Post-War PSA Grading

[BobC]

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson? And since not many really cared much about all of the Joe Nobody common cards they'd also gotten, those were likely to get stuck in a box or drawer and quickly forgotten. Thus, more likely to stay in pristine and perfect condition due to not being handled much at all.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson. And since not many really cared much about all of the Joe Nobody common cards they'd also gotten, those were likely to get stuck in a box or drawer and quickly forgotten. Thus, more likely to stay in pristine and perfect condition due to not being handled much at all.

Not enough conspiracy in this explanation for me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Not enough conspiracy in this explanation for me.

LOL

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the conspiracy theory entertainment. Carry on!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson?

This is beside the point. Yes, star cards like Mantles in the 60's and Reggies in the 70's, and Rickey's in the 80's were handled more, and thus more likely to survive today with signs of wear than some of the Joe Schlabotnik's and other commons that were put in a box the same day and remain pack fresh, NM-MT or higher.

The arguments for PSA pop control that have been put forward are based on cards that are already in Mint condition. Nobody is saying that PSA is giving cards that should be "Mint" only 7's or 8's. They are simply pointing out that if a card is "Mint" (a 9 or 10) already, in some very suspicious cases there are waaaaaaay less 10's for say, the Rickey Hendersons or Nolan Ryans of the world than there are other common cards in the set. So a card that was handled, traded, walked around showing off isn't going to be a 10, no. But it's not going to be a 9 either, and probably not even a 7. Acknowledged that for the vast, vast majority of vintage cards - getting a 9 is a pretty rare thing anyway.

[steve B]

Another strange thing in all this is that the very high profile cards in prewar often get graded higher than a similarly damaged common would be graded.

I suppose they could have oversight on cards that the grader thinks are 10s, but it seems like a lot of fussing around for little benefit.
They have no direct benefit, unless you think they get kickbacks.
In fact, they have a direct loss on a Henderson that's a 9 instead of 10 because of the difference in grading fee.

Current grading fee on a 10 = 5000
Current grading fee on a 9 = 150

A bit over 33x as much.

The money left on the table if all 2119 9s were actually 10s.
$10,277,150.
even if it was half of them, that's a lot to spend on a "maybe people will send in more of a card they already send in a ton of"

5 Million would buy years worth of more effective advertising.
And considering that some cards would be down graded further into the 8 category it could be much more.

I'm just not seeing it from a business standpoint.

And that people will send in that card without really looking at it... just look at how many there are graded 2 and 3. Who the heck sends in a 1980 anything thats a 2? Apparently 129 people did. and even more, 398 threes.

The total number of 10s divided by the number of cards in the set is a bit over 24, a fairly close match with the 25 population of PSA10 Hendersons.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by steve B

Another strange thing in all this is that the very high profile cards in prewar often get graded higher than a similarly damaged common would be graded.

I suppose they could have oversight on cards that the grader thinks are 10s, but it seems like a lot of fussing around for little benefit.
They have no direct benefit, unless you think they get kickbacks.
In fact, they have a direct loss on a Henderson that's a 9 instead of 10 because of the difference in grading fee.

Current grading fee on a 10 = 5000
Current grading fee on a 9 = 150

A bit over 33x as much.

The money left on the table if all 2119 9s were actually 10s.
$10,277,150.
even if it was half of them, that's a lot to spend on a "maybe people will send in more of a card they already send in a ton of"

5 Million would buy years worth of more effective advertising.
And considering that some cards would be down graded further into the 8 category it could be much more.

I'm just not seeing it from a business standpoint.

And that people will send in that card without really looking at it... just look at how many there are graded 2 and 3. Who the heck sends in a 1980 anything thats a 2? Apparently 129 people did. and even more, 398 threes.

The total number of 10s divided by the number of cards in the set is a bit over 24, a fairly close match with the 25 population of PSA10 Hendersons.

Again, I don't think you are quite understanding the benefits to PSA for having low pops on gem mint iconic cards. It's more than just "maybe more people will send cards to us." It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

........It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

˄˄˄This person gets it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Again, I don't think you are quite understanding the benefits to PSA for having low pops on gem mint iconic cards. It's more than just "maybe more people will send cards to us." It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

With advertising being valued on views, I just don't see there being even 5 million worth of benefit to PSA. How many collectors actively send in cards? Lets be generous and call it a million. They already have something like 90%market share. Getting the advertising out in front of existing customers isn't worth much, and even things like news articles won't bring in many new customers.
They already claim to be the premiere grading company and in many ways they're right. (As much as I dislike writing that!) So I'm not seeing the benefit there either.

And why that card to play games with? It's not like it was already some iconic thing before.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

This is besides the point. Yes, star cards like Mantles in the 60's and Reggies in the 70's, and Rickey's in the 80's were handled more, and thus more likely to survive today with signs of wear than some of the Joe Schlabotnik's and other commons that were put in a box the same day and remain pack fresh, NM-MT or higher.

The arguments for PSA pop control that have been put forward are based on cards that are already in Mint condition. Nobody is saying that PSA is giving cards that should be "Mint" only 7's or 8's. They are simply pointing out that if a card is "Mint" (a 9 or 10) already, in some very suspicious cases there are waaaaaaay less 10's for say, the Rickey Hendersons or Nolan Ryans of the world than there are other common cards in the set. So a card that was handled, traded, walked around showing off isn't going to be a 10, no. But it's not going to be a 9 either, and probably not even a 7. Acknowledged that for the vast, vast majority of vintage cards - getting a 9 is a pretty rare thing anyway.

That is not what I'm suggesting at all regarding 7's and 8's. What I'm suggesting is there may be less 10's because they ended up with 9 grades due to extra handling. I don't get anything graded and still don't understand the differences between 9's and 10's. Are you saying the differences between 9's and 10's are onlyy for things that could never have anything to do with handling a card?

I may have overstepped in the way I stated about a star player card being traded, walked around, or shown off, to overly emphasize my point. But you know that someone who has a star card, versus an ordinary common player card, is much more likely over time to look at that star player card and end up handling it way more than any other cards in the set. And I'm not necessarily saying you guys are wrong, just wondering if this is a possible alternative reason for even a portion of the perceived grade disparity.

Or another thought, is it possible a TPG would funnel the potentially higher value star cards to only a select few, more experienced graders who have a finer, more discerning eye, in giving out 10's? Whereas the commons from the same sets go to the general grading population of the TPG, maybe not always as discerning as the in-house, experienced experts, and as a result maybe they give out few more 10's?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Are you saying the differences between 9's and 10's are onlyy for things that could never have anything to do with handling a card?

Yes. Bingo. This is exactly what I am saying. A "10" is the total fabrication / dream construct of professional grading. Both 9's and 10's are "Mint" cards. The bump from 9 to 10 is supposedly so that Mint cards with "extra eye appeal" or pop or whatever can be recognized for being extra special, (and so that TPG's can charge extra fees, and so that their slabs with 10's can garner additional ooh's and aah's.) The 10 was the original purple label sticker, or PWCC "E" designation. It means nothing other than an already Mint card is somehow "extra" minty. It is a total superlative if you will, that the TPG's pull out of thin air. In practice on their scale since PSA does not have a 9.5, the 10 is the ".5" to any other grade for the 9, and there is no super clear rhyme or reason other than perhaps centering as to how it is awarded.

So yes, the argument that they may legit be giving out 9's instead of as many 10's as with other cards in the rest of the sets in question is not based on the fact that maybe the 9's would show a microscopic bit more handling. If so, those cards wouldn't be 9's to start with. As simple as it gets, the argument here is "If they are both already Mint cards - why does Joe Blow get X percentage of 10's, and Rickey Henderson gets Y (much lower percentage)?

We could have a pile of 100 cards all Mint, and say fifty of them are 10's and fifty of them are 9's. Without the flips, could you tell which are the 10's? In classic Jolly Elm "guess the qualifier" style - of course not! Neither could the people who graded them an hour or a day later. It's a complete gimmick in the vast majority of cases where minute centering differences are not an obvious factor - and even then it's super arguable. And if you busted all the cards and sent them back to be graded again - you would likely end up with totally different results. So once again - the argument that they are from the gate being stingy with 10's v. 9's on marquee vintage cards suggests not that those cards don't meet specs for mint - but just that they don't want so many 10's. If people don't believe this is happening, fine. I just think that most people are not taking the time to understand the argument.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yes. Bingo. This is exactly what I am saying. A "10" is the total fabrication / dream construct of professional grading. Both 9's and 10's are "Mint" cards. The bump from 9 to 10 is supposedly so that Mint cards with "extra eye appeal" or pop or whatever can be recognized for being extra special, (and so that TPG's can charge extra fees, and so that their slabs with 10's can garner additional ooh's and aah's.) The 10 was the original purple label sticker, or PWCC "E" designation. It means nothing other than an already Mint card is somehow "extra" minty. It is a total superlative if you will, that the TPG's pull out of thin air. In practice on their scale since PSA does not have a 9.5, the 10 is the ".5" to any other grade for the 9, and there is no super clear rhyme or reason other than perhaps centering as to how it is awarded.

So yes, the argument that they may legit be giving out 9's instead of as many 10's as with other cards in the rest of the sets in question is not based on the fact that maybe the 9's would show a microscopic bit more handling. If so, those cards wouldn't be 9's to start with. As simple as it gets, the argument here is "If they are both already Mint cards - why does Joe Blow get X percentage of 10's, and Rickey Henderson gets Y (much lower percentage)?

We could have a pile of 100 cards all Mint, and say fifty of them are 10's and fifty of them are 9's. Without the flips, could you tell which are the 10's? In classic Jolly Elm "guess the qualifier" style - of course not! Neither could the people who graded them an hour or a day later. It's a complete gimmick in the vast majority of cases where minute centering differences are not an obvious factor - and even then it's super arguable. And if you busted all the cards and sent them back to be graded again - you would likely end up with totally different results. So once again - the argument that they are from the gate being stingy with 10's v. 9's on marquee vintage cards suggests not that those cards don't meet specs for mint - but just that they don't want so many 10's. If people don't believe this is happening, fine. I just think that most people are not taking the time to understand the argument.

Now this I'm on board with. I've always wondered how/why TPGs discern between a 9 and 10, or even worse if they do half points, add a third grade in there with 9.5's. Jolly Elm/Darren's other thread in this same forum, Certified, Qualified, and Glorified!!!, points out and shows how inane and inconsistent the high-end grading by TPGs can be. Meanwhile, look at the unbelievably vast differences in looks, condition, and appeal of cards graded at the lower end of the grading scale. Top end, the differences are so narrow (or non-existent) you can't see any light between them. At the bottom end some of the holes/gaps in condition between cards of supposedly the same grade are so big you could drive a Mack truck through them. I can see the potential for the possible manipulation of the grading system, what I don't get though is the why. TPGs artificially controlling the population of cards in certain grades doesn't directly benefit them over the long term, as far as I can tell. Are they doing this on behalf of certain collectors/dealers so they can take advantage of the market and get a big score, or is it more to preserve the value of cards already in the hands of certain collectors so that if more cards of similar high grade are suddenly found and graded it doesn't shrink the perceived value of those cards in the hands of those original collectors? I can understand the numbers and the perceived grading disparity, but without a why (motive) for the supposedly guilty parties (TPGs) doing this, it makes no real sense for the TPGs doing this without there being something in it for them. And anything suggested so far as a possible motive just doesn't seem that plausible for any TPG to go through the trouble of manipulating high-end grade pops of certain cards, at least not to me.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Now this I'm on board with.

Ha. Thanks for sticking with me to get there. This very much reeks of a TPG mind F.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Or another thought, is it possible a TPG would funnel the potentially higher value star cards to only a select few, more experienced graders who have a finer, more discerning eye, in giving out 10's? Whereas the commons from the same sets go to the general grading population of the TPG, maybe not always as discerning as the in-house, experienced experts, and as a result maybe they give out few more 10's?

Yes, certainly. I think this goes to the "how the sausage is made" at PSA that we don't know. If they are pop controlling and a red light goes off when someone puts a "10" in the system for a certain handful of vintage cards, maybe it does go to a senior grading overlord or something. I would be interested to know how this works. But not super hopeful that I will soon, or ever - find out...

[Kutcher55]

Here's another link to the Henderson video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTMS1dmddc&t=216s

If it doesn't work and you care to review the video, simply go to Youtube and search "Vintage Card Curator Henderson." The video is approximately 14 minutes long. He goes through several different analysis to show the statistical improbability of 9s to 10s of the Henderson card (and 10s in general) relative to the rest of the set. At the time the video was made there were over 1,900 PSA 9 Hendersons and only 24 PSA 10s. The ratio of 9s to 10s is 81 to 1! For the rest of the set, the ratio of 9s to 10s is 2.4 to 1. If you understand statistics and probability, you can understand that this is difficult to reconcile logically without some behind-the-scenes wrangling involving the Henderson (and other high-profile cards). Some of the explanations are intriguing but ultimately fail to explain the above anomaly.

As for this suggestion that PSA is hurt financially by not rewarding more 10s, it's not entirely without merit, but if they gave all those 9s 10s, they would be a laughingstock and their brand would suffer, so the mathematics used there are faulty to say the least. I couldn't really follow the rest of the argument. But let's just say you'd make a fine defense lawyer for PSA.

[Kutcher55]

Taking it one step further, if the Henderson RC followed the same 2.4 to 1 profile as the rest of the set, based on the number of PSA 9 Hendersons, there should be 792 PSA 10 Hendersons. Instead there are 24 (or is it 25 now?). Hmm.

[ClementeFanOh]

Hey Jason! (Kutcher)- always happy to see your comments. Just wanted
to add my 2 cents' to your comment #47. PSA already IS a laughingstock
I'm here all weekend, tip your waiters and waitresses! Trent King

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Here's another link to the Henderson video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTMS1dmddc&t=216s

If it doesn't work and you care to review the video, simply go to Youtube and search "Vintage Card Curator Henderson." The video is approximately 14 minutes long. He goes through several different analysis to show the statistical improbability of 9s to 10s of the Henderson card (and 10s in general) relative to the rest of the set. At the time the video was made there were over 1,900 PSA 9 Hendersons and only 24 PSA 10s. The ratio of 9s to 10s is 81 to 1! For the rest of the set, the ratio of 9s to 10s is 2.4 to 1. If you understand statistics and probability, you can understand that this is difficult to reconcile logically without some behind-the-scenes wrangling involving the Henderson (and other high-profile cards). Some of the explanations are intriguing but ultimately fail to explain the above anomaly.

As for this suggestion that PSA is hurt financially by not rewarding more 10s, it's not entirely without merit, but if they gave all those 9s 10s, they would be a laughingstock and their brand would suffer, so the mathematics used there are faulty to say the least. I couldn't really follow the rest of the argument. But let's just say you'd make a fine defense lawyer for PSA.

Ok, that link works.
It's an interesting video, and I can see why it's convincing.
He does eliminate sheet position centering issues, which are common for Topps. And some other procuction stuff indirectly.

I do wish PSA would offer an explanation of exactly what would make one card a 10 and another a 9. There are a few things I can think of that might affect it, and a couple of them his numbers would eliminate, like a flaw related to the anti static stuff used in the press, which should affect the entire row, or very slight damage from the packing machines, which should affect every card from the same position. These usually aren't particularly small defects, and the only way to miss them on the commons is if they aren't looking which I don't think is happening.

The rest of it, he does miss a bit. I know some can't see the manual nature of the production process as being responsible, but if they aren't restricting the grades, it's a possible explanation.
To me the manufacturing process and grading as it is now are absolutely linked. If they didn't include registration/centering etc and only focused on how well the cardboard is preserved That wouldn't be the case.

Unfortunately, While I could prove/disprove that pretty quickly with an uncut sheet and maybe a few 9s and 10's to compare that just isn't within my budget.


The difference to me between a 9 and 10 is very slight.
The places the manual setup could affect a cards future grade -bearing in mind that the differences will be very small.
If the entire card is slightly misplaced on either the original art. Or on the mask (the large sheet sized negative used to make the plate. ) A perfectly cut card will be off center. I can probably round up some numbers later for a couple Topps sets, I'm not sure I have anything uncut from 1980.

Similarly, if one of the colors is slightly misplaced on the mask, every card on that position on a perfectly registered sheet will be out of register. Only a sheet happily printed out of register just so will make a perfectly registered card in the defective position.

If anyone has an uncut sheet with the Henderson and is willing to make some accurate measurements, that would settle that.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yes, certainly. I think this goes to the "how the sausage is made" at PSA that we don't know. If they are pop controlling and a red light goes off when someone puts a "10" in the system for a certain handful of vintage cards, maybe it does go to a senior grading overlord or something. I would be interested to know how this works. But not super hopeful that I will soon, or ever - find out...

Speaks to another huge problem with TPG grading, no transparency. Maybe that is another possible reason for the disparity in grades. If the TPGs were fully transparent in their grading guidelines, and then totally consistent in following and applying them (which they should and are supposed to be for both), it wouldn't take long for many collectors to be able to review their cards and accurately predetermine what grade they'll get if submitted. So it would be possible in that case that fewer people would submit cards on the off chance they'll snag one of those elusive uber-high grades.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Speaks to another huge problem with TPG grading, no transparency.

Nobody cares. The masses just care that their high dollar collections in PSA slabs remain high dollar. N54 and our vintage concerns over right v wrong here are but a small drop in the bucket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Nobody cares. The masses just care that their high dollar collections in PSA slabs remain high dollar. N54 and our vintage concerns over right v wrong here are but a small drop in the bucket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more, been saying the same for a long time how we are really such a small part of the hobby. And as you said, how the owners of those already high dollar value collections/inventories don't want anything to rock the boat and cause their cards go down in value as a result. Huge reason I think why all the suspected connections and alleged complicity between some TPGs and card doctors never goes anywhere. If people in the hobby did start truly believing all the info and conjecture, it could lead to destroying a TPG's place and reputation in the market, and along with it the value of all cards in that TPG's holders.