Post-War PSA Grading

[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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by raulus

Found it here:

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.

But...there's not 1 or 2 more examples. Maybe there will be someday, but his point in the video makes sense mathematically. In fact in looking at the pop since he made the video, I see where PSA has added two more 9 Ryan rookies to their "mint" totals. So his point is even further augmented.

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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

But...there's not 1 or 2 more examples. Maybe there will be someday, but his point in the video makes sense mathematically. In fact in looking at the pop since he made the video, I see where PSA has added two more 9 Ryan rookies to their "mint" totals. So his point is even further augmented.

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 Dehney / 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.

I'm picking up what you're laying down. And I don't disagree.

My point is simply mathematical, that if there had happened to be 1 or 2 more of the PSA 9s that instead came out as 10s, then the results would be wildly different. Just because there's only 1 instead of 2 or 3 doesn't seem like a big difference in the pop counts. But perhaps it does to the person who has that 1 card, and paid a king's ransom for it.

In large part, the thrust of my argument is that statistics based on small sample sizes aren't particularly relevant. And 1 is a pretty small sample size.

Is it possible that PSA is manipulating pop counts? Absolutely. And with any luck, tomorrow some former PSA employee will come out and confirm as much.

Do the provided statistics alone prove it? I suspect that it probably depends on your viewpoint.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by raulus

My point is simply mathematical, that if there had happened to be 1 or 2 more of the PSA 9s that instead came out as 10s, then the results would be wildly different.

Your point on the small sample size with the Ryan is valid. I'm just saying, you have to know when a really nice card like that walks in - and some grader or team of graders is saying this is a 9, is it possibly higher? Like how many people get called in on that decision do you think? I would love to be a fly on the wall.

In this regard, the '80 Henderson is a better example of them pop controlling. There are currently 25 PSA 10's, and 2,115 PSA 9's. So about 1.18% of all "mint" Rickey rookies get 10's. VCC Keith's point is simply that that is waaaay out of whack compared to everything else in the 1980 Topps set. Much the same with the '68 Ryan, the '71 Topps Ryan...and lots of other vintage cards here and there if you are paying attention.

This is all kind of tongue-in-cheek amusing to me. I usually consider a PSA 6 a "really nice" vintage card. Most of those are going to have sharp corners, a nice surface with no creases, and maybe a mild (to me, anyway) centering problem. My own Ryan RC is a nicely centered raw example in the EX range, and I'm guessing my '80 Rickey Henderson might be a PSA 7 on a good day. Cards are my hobby and diversion. I will never pay on the level of what my house is currently worth just to say I own a PSA 10 of something.