I think many of us could say the same thing. I know I can. But as I said earlier in this thread, how do I know I wasn't shilled by the consignor on some of my purchases? I really never gave it much thought until all this came out.

No one can tell you that because there is probably a lot of truth in that statement. However, this thread exposed a shiller (pank21) and, if nothing else, might possibly make consignors (with Probstein or any other consignment service) think twice about shilling their own auctions because of the fear of being caught.

A big thanks to the sleuths over on the CU boards!

To me the real question here is how did the Shell get a 10. I have seen other 10s on ebay of much more expensive cards that equally baffle me. And through cardtarget I have seen submissions where the number of consecutive 10s is troubling. In my opinion, the 10 grade is arbitrary and meaningless to begin with, as is the 98. I also don't like Beckett's system but that is for another thread; but in short I don't see how a card with less than Mint corners can be graded Mint.

The bidding aspect of this is inconsequential, I could not care less about a protective bid.

+1....the grade of 10 is crazy for this card, i totally agree with that.

I think it's crazy period, especially as a high percentage of 10s (of significant cards anyhow) probably are just bumped 9s.

Very true Kevin. I believe any time that we do find it they are brought here to be crusified by the board though.

I do understand that this is about his consigner and PSA but it really makes him look bad when he doesnt address the issues. Maybe he feels he owes no explanation?

David, if you snipe you don't have to worry about being shilled.

I got a call from Joe O yesterday concerning some Net54baseball board issues. Suffice it to say, and it's worth repeating, if you make a public claim (such as is on this board) you can be held legally liable for what you say. I am not saying to not say anything you want to, but you might want to consider the facts before you make statements. For instance, if you call ME a thief on a forum, you better have your ducks in a row because you will have to be proving that in court. I am not saying anyone called Joe O a thief, or anything wrong was even said......it doesn't matter that much to me except I do think Joe is a good hobbyist and good for the hobby. And your privacy WILL NOT be protected per the board rules concerning opinions of people or companies. Stand behind what you say or don't say it. OF course your privacy WILL BE protected if you only talk about cards and so forth......

I did mention to him about the card that went from an 8 to a 10. He said he hasn't personally seen it, and it's extraordinary, but does happen. I am not making any claims myself about the card. I will leave that to others. Also, keep in mind it's difficult to be perfect in a somewhat subjective industry, when you grade over 100,000 cards a month. I am not making excuses or saying mistakes should happen, but they do. Personally I think the hobby is better with PSA, SGC and Beckett all grading cards....I have my preferences but that will be for another thread.

Um. Really?

It's interesting that Joe O has seen this thread but not the Art Shell... It's right there in post #1.

I am not positive but would guess he meant he hasn't seen it in person. I have to believe he has seen scans.

Those scans (Shell) are so large that I don't think seeing it in person would make a difference one way or the other. Anybody can tell that card shouldn't have graded a 10.

I realize we can be held responsible for what we say on a public forum. It's just too bad that PSA can't be held accountable for overgrading that card. Well, I guess they could if the purchaser wanted to pursue it. I wonder if he's seen this thread?

David, the purchaser has the slab and his flip that he paid for - I doubt he'll be complaining.

Given our hobby's acceptance of slabbing companies, followed by our acceptance that grading is subjective, not much to be done. We brought it on ourselves.

I've been paying attention to this thread off and on now, I keep asking a couple questions in my head and maybe some of you know the answers.

Does anyone know the grading process at PSA or even SGC?
How many individuals are involved in grading a particular card?
Is there a QA/QC of the grade before the card is slabbed?

I've never seen an outline of the process that PSA or SGC go through in grading a card. With situations like this, when we wonder "How did that card get graded a 10?" wouldn't it be helpful to know how TPGs actually go about the process? I certainly hope that more than a single individual is involved in assigning a grade to a particular card. Wouldn't unusually high grades, like a pre-1980 Gem Mint 10 draw additional attention and scrutiny within PSA or SGC?

Scott, what I meant was that if he wanted to hold PSA accountable for that mis-grade (which any reasonable person would agree that it is), he certainly has the right.

From PSA's website: "PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA"

You're probably right though, he won't be complaining. It's already in his registry and it boosted the GPA of his set keeping him at number one and that's probably all that matters to him. Card? What card? He only bought plastic and a label.

+1 Well said.

You can read PSAs grading process here:
http://www.psacard.com/services/psa_..._process.chtml

If I read it correctly, a minimum of four different people review each card for grading accuracy.

I don't know the official process at SGC, but I do know that I've had grades that have changed during the process (both up and down, and even to AUTH) prior to slabbing.

I'm not as good as some of you at telling when a slabbing company has ventured 'too far' from their standards, mainly because I don't collect sharp-cornered cards and don't have as much exposure to them. I also am not clear what 'holding PSA accountable' would amount to. Do we have any examples of this happening in the past?

More people need to say this :)

I agree. But that being said, I will refer back to what my dear, dear Grandma (*RIP) used to tell me, ""It's your money and you can do with it as you please." Based on Peter S.'s comment today I bought some Novus #2 to help my plastic collection. I am trying for the #1 set of plastic of all time. Wish me well!! :)

I think the problem is with the buyers more the graders. PSA no doubt likes the price, but never told anyone to spend $3,000+ on a 1973 Topps Art Shell. The prices for PSA 8s versus 9s versus 10s are created by the buyers. PSA may indeed promote things via the registry and advertising, but buying into a marketing campaign is no excuse, at least if you're an adult. It's the buyers' money.

So, do I think spending $3,000+ on this Art Malone card to be stupid? Yes, very. But I don't blame PSA.

But if he complained to PSA that it really should be an 8, and somehow gets restitution from PSA, can he expect the difference in price between the two flips? I mean cards?

I often wonder what would happen if someone was able to sneak into collections, crack the dubious 10s out of their slabs and remove the flip. If the card is undamaged was there a crime?

Note: You would have to ignore the part about breaking and entering, vandalism, and the need to pay for regrading. I'm talking about just the change to the card's value in the slab vs out of the slab since technically the card is completely unchanged.

73' Shell
 

Shell card has no business in a 10. 3 print marks on back with a print dot in the green emblem on front. Bottom corners do not come to a point. First grade was accurate. 8.5 tops.

I am not sure if the 2nd card is the same card. Possibly a bad scan. Markings do not seem to match up but nevertheless this card is a 7.5 at best. Just from the scan you can tell 3 corners have touches. 7 was an accurate grade.

In my opinion, the way PSA has continued to handled this debacle has significantly hurt their credibility as a company who provides a quality service.

Also consider this. In my opinion the '73 Shell looks like an 8, so the latest buyer overpaid by about $3100. But there's also another victim. The 1973 Topps Art Shell PSA 10 is now a pop 2. The other PSA 10 card has, at least theoretically, now been significantly devalued since the supply has now artificially doubled.

By the way, whether many people know this or not, many deleted CU Board threads do get saved by Google's webcache feature.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Thank you for pointing this out. Can you post the other pages of the thread? I can't search it from an iPad. Thank you

Dan, he didn't overpay. He got exactly what he wanted -- a PSA 10 to add to his registry set. If he cared about the condition of the actual card, he could have returned it, or sent it to PSA to review. Instead, he added it happily to his registry set. We always say, buy the card, not the label, but there are folks to whom the label is just as -- or more -- important.

Sad, but very true. That's part of what I meant by the title of this thread, "This is the problem with grading..."

The grading companies have taken a hobby and turned it into a competition. And we wonder why many kids take no interest in this hobby?

Grading didn’t turn this hobby into a competition it’s been competitive as are most hobbies car, art, gem, rare book collecting etc.

What grading companies did was find a way to capitalize on the underlined competition.

Some collectors choose to get caught up in this and some not so much, but at the end of the day the very root of all collecting has a competitive side grading companies didn’t create that. You’re giving these guys too much credit.

Cheers,

John

Not all who collect PSA/SGC/Beckett cards do it to compete. There are some that do & good for them.
And a bunch like myself are content getting the cards we like at the prices we can afford.
And I'm not sure about the parallel about grading companies being a detriment to kids collecting.
I'd give more blame to card companies that retail packs at $5, $10, $20 and higher.

Jay +1

When I was a kid $10 bucks bought you a full box of packs....I woudl rip packs for hours....

I remember hitting a card shop when I got back from Japan in my early 20's and seeing the prices...saying what kid has $5 bucks a pack? Crazy.

Cheers,

John

Let me be devil's advocate for a moment. As I said elsewhere (sort of).

If these registry guys want to collect the number on the plastic, who cares? I think it's great they are having fun and not hurting people. I am very happy with the way I collect and I am sure they are happy how the collect too. It's their money.

+1

I'm in the care less camp as well. Hey knock yourself out if you want to pay 100k for a PSA 10 1978 Topps common enjoy. :)

I've had the pleasure of speaking with one of the biggest "registry" collectors on many occasions and I can tell you matter-of-factly that he gets the same kid on Christmas morning feeling that the rest of us get when he adds something to his collection.

What's the first thing most collectors will suggest when someone new comes into the hobby? Collect what you like and spend what you can afford.

I marvel at the amounts of money these folks spend, but I would never fault them for spending their money however they see fit. As an added bonus, the big money purchases often bring media attention to our hobby which can only be a good thing in my opinion as it often brings new collectors into the hobby.

As John said collectors have always been competitive, but what the grading companies have done is allow collectors to quantify that competition.

In the old days you and I could have both had raw T206 sets, and maybe I looked at yours and thought mine was better, and you looked at mine and felt your set was the better one. Who knew? We may have both been competitive but we couldn't really determine for sure who had the better collection because there were simply too many variables.

Today, if my set averages 5.1 and yours averages 5.3, the discussion is over. According to the rules of the game, you have the better set. And maybe that appeals to collectors a whole lot. They like to take the guesswork out of competing. Quantifying it makes things more precise.

Of course, the joke is that grading is so subjective to begin with that this illusion of precision is just that: an illusion that collectors buy into hook, line, and sinker. You can't blame the TPG for coming up with this incredible marketing tool for themselves.

It could also be that buying a bunch of cards of various conditions (and eye appeal) encased in uniform, brand-new slabs, gives them more of a 'new card' appearance - sort of like pulling brand new cards out of a pack as a kid. You're getting old stuff that in a way looks like new stuff. I can see that.

Condition of of course is important to everyone in some shape or form, but I was one of those collectors who didn't care if my card was perfect. I didn't and don't comprehend why someone would would pay 3x more for a Mint card over a Nrmt-Mt card. In fact, the obsessive search for 10s sounds like the symptom of a psychological condition to me. I'd like to see a professional psychological profile of people who do this. Maybe something happened to them as children. Maybe a medication could help.

On the other hand, this board is primarily about Pre-War cards where Mints or Near Mints often don't exist for an issue. A different outlook than if you were trying to finish a 1984 Topps set.

Though I have to admit way back when when someone said he was going to try and finish an entirely graded SGC 1977 Topps set, my first thought was "Are you insane?"

And the first time I heard someone use the term 'Gem Mint' I thought he was trying to be funny.

That's only according to the rules of the players playing that game, and even then, for many vintage sets, backs can throw the entire thing off - a T206 Red Hindu back in a 2 holder is worth more than a Sweet Cap back in a 4, but the 4 will win that silly game.

Flip-collecting can really throw off the fun of letting your own personal tastes and creativity get involved. I hear people say they are looking for '3's, '4's, etc., and while not true for all, there are some collectors who really only care if the flip has the number that they are looking for. Not my way of collecting, but to each his own.

For whatever reason, some pages only have one or several posts, but here’s the rest:



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a





Another relevant “poofed” thread



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a

if they collect the number, then take the card out of the holder and sell the numbered holder.

i have the number 6 on sale right now, only 3,000 dollars. pretty cheap considering.


buying any modern card produced in enormous qty, most in superb collectable condition , just because of the number 10 on the holder, and buying it for 10's of thousands of dollars is stupid.

It used to be everyone knew what stupid was. now we disagree because everyones feelings are hurt at the drop of a hat?

Peter,

There's no dispute that there's an abundant amount of truth to what you wrote. But it's my opinion that a lot of collectors have bought into the marketing aspect of third party grading without scrutizing all the "technical" aspects of this type of service to the extent of what has been revealed on this message board over the years.

Here's one example of a quote from PSA's website:

"By providing the advantage of protection of impartial, third-party grading, PSA has created a market in which collectors can participate with complete confidence and trust."

What I highlighted in bold speaks volumes in itself. I believe there are collectors who buy 10s and even don't bother scrutinizing the condition of the card since they base all of their trust and confidence in PSA anyway. Undoubtedly some will say, "If PSA says it's a 10, then it is".

http://www.psacard.com/about/why_psa_and_psadna.chtml

I don't think there's any question there are collectors who do have complete trust and confidence in PSA as the result of beng indoctrinated into this intense, on-going marketing campaign. PSA devotes a lot of their energy bragging about how many record sales were attained, but I don't recall ever reading anything regarding how they've improved their methods of alteration detection, etc.

But as I've said before, nobody has ever graded the graders. What's the measurable reliability of how good they are at what they do? Are they 99.9% accurate or only 75% accurate? Obviously when there is a lot of money involved it makes a difference - at least to me.

The good news, if there is any, is that from talking to guys who submit a lot, PSA tends to undergrade a lot more than they overgrade. And the frequency with which grades change on resubmission suggests to me that multiple graders are NOT looking at each card.

I don't know if PSA is accurate 99.9% of the time or 75%, and suspect it is somewhere in between. But what I do feel is they have to be better at what they do. There's no shame in that, every company strives to put out a better product.

I don't know Joe Orlando personally but I know he reads this board. If he's truly committed to having PSA do the best job possible, he might want to start by taking a look at the Art Shell PSA 10 and see if he can figure out why that card was so badly misgraded. Perhaps he could find the grader who gave it a 10 and try to understand why it happened. Even Joe would have to agree that 10 was a mistake, and that PSA needs to try to avoid these issues as much as possible. Graders simply need to do a better job. All businesses face that problem at some point.

Barry -- PSA is actively denying there is any issue with the Wagner. Addressing that would seem a bigger priority than an Art Shell card.

Fair point Peter. My guess is they will address it down the road. However, that's a complicated issue, the Art Shell is a simple matter of quality control. It's a good starting point, not an end all.

According to the PSA grading process, it isn't "a" grader. It takes at least four graders all agreeing that it is a 10.

"Each grader receives the order and they will enter the order number into the computer. Once that is done, the contents of that order will appear on the PSA grading screen. Grader #1 will then enter his grade for the card in question (and for each card within the order until the order is completed if there is more than one card) and close the order on his screen. Once that is done and after redistribution of the order, Grader #2 will do the same – not knowing the opinion of the first grader on any of the cards within that order.

If their grades match in the computer, the card would then eventually reach a 3rd grader for verification of the grade. If the opinion of the first two graders does not match, that card will be assigned to a 3rd grader whose opinion is required to break the tie, so to speak. As with the first example, the card would still be assigned to another grader for verification (a 4th grader in the process) to make sure the grade is accurate and consistent with our standards."

Then there is the verification step in which yet another person has to agree with the grade:

"After the cards have been sealed in the PSA holders, they are then sent to the Grading Verification stage. As mentioned earlier, this is where another grader will check the orders for accuracy and consistency in relation to PSA standards. If the cards appear to meet PSA's guidelines, the order is then sent on to the next step in the process. If any of the cards do not appear to meet the standards, the card is then removed from the holder and re-evaluated by our staff."

I know that they do a tremendous volume, but policy is policy and steps shouldn't be skipped even when cards are being evaluated at a convention. This probably goes doubly for cards graded a ten. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the process and policy states that for a ten to be assigned, encapsulated and returned to the submitter, at least four PSA graders have to agree that the card is a 10.

Yes, this is perplexing indeed in regards of what has been brought to light on this thread. This was brought up on a CU thread about a week ago and for some unexplicable reason the thread was deleted.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Good points Barry. This isn't rocket science. There are ways of improving quality. I work for a Fortune 500 company and we have programs like a Six Sigma which if implemented correctly can vastly improve reliability and quality. There's no reason something like that can't happen here.

Thanks Dan, and I really think it is no more than a quality control issue. Too much is at stake financially to be this careless. When a grader has the ability to turn a $50 card into a $3000 card, he really needs to be absolutely certain he can justify the grade. Frankly in this situation I don't think he can. It was plainly and simply a mistake.

So what's being done about this? Nothing is all I hear. Just shut your mouths and accept it is what I get out of this. Am I wrong here:confused:

I was wondering the same thing myself...

Threads like this ironically encourage resubmissions -- gee, maybe I can get a 10,too! -- and probably up PSA's bottom line.

Valuing PSA 10s so high is a market-based phenomenon. Until collectors stop looking at 10s like they're finding hidden gold, why would PSA change a thing?

If I'm PSA, I apologize for quality control issues, say all the right things publicly. And then go right back to doing the same darn thing.