PSA/SGC Waiting Lines At 2019 National

[barrysloate]

If it's true they only average 75 seconds per card, and that may not be the exact amount of time, then that simply isn't sufficient to do the job properly. If they have any interest in improving their track record, they will need to spend much more time per card and will have to charge more money to do so.

Would collectors be willing to spend more in exchange for better quality work? I would think so. If $50 gets it wrong, but $100 gets it right, don't you think most collectors would be willing to pay higher fees?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If it's true they only average 75 seconds per card, and that may not be the exact amount of time, then that simply isn't sufficient to do the job properly. If they have any interest in improving their track record, they will need to spend much more time per card and will have to charge more money to do so.

Would collectors be willing to spend more in exchange for better quality work? I would think so. If $50 gets it wrong, but $100 gets it right, don't you think most collectors would be willing to pay higher fees?

And how much does it cost to get a high-grade mantle Rookie graded? I have a hard time with these prices as it is granted I am not their main target demographic for what I collect but I trust my own judgment better than any grading company. The only only only reason I would ever Pay to grade a card is to sell it!

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

And how much does it cost to get a high-grade mantle Rookie graded? I have a hard time with these prices as it is granted I am not their main target demographic for what I collect but I trust my own judgment better than any grading company. You only only only reason I would ever agree to Curtis to sell it!

I know Pete. The $5000 they charge should entitle you to at least an hour of their time. But somewhere with regard to cost vs. time spent, something needs to change. They need to figure it out.

[frankbmd]

At 75 seconds/Card and $50/card fee they are earning $2400/hr.

$5000 per Mantle should be worth at least 2 hours.

Bulk submissions for $10 a pop should get 15 seconds or less.

No wonder their record is impeccable.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If it's true they only average 75 seconds per card, and that may not be the exact amount of time, then that simply isn't sufficient to do the job properly. If they have any interest in improving their track record, they will need to spend much more time per card and will have to charge more money to do so.

Would collectors be willing to spend more in exchange for better quality work? I would think so. If $50 gets it wrong, but $100 gets it right, don't you think most collectors would be willing to pay higher fees?

Barry,

I concur with you and honestly don't believe that it is physically possible for them to be grading that many cards that quickly given the number of grading "experts" they supposedly have. I was merely pointing out the facts and figures they themselves are putting into their annual reports and financials and doing the simple math. My guess is that the so called "experts" on their staff that do the grading are not the only people actually doing and involved in the grading process and that they may have others who do basic, preliminary work, and then have the "experts" get involved in the more higher-end, higher-valued cards at the back end, or in certain cases as needed. So if that is the true case, you may not always have an "expert" you thought you were paying for doing the work in looking at all your submitted cards and grading them for you.

I am guessing that the expectation of most collectors submitting a card for grading is that a single, expert grader takes that card and looks it over and reviews it against a predetermined standard set of measures and tests; mechanical, visual, touch and otherwise, including review with a black light, to completely examine and determine the authenticity of that card, as well as if it then qualifies for an actual grade, and if so, what that grade should be, again based upon a set of pre-described standards and measures that are applied across the board to all cards they are looking at, without regard to a card's age, the actual set it is in, its value, or otherwise. Heck, it just took me over 75 seconds to type all that out, let alone do all that actual work.

I can see that if a grader clearly finds right away some issue that lets them know that a card isn't legit that they wouldn't have to bother going through all the other tests and reviews to determine grade and such, but otherwise, every card should be graded the exact same way and undergo the same exacting procedures and tests and have the same exact standards applied in determining its authenticity and grade, whether it is a '33 Goudey Ruth or a '75 Topps common. And I would hope that most collectors agree this is how it should be.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by BobC

Barry,

I concur with you and honestly don't believe that it is physically possible for them to be grading that many cards that quickly given the number of grading "experts" they supposedly have. I was merely pointing out the facts and figures they themselves are putting into their annual reports and financials and doing the simple math. My guess is that the so called "experts" on their staff that do the grading are not the only people actually doing and involved in the grading process and that they may have others who do basic, preliminary work, and then have the "experts" get involved in the more higher-end, higher-valued cards at the back end, or in certain cases as needed. So if that is the true case, you may not always have an "expert" you thought you were paying for doing the work in looking at all your submitted cards and grading them for you.

I am guessing that the expectation of most collectors submitting a card for grading is that a single, expert grader takes that card and looks it over and reviews it against a predetermined standard set of measures and tests; mechanical, visual, touch and otherwise, including review with a black light, to completely examine and determine the authenticity of that card, as well as if it then qualifies for an actual grade, and if so, what that grade should be, again based upon a set of pre-described standards and measures that are applied across the board to all cards they are looking at, without regard to a card's age, the actual set it is in, its value, or otherwise. Heck, it just took me over 75 seconds to type all that out, let alone do all that actual work.

I can see that if a grader clearly finds right away some issue that lets them know that a card isn't legit that they wouldn't have to bother going through all the other tests and reviews to determine grade and such, but otherwise, every card should be graded the exact same way and undergo the same exacting procedures and tests and have the same exact standards applied in determining its authenticity and grade, whether it is a '33 Goudey Ruth or a '75 Topps common. And I would hope that most collectors agree this is how it should be.

Personally, I do not agree. It doesn't take a minute to grade a 1980's common. For ~80% of PSA grades, it shouldn't take more than 20 seconds or so to authenticate and grade.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Personally, I do not agree. It doesn't take a minute to grade a 1980's common. For ~80% of PSA grades, it shouldn't take more than 20 seconds or so to authenticate and grade.

I agree, especially with the lower value bulk submissions.

This is just my opinion. I have been involved with a few bulk submissions. It is like they see a pile of cards and go those look like 8's and the pile is graded. This happened to me the last time I was involved with one. I got back cards that ranged from 6s to 10s all graded 8s. Luckily I found a buyer willing to buy the cards and not the grades on the ones that should have been 10s. I also disclosed the obvious crease in one of the 8s I sold to a fellow forum member.

[swarmee]

JHS,
Sure, if you presume that nobody has ever learned how to replicate a rough cut for 1952 Topps Look-N-See cards or 1953 Parkhurst or 1955 Topps FB All-American.
But then you're proven wrong by Moser, who can easily fool PSA graders by applying a false rough cut to issues while trimming fractions of an inch off.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bob, good discussion. I wonder how efficient the market is for CLCT stock, given that recent developments obviously could have a material impact on CU through the warranty and reserve, but also given that the stock price apparently has not been affected at all other than a brief response to what was probably just a short attack by Seeking Alpha. If one assumes an efficient market, then the market apparently doesn't perceive much risk. Then again, with CLCT being such a small cap company and so thinly traded, the market may not be efficient.

[swarmee]

Yeah, it's a wall of text, but most of those points have been made in the previous threads that have rolled off the board. You might want to read more threads that talk about PSA's grade guarantee and what we've already discussed.
Not to say it can't be rehashed, just that it you're going to pontificate about it, we've already done it.

I'm not hoping for PSA's demise; you can see that because I want them to offload their financial risk onto PWCC and Moser and their other alterers. But if PSA doesn't come out and PUBLICLY STATE that they were incapable of detecting alterations, and have created/proven new techniques to catch these cards from being submitted in the future, I don't see how their company has any more value than the Set Registry, which will wither and die when people stop submitting cards knowing that the whole enterprise is built on fraud. I WANT PSA TO REFORM. But without a significant attack on its warranty reserve or law enforcement intrusion into its business, I don't see PSA having this "Come To Jesus" experience.

I don't agree with the PSA Apologists on this board and others that think that the status quo will never change. It's been about 2 months since the first PSA "conserved" Mantle was outed. Have people forgotten about this yet? Have the blowout detective agency (BODA) stopped finding altered cards? Have people that are invested in the hobby stopped posting about this endemic fraud? No. And the National is coming up in a month. The word about this fraud will only spread from here on out.

[drcy]

I think PSA, PWCC and Moser should all go under. PSA can be the exception only if it can entirely reform and change.

I think the grading system/business is corrupt, and is, in big part, concerned, focused and invested in things other than, and counter to, objective grading and authentication. And if it is unable or uwilling to objectively grade and authenticate, then it shouldn't be in the business . . . And that statement doesn't even touch on if they are capable of grading and authenticating.

If they were intellectually honest they would say "We have to dissolve the PSA Registry, or at least attach a big fat disclaimer to it, because these numbers are obviously not reliable and almost certainly wrong." But honesty and accuracy clearly are not essential to their business model. If they were they would have admitted long ago that the T206 Gretzky Wagner is trimmed and misgraded long. Refusing to admit the Wagner is altered and misgraded is akin to a scientific "authority" refusing to admit the earth rotates around the sun and materials are made up of atoms and molecules ("And we should trust your statements on other scientific topics why?"). And that right there is the problem.

Whether they will, or 'should' as some collectors might say, reform and change is a separate matter. Many collectors and dealers are fine with the old corrupt, and perhaps inept, grading system and want it to continue, because they also are focused and invested things other than, and counter to, objective grading and authentication. Many are literally invested in the system.

Now if PSA wishes to wholesale reform their system and model, then that would be a reasonable response I could subscribe to and support. But that would require a wholesale reform and change in philosophy. To use Thomas Kuhn's once radical and now cliched and misused terminology, it would require a paradigm change.

David Cycleback

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Yeah, it's a wall of text, but most of those points have been made in the previous threads that have rolled off the board. You might want to read more threads that talk about PSA's grade guarantee and what we've already discussed.
Not to say it can't be rehashed, just that it you're going to pontificate about it, we've already done it.


I'm not hoping for PSA's demise; you can see that because I want them to offload their financial risk onto PWCC and Moser and their other alterers. But if PSA doesn't come out and PUBLICLY STATE that they were incapable of detecting alterations, and have created/proven new techniques to catch these cards from being submitted in the future, I don't see how their company has any more value than the Set Registry, which will wither and die when people stop submitting cards knowing that the whole enterprise is built on fraud. I WANT PSA TO REFORM. But without a significant attack on its warranty reserve or law enforcement intrusion into its business, I don't see PSA having this "Come To Jesus" experience.

I don't agree with the PSA Apologists on this board and others that think that the status quo will never change. It's been about 2 months since the first PSA "conserved" Mantle was outed. Have people forgotten about this yet? Have the blowout detective agency (BODA) stopped finding altered cards? Have people that are invested in the hobby stopped posting about this endemic fraud? No. And the National is coming up in a month. The word about this fraud will only spread from here on out.

I agree with all you’re saying, I really hope and pray it happens.

It’s sad but the sheeple do not care one bit they’re addicted to the Registry and Pop Report.... Newport Beach and Mr Vault on the Lake Know this....They’re Smart they will stay hush hush �� Mr Vault on the Lake will refund the bad cards all under Newport Beaches Watch and Direction each will continue covering each other’s back side.....full on damage control....

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bob, good discussion. I wonder how efficient the market is for CLCT stock, given that recent developments obviously could have a material impact on CU through the warranty and reserve, but also given that the stock price apparently has not been affected at all other than a brief response to what was probably just a short attack by Seeking Alpha. If one assumes an efficient market, then the market apparently doesn't perceive much risk. Then again, with CLCT being such a small cap company and so thinly traded, the market may not be efficient.

Peter,

Thanks, and I agree with you, it is thinly traded and likely not an efficient market. However, didn't someone post that CLCT was recently added to the Russell 200 exchange? If so, that would likely up their presence and make them noticed a bit more than in the past.

My hope is that the CU auditors are made aware of the issues and take that into consideration during CU's current year-end audit. I will be extremely interested to see what, if any, mention is made of the current issues in the upcoming Annual Report of CU, or in the impact it may have on their financials through their warranty reserve. And with a 6/30 year-end, those financials and Annual Report will be out sometime by this September/October. And being a publicly traded company, those financials and Annual Report will be available to anyone with internet access as a matter of public record. PSA is in a unique position within the collecting community as to my knowledge they are the first ever party/entity that is being associated with such a potential scandal in the card collecting hobby that also happens to be part of a publicly traded company subject to the additional reporting requirements, scrutiny and oversight of the SEC. So unlike any of the card doctors, collectors, dealers, auction houses, grading companies, etc. involved in all of the earlier scandals and frauds that have come out in our hobby, this will be the first time we can all actually get to see the financial impact such issues can have on some party/entity involved.

What CU management tells the auditors about the current issues, if anything beyond the normal year-to-year issues they have always had with erroneously graded cards, would be extremely interesting to learn and know. We obviously won't be privy to what is actually told to the auditors, but what ends up being reported in the Annual Report and financials should give us a fairly good clue as to what they ended up telling and sharing with them. To my knowledge there are no current or pending lawsuits or litigation involving any of the current issues that PSA may be involved in, so auditor inquiries to the CU lawyers for this year's audit will likely make no mention of any of this. After that, it may just be up to what CU management feels is appropriate to share with their auditors. And frankly, I could see their management saying nothing is really different than it has been in prior years, and even so, any alleged issues or problems would be aggressively refuted and fought, and that in the end, they would expect no material effect on their business or financials. And unless someone on their outside accountant's audit team just happens to also be a collector with knowledge of what is currently going on, the auditors likely won't know about all these issues that we have recently been made aware of and just go with what management is telling them.

So, it is a matter of public record that Grant Thornton LLP is the outside auditor for CU, and has been since 2005. They are a national accounting firm with offices all around the country, and the audit of CU is run out of their Newport Beach, California office. So the actual audit team members directly working on the CU audit, and the partner in charge of and responsible overall for that audit, will likely be working out of that office as well. There is the possibility that CU has decided to change auditors for this year-end, but that is not likely as it is usually more efficient and cost-effective for a company to retain the auditors they have had in the past. And the contact information for Grant Thornton's Newport Beach office is easily found on the internet. i will stop there!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I suspect, Bob, that PSA will aggressively downplay it with their auditors, and claim nothing is new here just an intensification of the chatter that's always in the background. I think they could probably afford a significant increase to the reserve, as they seem to have (you would know better than I would, interested in your opinion) a decent amount of cash for a company their size, but at the same time that could affect perception of their confidence in their own abilities to grade and I doubt they want to send that message. But we'll see.