The illusion of an objective standard psa, sgc, bvg

[robkas68]

I joined the psa collectors club last year to make use of the specials to submit about 150 vintage cards that I own (mostly 1952 topps). I submitted cards that I thought were about 5 or better and for the most part it was as expected. I did receive a couple 3.5s and about 25 4s and the rest 5 and 6 with a couple 7s. Nothing authentic/altered/minimum size etc.

I still had my 15 free submissions. I decided to use my 15 submissions on crossovers to see if they crossed. I submitted 7 sgc, 3 bvg, 3 gai and 2 sports collectors digest. I set the minimum grade for crossing the sgc and bvg as identical and gai and scd as acceptable down a grade. I think the results are a bit interesting. The GAI (one crossed 1961 Aaron went from a gai 8.5 to a psa 8. one came back as evidence of trim and one did not meet the minimum grade)

For scd one crossed ( 1967 Clemente from scd 8.5 to psa 8 ) and one 1955 Mantle failed to reach minimum grade.

For sgc 3 crossed with the same grade, 1934 Goudey Appling psa 7, 1967 Carew psa 7 and 1968 Mantle psa 7.5. Three others did not cross because of minimum grade and one did not cross because of minimum size requirements.

BVG was a total washout as 2 did not meet the minimum grade and one did not meet the minimum size requirement.

My point is that I got more variation in outcomes for cards that had already been submitted to an "expert" once than I did with my own 30 second eye test with the raw cards. Even throwing out the gai graded cards, it casts some doubt on the expertise involved in the grading process. The fact that 3 of 15 (20%) went from a high grade 7+ to possibly authentic is really mind boggling especially since it was not just one company (one bvg, one sgc and one gai). So much for objectivity and expertise.

[Johnny630]

It's all opinion basied. When it's rendering a opinion there is no liabilty on their behalf.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

It's all opinion basied. When it's rendering a opinion there is no liabilty on their behalf.

And we all know what they say about opinions.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

And we all know what they say about opinions.

...that opinions are fine as long as they are mine?

Brian

[PowderedH2O]

My father collected coins for over 60 years. When I showed him a number of my PSA graded cards, I asked him why almost all of his coins were ungraded. He told me a story of how Q David Bowers, a premier authority on coin collecting submitted a particular coin and the grade was significantly lower than Bowers expected. He told me "if Bowers with a loupe says a coin is a particular grade, should I trust him, or some $10 per hour guy working at the coin place?"... And, he had a point. If I took the 25 most knowledgeable collectors on this board, I would trust their opinions over ANY grading company.

[robkas68]

My argument certainly is not that psa was correct in each instance. I presume that if I sent sgc 15 psa cards, some may come up short. And if you sent a card to psa 3 times you may get 3 different grades. Rather, it is the false sense of security associated with the grading process. Some of those trimmed cards are only a bad factory cut and some of the psa, sgc or bvg "9"s are altered as hell. I am amusing myself with the irony that after 40 years of collecting, I may be submitting my stuff to a 23 year old to tell me if it is "legit" and then taking his word as gospel.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

...that opinions are fine as long as they are mine?

Brian

No, that you are entitled to your opinion...but you are also entitled to my opinion.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, that you are entitled to your opinion...but you are also entitled to my opinion.

I like your opinions in your book on Exhibits, Adam. Nice work!

Highest regards,

Larry

[JustinD]

Is your argument based on theorizing that PSA was correct in all instances?

These companies look at a card for mere seconds, it is completely imperfect.

Also submitting for crossover has long been noted for it's lack of objectivity. Unless it is a key card and helps the standing of the company to have it's name attached, it is a bigger gain to reject or lower the card grade in order to show superiority and build a false sense of brand loyalty.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by JustinD

............it is a bigger gain to reject or lower the card grade in order to show superiority and build a false sense of brand loyalty.

When I submit cards to any TPG, I always request the lowest grade possible so that I can develop brand loyalty.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

When I submit cards to any TPG, I always request the lowest grade possible so that I can develop brand loyalty.

As in, "next time I will buy only PSA cards because the others I submit for crossover always are over graded or trimmed"... And thus the PWCC PSA price continues.

Yes, brand loyalty.