the cut of the edges, plus the centering that you mention.

I also wonder whether the registration might be an issue in terms of whether it's 100% clear v. 97% clear, and that could cause a shift between a 9 and a 10.

Arguably all of those factors that affect eye appeal, plus potentially a few more that might vary depending on the manufacturing process, seem like they could come into play here.

jchcollins · #5 11-07-2022, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raulus

I think I agree with you, although it seems like the manufacturing process still might have something to come into play when it comes to the cut of the edges, plus the centering that you mention.

I also wonder whether the registration might be an issue in terms of whether it's 100% clear v. 97% clear, and that could cause a shift between a 9 and a 10.

Arguably all of those factors that affect eye appeal, plus potentially a few more that might vary depending on the manufacturing process, seem like they could come into play here.

I am sure there are subtle things that in reality influence such decisions. What I am saying is that per the PSA standard, there shouldn't be a difference between a 9 and a 10 directly tied to the manufacturing process. As to why some mint cards are 9's and some (in some cases way less than what is expected) are 10's - that as a judgement of eye appeal of an "already mint" card should not have anything to do with the manufacturing process. An improvement upon "mint" (the 10) is a subjective, qualitative, 21st century eyeball judgment. The manufacturing process from the 1960's or earlier can't get to that. It can just get to mint. PSA's marketing / magic wand waving is responsible for anything further.

I will concede thusly: IF there is an aspect from manufacturing that leads a card to receive a 10 over a 9 (centered 3-5% better, registration 3% better, whatever) then ok, but that still does not explain the discrepancy as to why there are only twenty-five '80 Rickey Hendersons in a 10 vs. commons from the same set where the percentage of 10's is in the pop is easily higher.

I guess my overall argument is that I believe in a majority of cases - that a 10 Gem Mint is a fallacy. Take all the PSA 9's, pick whatever percentage of cards of the whole, and give them 10's. I bet that 99% of the people wouldn't be able to objectively point out the difference, or why this card is a 9 and that one is a 10.

raulus · #6 11-07-2022, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I am sure there are subtle things that in reality influence such decisions. What I am saying is that per the PSA standard, there shouldn't be a difference between a 9 and a 10 directly tied to the manufacturing process. As to why some mint cards are 9's and some (in some cases way less than what is expected) are 10's - that as a judgement of eye appeal of an "already mint" card should not have anything to do with the manufacturing process. An improvement upon "mint" (the 10) is a subjective, qualitative, 21st century eyeball judgment. The manufacturing process from the 1960's or earlier can't get to that. It can just get to mint. PSA's marketing / magic wand waving is responsible for anything further.

I feel like we are saying basically the same thing, although our willingness to ascribe statistical anomalies to TPG monkeyshines may vary.

steve B · #7 11-09-2022, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I am sure there are subtle things that in reality influence such decisions. What I am saying is that per the PSA standard, there shouldn't be a difference between a 9 and a 10 directly tied to the manufacturing process. As to why some mint cards are 9's and some (in some cases way less than what is expected) are 10's - that as a judgement of eye appeal of an "already mint" card should not have anything to do with the manufacturing process. An improvement upon "mint" (the 10) is a subjective, qualitative, 21st century eyeball judgment. The manufacturing process from the 1960's or earlier can't get to that. It can just get to mint. PSA's marketing / magic wand waving is responsible for anything further.

I will concede thusly: IF there is an aspect from manufacturing that leads a card to receive a 10 over a 9 (centered 3-5% better, registration 3% better, whatever) then ok, but that still does not explain the discrepancy as to why there are only twenty-five '80 Rickey Hendersons in a 10 vs. commons from the same set where the percentage of 10's is in the pop is easily higher.

I guess my overall argument is that I believe in a majority of cases - that a 10 Gem Mint is a fallacy. Take all the PSA 9's, pick whatever percentage of cards of the whole, and give them 10's. I bet that 99% of the people wouldn't be able to objectively point out the difference, or why this card is a 9 and that one is a 10.

I can agree with many of those points.

I could explain more precisely why those small differences would only apply to one card on one sheet, but it would be a long boring thing. If you want it I'll write it, but I suspect not. hardly anyone likes long boring stuff.

The printing done in 1980 was not much different from that done in 1960. I doubt Topps got more modern tech until probably 1992. (And the tech would be incredibly similar to printing in the early 1930's some stuff just didn't change much. )

Thinking about the pretty crazy ratio, I went and checked the SGC pop report. They have about a 24:1 ratio. Which almost convinces me, since I looked at the other star cards on SGC, and the 9:10 ratios are almost universally worse. They really don't seem to like giving a 10 to anything. But with the much smaller sample size, it's hard to really compare.

jchcollins · #8 11-09-2022, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

I can agree with many of those points.

I could explain more precisely why those small differences would only apply to one card on one sheet, but it would be a long boring thing. If you want it I'll write it, but I suspect not. hardly anyone likes long boring stuff.

The printing done in 1980 was not much different from that done in 1960. I doubt Topps got more modern tech until probably 1992. (And the tech would be incredibly similar to printing in the early 1930's some stuff just didn't change much. )

Thinking about the pretty crazy ratio, I went and checked the SGC pop report. They have about a 24:1 ratio. Which almost convinces me, since I looked at the other star cards on SGC, and the 9:10 ratios are almost universally worse. They really don't seem to like giving a 10 to anything. But with the much smaller sample size, it's hard to really compare.

Thanks Steve, and from your side of it I can see some other points I was not considering. I really just think the "10" (for all grading companies, but especially PSA) is a marketing device only. You are right, they don't like giving them out much at all.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Grading Post Cereal cards	camaro69	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	7	09-09-2016 03:04 PM
Post and Jello Cards: PSA grading question	Vintagevault13	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	6	03-13-2016 09:44 AM
Card Grading vs. Autograph Grading	scooter729	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	9	08-20-2014 01:52 PM
Photo Post Card Grading	MacDice	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	10-16-2011 11:42 PM
Forum Post Grading Services Inc.	PWeso81	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	11-13-2010 10:29 PM