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.

Post-War PSA Grading
 

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post-War PSA Grading
 

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

Psa
 

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

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.

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.

See my other answer.
Basically, the manufacturing process is absolutely part of a cards grade as grading is done now, as it considers defects in production as part of the grade.

Or to try to put it simply, if a card is produced in a way that makes nearly every one produced so that it could never qualify as being higher than a 9 there will be a very low percentage of 10's.

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.

Steve, my perspective is that the difference between a 9 and a 10 has absolutely nothing, zilch - to do with the manufacturing process. Both grades are already "Mint" cards. Unless maybe you are talking about a sliver worth of centering one way or another. A 10 is simply supposed to be a 9 with extra eye appeal. What that means in reality is of course widely open to interpretation. Anything that would be resultant from the manufacturing process that would render the card "not a 10" I would think means it's also not going to be a 9. That is how I have understood PSA to grade for years now.

I suppose if your argument is that slight discrepancies in the process produce noticeable 10's over 9's, then that is fair - but to your earlier point - the discrepancy there making a card centered 58/42 instead of 50/50 was not something that would have remotely been considered a defect for vintage cards when they were made. So my argument is that human construct has more to do with PSA 10's there than any significant manufacturing process difference.

I think I agree with you, although it seems like the manufacturing process still might have something to come into play when it comes to the cut of the edges, plus the centering that you mention.

I also wonder whether the registration might be an issue in terms of whether it's 100% clear v. 97% clear, and that could cause a shift between a 9 and a 10.

Arguably all of those factors that affect eye appeal, plus potentially a few more that might vary depending on the manufacturing process, seem like they could come into play here.

I am sure there are subtle things that in reality influence such decisions. What I am saying is that per the PSA standard, there shouldn't be a difference between a 9 and a 10 directly tied to the manufacturing process. As to why some mint cards are 9's and some (in some cases way less than what is expected) are 10's - that as a judgement of eye appeal of an "already mint" card should not have anything to do with the manufacturing process. An improvement upon "mint" (the 10) is a subjective, qualitative, 21st century eyeball judgment. The manufacturing process from the 1960's or earlier can't get to that. It can just get to mint. PSA's marketing / magic wand waving is responsible for anything further.

I will concede thusly: IF there is an aspect from manufacturing that leads a card to receive a 10 over a 9 (centered 3-5% better, registration 3% better, whatever) then ok, but that still does not explain the discrepancy as to why there are only twenty-five '80 Rickey Hendersons in a 10 vs. commons from the same set where the percentage of 10's is in the pop is easily higher.

I guess my overall argument is that I believe in a majority of cases - that a 10 Gem Mint is a fallacy. Take all the PSA 9's, pick whatever percentage of cards of the whole, and give them 10's. I bet that 99% of the people wouldn't be able to objectively point out the difference, or why this card is a 9 and that one is a 10.

I feel like we are saying basically the same thing, although our willingness to ascribe statistical anomalies to TPG monkeyshines may vary.

I can agree with many of those points.

I could explain more precisely why those small differences would only apply to one card on one sheet, but it would be a long boring thing. If you want it I'll write it, but I suspect not. hardly anyone likes long boring stuff. :)
The printing done in 1980 was not much different from that done in 1960. I doubt Topps got more modern tech until probably 1992. (And the tech would be incredibly similar to printing in the early 1930's some stuff just didn't change much. )

Thinking about the pretty crazy ratio, I went and checked the SGC pop report. They have about a 24:1 ratio. Which almost convinces me, since I looked at the other star cards on SGC, and the 9:10 ratios are almost universally worse. They really don't seem to like giving a 10 to anything. But with the much smaller sample size, it's hard to really compare.

Thanks Steve, and from your side of it I can see some other points I was not considering. I really just think the "10" (for all grading companies, but especially PSA) is a marketing device only. You are right, they don't like giving them out much at all.