|
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Or is there some insider trading going on that gives them another incentive to undergrade some cards?
__________________
Trying to wrap up my master mays set, with just a few left: 1968 American Oil left side 1971 Bazooka numbered complete panel |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Trying to wrap up my master mays set, with just a few left: 1968 American Oil left side 1971 Bazooka numbered complete panel |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, that was my original question/concern....
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
Trying to wrap up my master mays set, with just a few left: 1968 American Oil left side 1971 Bazooka numbered complete panel |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Trying to wrap up my master mays set, with just a few left: 1968 American Oil left side 1971 Bazooka numbered complete panel Last edited by raulus; 11-01-2022 at 09:47 AM. |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think the VCC videos are pretty convincing. Still I realize there are those who don't understand, and likely still more with big bucks tied up in PSA slabs that just don't care. The '68 Ryan is a good example because it's not a rare or condition sensitive card. Noteworthy and valuable? Sure. But by the standards with which collectors have judged attainability on factors other than pure dollars for decades now - the Ryan RC is not remotely a tough card. Unlike even some of it's late 60's contemporaries (the '67 Denehy / Seaver, for example) there is a Ryan for every collector who wants one assuming they are willing to pay within a wide ballpark range of what different conditioned examples go for. So this is all just further evidence that there is no real reason in the population of the cards that this discrepancy between 9's and 10's is what it is. PSA of course has the ultimate upper hand here. All of their grades issued are subjective judgment calls anyway, and the difference between a 9 and a 10 is even worse. Besides a notation on centering in their standard, it's pure subjectivity. When grading first got popular in the early 2000's, the difference was supposedly only the eye appeal that a 10 was a "mint plus" card. It was totally up to the whim of the grader - and clearly still is. (Maybe with some discreet corporate "guidance" now on certain cards?) "Gem" mint as a concept is virtually useless outside of the world of TPG's. And inside that world, there is nothing objective to bring back to PSA to hold them accountable, or to say that they are doing it wrong. This is where you kind of have to digest your grading with a large grain of salt. People can believe whatever they want, but it's going to be a hell of a lot easier to get a PSA 10 on your 1980 Topps Rick Cerone than it is your Rickey Henderson.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Cubs of all eras. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 11-03-2022 at 09:45 AM. |
![]() |
|
|
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 |