Am I the only one who thinks the difference between PSA 9's and 10's is crazy?
 

I can understand even double the price or maybe triple cuz of the premium...But in alot of cases the difference is 5 to 10x....Seems crazy to me. But maybe its just me. I get a 10 is perfect, but a 9 looks pretty damn good.

Yeah, it is crazy. But so is the difference between a 7 and 9, or 6 and 8, etc etc

I'm not sure how I would use the search function to find them, but we have had countless discussions of this topic, you may not get many responses just due to fatigue.

Sorry I'm a newbie..my apologies...Do u agree it's crazy tho?

The price and population difference usually have a direct correlation. When this is taken into account it's not so crazy. But yes it's hard to justify simply looking at the difference in the quality of the card as it's often hard to see a difference at all.

It's because the 10's come with bragging rights, and that's worth a lot of money.

As a collector yes, as an investor no because investors buy flips not cards and as Jesse said flip values are driven by populations and set registries and, frankly, egos.

So u guys think from an investment standpoint I should invest in 10's over 9's

I would take a 10 over a 9 of it's in the budget for most cards, especially if you're doing so for investment purposes. This could backfire if a scandal forced PSA to go under though.

Ya..its like...I can get a PSA 9 for 45 bucks....or a PSA 10 for 350 plus...seems crazy

+1 on the egos

Frankly, half the time I can't tell the difference between an 8 and a 10, let alone a 9.

just seems like there is much more room for growth as an investor to a 9...how much crazier can a 10 get than a 9? 25x the value?

Sounds like you're talking mostly about modern PSA 10s. Don't pay 10x premiums for PSA 10s from 1980 to today. Get the 9 and save the money.

*double post*

i mean...for instance a 1981 Joe Montana rookie...a graded 4 is book value 50 bucks(not very good condition really)...an 8.5 is 300...6x the value and a massive difference in condition. While a 9 is 1000, and a gem mint 10 goes for 14,000(a very minor difference in condition). i mean it is what it is, just seems a bit much

I see no logic to that at all. You're assuming your conclusion that 10 values are crazy.

And yet that's what it is. You're imposing collector values is your mistake.

Buy what you like and can afford. A PSA 9 Montana is an outstanding card that would look great in any collection. Just think of all the other cards you can purchase with the money you saved over a 10. With the naked eye you’ll never see the difference.

on 10s
 

seems like a relatively new sport is to submit a stack of 9s for review, hoping to catch one or two to be upgraded to a 10.

i have perhaps one hundred or more 58 and 59 topps cards for example in 9 and have been tempted because tens bring lunar prices.

Don't let your head spin too much over BGS 10 "pristine"

I thought that was a new angle too but apparently that has been going on since shortly after the birth of grading, from countless stories I have been told.

There is always a risk of a market-crashing bubble popping. I figure it's like a big earthquake in the S. F. Bay Area (where I live). Eventually it's going to happen to those exponentially-high 9's and 10's. Might be next year, might be a decade away.

Simple economics
 

MOst of this has been said already:

Simply supply and demand economics drive this - when there are more buyers than cards in a given grade, it drives prices higher. Less cards in a given grade than buyers, drives the prices down.

Problem - The "investors" buy the flips"
Opportunity - Buy the card not the flip at any grade level - Not all 7's, 8's, 9's or 10's are created equal.

Question - are you buying for enjoyment, investment or some of both? More for enjoyment - buy the lower grades with great eye appeal. Investment - the higher grades with great eye appeal. both - well, you are going to have to figure out the balance that works for you!

For me - I pay strong for cards in high grade with an absolute lack of supply - An example would be a PSA 7- 9 copy of cards where there are only 20 or less graded (in any grade). I don't pay strong for a graded 7-9, where there are hundreds or thousands of total graded copies

Pretty well-stated by Pete. It's all in whether you are interested in substance or hype, fluff and especially ego. With cards that are plentiful in higher grades--say 7 or higher--there is no way that you can truly say that you're actually buying the card, rather than the plastic holder and paper slip inside. There is just not anywhere near as much substantive difference between a "9" and a "10" as the price difference would indicate. You'll notice, I believe, that the percentage increase between grades is not nearly so large in cards that are rare and significant in any grade. That having been said, I wouldn't expect the situation to change anytime soon.

Happy collecting to all,

Larry

Then why respond at all PS?

I agree. Everyone wants the "best" so they go for a 10. In reality, imo, there is no difference except the number on the paper.

How great would it be if each flip showed the card's grading history?

Seriously I think many people fail to appreciate how the same cards have gone through many grades before their final destination.

I personally know of one card that was re-subbed 6 times and went from a PSA 6 to PSA 10.

I knew of one, and I may not get this exactly right, that went something like 4 6 rejected 5 rejected 7. I know of a Seaver rookie that went up the ladder 8 9 10. And so on.

The whole system seems crazy to me when a "1" can be a card soaked in diesel fuel and driven over by a tank OR a nice-looking card with rounded corners and some paper loss, whereas the difference between a "9" and a "10" requires an electronic microscope to determine. If the scale is 1 to 10, shouldn't the gradations between them be at least somewhat similar?

Seems to be true...if u are collecting for yourself a 9 is waaaaay more sost effective and seems to be identical to 10's to the naked eye... 10's are for making money(for the most part).. I get people like to have the best, but thats my point, seems like at that point you are paying for the holder

But grading cards by use of descriptors (EX, Mint, Poor, etc. etc.) predates TPGs, unless I'm severely mistaken. I'm not sure when the grading scale terms entered into the hobby (much less became the standard), but I believe it was a long time before the same terms became associated with the number scales attached to them by TPGs. In that way, the TPGs didn't create the system, they just codified it with numbers.

I'd guess that one of the early hobby publications might be the source of the grading system, but it may have even started earlier. I am pretty sure there are people on this board who can help with when and where it all started (and even any influences from other hobbies - coins, perhaps?).

And considering the long history of the grading system in place, the current terminologies (regardless of having numbers associated or not) have likely been very deliberately created to not have evenly distributed or smooth gradations.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing it was borrowed from coin collectors.

I have read that way back in the day, guides did not even list a Mint grade. For older cards, that may be a creature of the card doctors.

Authentic is a problematic grade, I and I think could be labelled/noted differently. Noting why it got the grade is important.

There indeed wide ranges for Poor 1 grade-- I certainly have noticed--, but this is a case where you, the buyer, look at the card.

Understand how it works in practice, just commenting on how odd an outsider might find a system whereby two of the same cards, each graded a "1" for its condition, could have absolutely nothing in common in terms of condition.

Well, they say that great minds think alike...


so should it probably hold true that 'not so great' minds (graders) do not.

Interesting proposition, Pete. I acquired a 1957 Topps #1 Ted Williams at the National in Cleveland in SGC Near Mint to Mint plus, apparently because it has a near microscopic black smudge on the back. Otherwise, the card is very nearly perfectly centered with perfect corners (probably from one of Mr. Mint's unopened finds) and appears to be either a "10," or at a minimum, a very, very strong "9." Since I got it and a PSA 9 Santo rookie for $3,100 total, and the Williams in "9" has generally been going for around $7500, the idea has certainly crossed my mind to break it out and resubmit it 6-10X if necessary to attempt to get that mint 9 designation. Hmmm...

Best always,

Larry

I too would like to see the reason for the "authentic" grade noted on the slip. More information would definitely be helpful.

Highest regards,

Larry

I agree. I have seen 1s that are nice looking and 1s that were pemmican.

Yes, but how did they taste?

70 Frank Robinson 10 = 6 grand... 70 Frank Robinson

The lower the grade the more likely the more difference in visual look. To me, it's the 8s, 9s and 10s that look the same, or close to it. I can't imagine paying a ton more for a card that looks the same or worse than another (in those high grades).

Kool-Aid!!

Keep drinking it in people!

I am in favor entirely of grading and all that comes with it …. what seems odd is how Collecting Public views it


"I am altering the deal …. PRAY I don't alter it any further"

Maybe people buy the 10s or 9s because they tend to go up more in value? Not everyone views buying high grade cards as throwing out money, especially if the cards have a higher return on their investment.

IMHO, the above statement is far too much of a generalization. It is much more likely in the long run that those cards which are significant and scarce to downright rare in any of the higher grades at all will go up substantially in value, while those "elite" level cards which are readily available in only slightly lesser grades are highly unlikely to even hold their present stratospheric values. Which card stands a better chance of being worth 10X or more what was paid for it in 10-20 years--my 1929 R316 Mel Ott rookie, one of just two graded PSA 7, with none higher, or the heavily dissed--oops, I mean discussed--1993 SP Derek Jeter in PSA 10? And that's not even taking into account the fact that Ott was clearly the far better player by virtually any objective measure which takes into account the player's worth compared to the average player of his time and different playing conditions in different eras.

As of this moment, PSA has graded 3,924 Jeter 7's; 280 Jeter 7.5's; 8,380 Jeter 8's: 281 Jeter 8.5's; 579 Jeter 9's; and 22 Jeter 10's. As another member posted, PSA tends to be very harsh on these cards, downgrading them quite a bit for the smallest of imperfections, which also means that there is not a whole lot of actual difference between an "8," or even a "7.5" and a "10." My bet is that over time, the PSA 10 Jeter will suffer the same fate as the very highest graded coins (grades 60-70 are all part of the "mint" spectrum in coin grading) which are desirable but readily available in just slightly lesser grades--after their initial surge, those "elite" level coins tended to fall the farthest and fastest.

Just as in coins, where there is very little substantive difference in the item being slabbed and graded, and the item is not at all hard to obtain in only slightly lesser numerical or technical grade, the proposition that the holder and the paper slip justify an immense difference in price in and of themselves simply won't last all that long. Instead, reality will hit hard--very hard!

Just sayin,

Larry

The last baseball card
 

To me the last baseball card is the 1975 Brett rookie, and that's still sort of a laugh. I've seen the prices for the Alex Bregman cards and know the hobby is in good hands.

The Rickey Henderson rookie has a multiplier of like 100x.

The 93 Jeter is the closest card to a 52 Mantle in the modern era. The most popular card of the most popular and collected player of the era. And he played for the Yankees and won several titles. That seems to matter more in the collecting world than being the better player. There are guys who played in Mantle's era you can argue were better players, but their cards will never match his in terms of popularity or value.

Since I got back into collecting the 93 Jeter in PSA 10 has already gone from selling for 30k to recent sales of 75-100k. While I'm certainly not a hobby expert I have a fair amount of knowledge and haven't heard of the Ott card you mentioned. How much has its value changed over the same time period? Without looking it up I would guess less than the 2.5-3× the Jeter has increased by. And I would place my bet on the Jeter having more long term potential.

I have a couple of 8s that look perfect to my eye.

I would assume the above post was made with tongue thoroughly in cheek. That would be incredibly sad if you never heard of Mel Ott, who was in fact the second best player in Giants' history, with an OPS+ neck and neck with Aaron and Mays. With regard to the Ott rookie, I purchased if for a bit over $1400 in a PWCC auction this spring, and have already received an offer to purchase it for a total amount of $2100, going through PWCC. You need to do some research into the coin collecting field, where there are many analogous situations to the popular but readily available in high grade Jeter. It may take awhile, but there is no way this card--auctioned by PWCC for $99,000+ a short time ago, is going to be worth 10X that in any existing member of this board's lifetime. Instead, as in popular but similar pop report coins, it will have its' time in the sun and then fall precipitously. It may cycle upwards and then fall again, as is the situation with analogous coins, but to think it fall into the category of a good investment? Maybe the sun will start rising in the west and setting in the east!

Best of luck in your collecting,

Larry

Jesse in fairness did not say he did not know Mel Ott, he said he did not know that particular card.

That's the thing -- when the difference can only be seen with a loupe, do we really care?

Ha yes I have heard of Mel Ott, just not the card mentioned.

My point was that if I haven't heard of it, chances are many other collectors have not as well. I would take my chances with the most popular card of an era over an obscure card without a lot of demand, in terms of long term appreciation potential.