Thoughts on Grading Cards...

[swarmee]

PSA has improved their holders. Yes, they're pretty silent on their mistakes, but they also don't publicize when people put fake cards into cloned or compromised holders. They have also improved the flips to validate questionable cards. They're not perfect, but when I go to them to fix something they've done wrong, I've been pretty satisfied.

Beckett used to put subgrades on vintage cards in BVG holders, but stopped doing that. PSA's not perfect, and I never contended they were. They're still the best out there, and their Registry is second to none. Having the registry has also scuttled many fraudsters/thieves from moving cards as easily.

[PowderedH2O]

All of these are the reasons I have become less and less concerned with grading. I've been putting together raw sets, and I've been selling off my graded cards. The only exceptions are the big dollar cards, and only because I want my wife to be able to sell them as authentic easier when I die.

Leon's Mantle is a perfect example. PSA has their little rules. But who says their grading system is correct? I've seen 4's and 5's that don't look as good as Leon's 2. I've got a 53 Topps Mantle PSA 1.5 that has three little creases in it that you have to look very close to see. But, it is centered, has gloss, and is beautiful. I have no plans to upgrade it. A few years ago I graded a 1972 Hi Number Joe Namath that came back a PSA 5 because it had a microcrease that could be seen only with a microscope. Really? I'm in my 50's. If I can't see the microcrease, then I don't worry about it. We get so hung up on these numbers. I actually look for these types of cards. I love to find low graded cards that look great. Isn't it funny how the difference between a PSA 8 and PSA 10 can often be nothing (or practically nothing), yet a PSA 1 and PSA 1.5 or 2 can have enormous differences?