I have long said something similar - changing standards, a small percentage of inconsistent grades, changing flips, changing holders, and slowly improving pop reports are all things to keep people sending in cards that have already been graded (whether you send them raw or slabbed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GasHouseGang
If you follow the link listed earlier in this thread, one of the guys over on the CU board said something that I think sums it up rather nicely:
"I've been reading here and seen enough of these posts to know how the system works. Here it is in a nutshell: You submit enough cards in holders for review you get a bump that either just pays for the sub, or puts you slightly ahead. Everyone wins, PSA gets paid to look at cards already graded. You submit crackouts, a number will come back higher, some lower and a few will not get a grade. You will sub the min size again and most will end up in holders, some at higher grades, some lower. You will be even, a little behind or slightly ahead. PSA gets to take grading fee's on cards that were already graded, sometimes multiple times. Advantage PSA. On the odd occasion, you hit it big (see the Ryan that went from a 9 to a 10). For this reason, people will always be willing to take the risk of cracking and subbing or sending in reviews. The system is inherently inconsistent, with one constant - PSA always wins. The inconsistency is a feature, not a bug."
|