Post-War PSA Grading

[Kutcher55]

There’s little question PSA has played games on high profile cards like the Henderson RC, Eddie Murray RC and others from that era. Vintage Card Curator has demonstrated the statistical anomalies associated with these cards by showing the ratio of 10s related to 9s as compared to other cards from the same set. PSA 10s of these cards represent some of the most overvalued cards in the hobby. People who spend for cards like these are buying the grade and not the card. $125k for a Henderson RC is complete insanity - same goes for whatever a PSA 10 Jordan RC is selling for these days not that I would know.

[rats60]

I don't see how Bartirome is a grading scarcity. There are 5 9s and 38 8s. Rutherford is a much tougher grade, no 9s or 10s and only 16 8s.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't see how Bartirome is a grading scarcity. There are 5 9s and 38 8s. Rutherford is a much tougher grade, no 9s or 10s and only 16 8s.

Rutherford and likley Bob Chipman due to centering. Although Rosen claims there was very few Rutherford's in his find.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

I recently started grading my cards. Most of my cards are pre-war. I had little experience with grading services prior and really don't want this to degenerate into a grading company bashing thread.

Regarding some post-war cards, there appeared to be several cards that appeared to be consistently more harshly graded. I started digging and noted the population reports show grading scarcities for these exact same cards ('52 Bartirome, '80 Henderson are two). In fact, Vintage Card Curators made a video on the grading scarcity anomaly regarding the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson.

Is this just me or does anyone else feel that grading companie(s) may be creating "high grade" scarcities for certain cards? I bet Jolly Elm has a word for this....

The Rickey Henderson is definitely intentional, as has already been said. The 14 minute vid VCC's did on it leaves no doubt in my mind, and shouldn't in others as well.

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't see how Bartirome is a grading scarcity. There are 5 9s and 38 8s. Rutherford is a much tougher grade, no 9s or 10s and only 16 8s.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Rutherford and likley Bob Chipman due to centering. Although Rosen claims there was very few Rutherford's in his find.

Exactly this. Not many realize, I assume, that there are quite a few 52 Topps cards that don't have some 9 grades and even less 10's. They simply don't exist.
IIRC, Rosen mentioned something along the lines of there also being a line/mark across Rutherford's head?
I remember him also mentioning the rarity of the Rutherford cards too and when nice copies come up, they certainly sell for a premium, like this PSA 8 that sold last year for $14,400. Looking at SMR, an 8 is the highest graded (as Rats mentioned) as is Bob Chipman.
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...umbnail-071515
https://www.psacard.com/priceguide/b...952-topps/1129

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

There’s little question PSA has played games on high profile cards like the Henderson RC, Eddie Murray RC and others from that era. Vintage Card Curator has demonstrated the statistical anomalies associated with these cards by showing the ratio of 10s related to 9s as compared to other cards from the same set. PSA 10s of these cards represent some of the most overvalued cards in the hobby. People who spend for cards like these are buying the grade and not the card. $125k for a Henderson RC is complete insanity - same goes for whatever a PSA 10 Jordan RC is selling for these days not that I would know.

+1. It is very difficult to see how these are not manipulated at this point.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

+1. It is very difficult to see how these are not manipulated at this point.

What does the group feel is the motivation for manipulating the pop counts? Just to motivate submitters to keep sending more of them in?

Or is there some insider trading going on that gives them another incentive to undergrade some cards?

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by raulus

What does the group feel is the motivation for manipulating the pop counts? Just to motivate submitters to keep sending more of them in?

Or is there some insider trading going on that gives them another incentive to undergrade some cards?

The difference between a 9 and a 10 in many cases is astronomical in price differential. I can imagine how many 9's have been sent in to see if they would bump to a 10. Sad thing is that I have seen a lot of 9's in person that can be 10's any day of the week.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Tomi

The difference between a 9 and a 10 in many cases is astronomical in price differential. I can imagine how many 9's have been sent in to see if they would bump to a 10. Sad thing is that I have seen a lot of 9's in person that can be 10's any day of the week.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I guess I’m still not understanding why there is manipulation there. Does the grading company somehow benefit from limiting the number of 10s that it slabs?

I totally understand the dramatic price differential as you work your way up the grade ladder, but I’m just not clear what incentive the grading companies have to somehow deliberately undergrade cards to limit the pop count at the upper echelons.

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by raulus

I guess I’m still not understanding why there is manipulation there. Does the grading company somehow benefit from limiting the number of 10s that it slabs?

I totally understand the dramatic price differential as you work your way up the grade ladder, but I’m just not clear what incentive the grading companies have to somehow deliberately undergrade cards to limit the pop count at the upper echelons.

You do it with a star player and not a common. If there were 500 PSA 10 Henderson rookies right now they would probably sell for a few thousand dollars. Instead PSA 9's sell for thousands of dollars since there are very few 10's. There will be MANY more submissions of the card since 9's are not rare and are still bringing a big dollar. If PSA 9's were bringing $100 or less there would be much fewer submissions.

[irv]

Originally Posted by raulus

I guess I’m still not understanding why there is manipulation there. Does the grading company somehow benefit from limiting the number of 10s that it slabs?

I totally understand the dramatic price differential as you work your way up the grade ladder, but I’m just not clear what incentive the grading companies have to somehow deliberately under grade cards to limit the pop count at the upper echelons.

Look at the buzz it creates, the hype, the interest, the yearning to own a 10, the ever, although ignorant, praise PSA gets for being tough graders. There is more there that others can add but that is the gist of it I believe.

[Kutcher55]

They also play favorites with their big customers as VCC has illustrated, in noting that high grades get disproportionately handed out to the largest submissions. You can see this in the serial number sequencing. Also, as others have noted, by restricting 10s on high profile cards it increases the “value” of the card and helps PSA keep its somewhat muddled reputation as the slab that is easiest to sell and generates the highest returns.

I should add that I collect PSA and SGC and raw and I do find it interesting how collectors like myself who basically know PSA has a lot of shady underhanded business practices still remain customers. It’s sort of unusual when you think about it at least when it comes to businesses that don’t have a monopoly. Although on second thought maybe it isn’t as unusual as I think.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by raulus

What does the group feel is the motivation for manipulating the pop counts? Just to motivate submitters to keep sending more of them in?........

Yes, that was my original question/concern....

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Yes, that was my original question/concern....

The reasoning suggested by the others is certainly intriguing. And it is no doubt plausible!

To some extent, it does suggest that there would need to be a bit of coordination, planning, and masterminding behind the scenes. Based on the dim view that some around here take of the TPGs, I guess we can debate whether the TPGs possess the level of sophistication necessary to actually orchestrate such an operation, as they often seem to have plenty of challenges in just running their shop as it is.

I would also think that this level of masterminding would require a number of employees to be involved in it. And I guess I would halfway expect someone to come out as a whistleblower if it were happening. But on the other hand, maybe they are all too invested in the scheme to go there.

Ultimately, I’m not sure that I buy the manipulation theory, although I’m certainly also not going to dismiss it out of hand.

[Zach Wheat]

Vintage Card Curator did a similar video on the 1968 Topps Ryan rookie card (2nd series, not condition sensitive, not a short print).

He makes a compelling case for some sort of grade control. It is worth watching

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Vintage Card Curator did a similar video on the 1968 Topps Ryan rookie card (2nd series, not condition sensitive, not a short print).

He makes a compelling case for some sort of grade control. It is worth watching

Found it here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=

I agree that he makes a compelling case, at least after the first few minutes once he gets going a bit.

At the same time, I do think that his focus on the 9:10 ratio has the potential to be a little bit misleading. For example, if there was just one more piece graded a 10, then the ratio no longer seems so out of line. And if there were just 2 more, then it’s actually pretty close to landing where the rest of the cards land.

Calling for manipulation on the basis of having one or two fewer examples seems like it could be a bit of a stretch. While it’s certainly still possible, and given their other well-documented failings, I think we can all agree that PSA is by no means a paragon of virtue. But when the stats could be easily changed simply with one or two more examples, it seems like relying on those stats to make pretty damning accusations might be a bit aggressive.

[AP34]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

There’s little question PSA has played games on high profile cards like the Henderson RC, Eddie Murray RC and others from that era. Vintage Card Curator has demonstrated the statistical anomalies associated with these cards by showing the ratio of 10s related to 9s as compared to other cards from the same set. PSA 10s of these cards represent some of the most overvalued cards in the hobby. People who spend for cards like these are buying the grade and not the card. $125k for a Henderson RC is complete insanity - same goes for whatever a PSA 10 Jordan RC is selling for these days not that I would know.

I believe this is the video I watched that was eye opening