Post-War PSA Grading
 

I recently started grading my cards. Most of my cards are pre-war. I had little experience with grading services prior and really don't want this to degenerate into a grading company bashing thread.

Regarding some post-war cards, there appeared to be several cards that appeared to be consistently more harshly graded. I started digging and noted the population reports show grading scarcities for these exact same cards ('52 Bartirome, '80 Henderson are two). In fact, Vintage Card Curators made a video on the grading scarcity anomaly regarding the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson.

Is this just me or does anyone else feel that grading companie(s) may be creating "high grade" scarcities for certain cards? I bet Jolly Elm has a word for this....

Don't know about the Henderson cards, but for the '52 Bartirome cards there is an alleged person that is/was going after and hoarding just those cards from the '52 Topps set, and therefore supposedly responsible for the dearth of them appearing for sale as opposed to similar hi-number series cards from that set. And is also supposedly why '52 Topps Bartirome cards typically go for higher prices than similar hi-number series commons.

That wouldn't seem to be a plausible explanation for '80 Henderson cards though as I don't believe they were SP'd, Topps cards were no longer being issued in series after 1973, and I'd never heard stories of anyone trying to hoard them.

I don't think they're deliberately holding back.

Most sets of that era have worse than expected centering etc. so very high grades won't always be common.
It may seem out of the ordinary, but when you think about who would be sending in commons from a very common set, they're probably very good at matching up their grading with PSA and only sending in the very best ones. With a popular card Like Henderson, anyone with a somewhat nice one will send it in hoping for a big grade. So many that aren't fantastic get graded.

If I remember correctly, the card is susceptible to tilted cuts. Or probably more accurately it was on the sheet slightly tilted so when it's cut properly the image portion is tilted in relation to the edges.

Looking at it another way
Consider the pricing. They charge more for more expensive cards, and a Henderson rookie could easily be sent in valued low with an expectation of an upcharge if it graded high.
8- 290
9- 2425
10- 125,250

8s probably fit well under one of their limits, so you'd expect if they were playing with the population, they'd do more 9s and the occasional 10 and upcharge.

Compare to a more typical card Mike Schmidt
8- 20
9-40
10- 375

All fit under a limit, so no potential for playing with the population.

With no real financial benefit to them from withholding 9s and 10s I'm not seeing why they'd do that.
I suppose long term, they might figure that having fewer of a popular card in a 10 would lead to more cards being sent in, but that's a bit of a stretch.

Forgot to mention those prices are from the PSA website, and probably are about what they'd use to figure an upcharge.

You bet your sweet bippy I have something for this situation. It will be part of my latest trilogy of 'New Collectorisms.'

If you haven't checked it out yet, go to post #50 to see Part 1:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=293235

Here's a sneak preview of Part 2:

Uppercrushment (also Starfoul)
The undeniable existence of a two-tiered grading system, wherein if you submit a valuable Hall of Famer and a common that are both in the exact same shape, the HOF’er will undoubtedly come back with a lower number on its slab than the nobody.

See also: Dearth Grader - the villainous way TPGs seem to purposely and consistently give lower, harsher grades to certain specific cards, creating a false scarcity of high grade examples.

There’s little question PSA has played games on high profile cards like the Henderson RC, Eddie Murray RC and others from that era. Vintage Card Curator has demonstrated the statistical anomalies associated with these cards by showing the ratio of 10s related to 9s as compared to other cards from the same set. PSA 10s of these cards represent some of the most overvalued cards in the hobby. People who spend for cards like these are buying the grade and not the card. $125k for a Henderson RC is complete insanity - same goes for whatever a PSA 10 Jordan RC is selling for these days not that I would know.

I don't see how Bartirome is a grading scarcity. There are 5 9s and 38 8s. Rutherford is a much tougher grade, no 9s or 10s and only 16 8s.

Rutherford and likley Bob Chipman due to centering. Although Rosen claims there was very few Rutherford's in his find.

The Rickey Henderson is definitely intentional, as has already been said. The 14 minute vid VCC's did on it leaves no doubt in my mind, and shouldn't in others as well.

Exactly this. Not many realize, I assume, that there are quite a few 52 Topps cards that don't have some 9 grades and even less 10's. They simply don't exist.
IIRC, Rosen mentioned something along the lines of there also being a line/mark across Rutherford's head?
I remember him also mentioning the rarity of the Rutherford cards too and when nice copies come up, they certainly sell for a premium, like this PSA 8 that sold last year for $14,400. Looking at SMR, an 8 is the highest graded (as Rats mentioned) as is Bob Chipman.
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...umbnail-071515
https://www.psacard.com/priceguide/b...952-topps/1129

+1. It is very difficult to see how these are not manipulated at this point.

What does the group feel is the motivation for manipulating the pop counts? Just to motivate submitters to keep sending more of them in?

Or is there some insider trading going on that gives them another incentive to undergrade some cards?

I believe this is the video I watched that was eye opening

The difference between a 9 and a 10 in many cases is astronomical in price differential. I can imagine how many 9's have been sent in to see if they would bump to a 10. Sad thing is that I have seen a lot of 9's in person that can be 10's any day of the week.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Personally, yes, I feel that grading companies are creating "high grade" scarcities. Whether they purposefully set out to do so is another question entirely.

It's somewhat likely that particular cards draw a higher degree of scrutiny from the graders. In some cases, the value difference between a 9 and 10 is tens of thousands of dollars. If you were the grader, would you take a little extra time to make sure the grade was correct?

I guess I’m still not understanding why there is manipulation there. Does the grading company somehow benefit from limiting the number of 10s that it slabs?

I totally understand the dramatic price differential as you work your way up the grade ladder, but I’m just not clear what incentive the grading companies have to somehow deliberately undergrade cards to limit the pop count at the upper echelons.

You do it with a star player and not a common. If there were 500 PSA 10 Henderson rookies right now they would probably sell for a few thousand dollars. Instead PSA 9's sell for thousands of dollars since there are very few 10's. There will be MANY more submissions of the card since 9's are not rare and are still bringing a big dollar. If PSA 9's were bringing $100 or less there would be much fewer submissions.

Look at the buzz it creates, the hype, the interest, the yearning to own a 10, the ever, although ignorant, praise PSA gets for being tough graders. There is more there that others can add but that is the gist of it I believe.

They also play favorites with their big customers as VCC has illustrated, in noting that high grades get disproportionately handed out to the largest submissions. You can see this in the serial number sequencing. Also, as others have noted, by restricting 10s on high profile cards it increases the “value” of the card and helps PSA keep its somewhat muddled reputation as the slab that is easiest to sell and generates the highest returns.

I should add that I collect PSA and SGC and raw and I do find it interesting how collectors like myself who basically know PSA has a lot of shady underhanded business practices still remain customers. It’s sort of unusual when you think about it at least when it comes to businesses that don’t have a monopoly. Although on second thought maybe it isn’t as unusual as I think.

Yes, that was my original question/concern....

The reasoning suggested by the others is certainly intriguing. And it is no doubt plausible!

To some extent, it does suggest that there would need to be a bit of coordination, planning, and masterminding behind the scenes. Based on the dim view that some around here take of the TPGs, I guess we can debate whether the TPGs possess the level of sophistication necessary to actually orchestrate such an operation, as they often seem to have plenty of challenges in just running their shop as it is.

I would also think that this level of masterminding would require a number of employees to be involved in it. And I guess I would halfway expect someone to come out as a whistleblower if it were happening. But on the other hand, maybe they are all too invested in the scheme to go there.

Ultimately, I’m not sure that I buy the manipulation theory, although I’m certainly also not going to dismiss it out of hand.

Vintage Card Curator did a similar video on the 1968 Topps Ryan rookie card (2nd series, not condition sensitive, not a short print).

He makes a compelling case for some sort of grade control. It is worth watching

Found it here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=

I agree that he makes a compelling case, at least after the first few minutes once he gets going a bit.

At the same time, I do think that his focus on the 9:10 ratio has the potential to be a little bit misleading. For example, if there was just one more piece graded a 10, then the ratio no longer seems so out of line. And if there were just 2 more, then it’s actually pretty close to landing where the rest of the cards land.

Calling for manipulation on the basis of having one or two fewer examples seems like it could be a bit of a stretch. While it’s certainly still possible, and given their other well-documented failings, I think we can all agree that PSA is by no means a paragon of virtue. But when the stats could be easily changed simply with one or two more examples, it seems like relying on those stats to make pretty damning accusations might be a bit aggressive.

Post-War PSA Grading
 

But...there's not 1 or 2 more examples. Maybe there will be someday, but his point in the video makes sense mathematically. In fact in looking at the pop since he made the video, I see where PSA has added two more 9 Ryan rookies to their "mint" totals. So his point is even further augmented.

I think the VCC videos are pretty convincing. Still I realize there are those who don't understand, and likely still more with big bucks tied up in PSA slabs that just don't care.

The '68 Ryan is a good example because it's not a rare or condition sensitive card. Noteworthy and valuable? Sure. But by the standards with which collectors have judged attainability on factors other than pure dollars for decades now - the Ryan RC is not remotely a tough card. Unlike even some of it's late 60's contemporaries (the '67 Denehy / Seaver, for example) there is a Ryan for every collector who wants one assuming they are willing to pay within a wide ballpark range of what different conditioned examples go for. So this is all just further evidence that there is no real reason in the population of the cards that this discrepancy between 9's and 10's is what it is.

PSA of course has the ultimate upper hand here. All of their grades issued are subjective judgment calls anyway, and the difference between a 9 and a 10 is even worse. Besides a notation on centering in their standard, it's pure subjectivity. When grading first got popular in the early 2000's, the difference was supposedly only the eye appeal that a 10 was a "mint plus" card. It was totally up to the whim of the grader - and clearly still is. (Maybe with some discreet corporate "guidance" now on certain cards?) "Gem" mint as a concept is virtually useless outside of the world of TPG's. And inside that world, there is nothing objective to bring back to PSA to hold them accountable, or to say that they are doing it wrong.

This is where you kind of have to digest your grading with a large grain of salt. People can believe whatever they want, but it's going to be a hell of a lot easier to get a PSA 10 on your 1980 Topps Rick Cerone than it is your Rickey Henderson.

I'm picking up what you're laying down. And I don't disagree.

My point is simply mathematical, that if there had happened to be 1 or 2 more of the PSA 9s that instead came out as 10s, then the results would be wildly different. Just because there's only 1 instead of 2 or 3 doesn't seem like a big difference in the pop counts. But perhaps it does to the person who has that 1 card, and paid a king's ransom for it.

In large part, the thrust of my argument is that statistics based on small sample sizes aren't particularly relevant. And 1 is a pretty small sample size.

Is it possible that PSA is manipulating pop counts? Absolutely. And with any luck, tomorrow some former PSA employee will come out and confirm as much.

Do the provided statistics alone prove it? I suspect that it probably depends on your viewpoint.

Your point on the small sample size with the Ryan is valid. I'm just saying, you have to know when a really nice card like that walks in - and some grader or team of graders is saying this is a 9, is it possibly higher? Like how many people get called in on that decision do you think? I would love to be a fly on the wall.

In this regard, the '80 Henderson is a better example of them pop controlling. There are currently 25 PSA 10's, and 2,115 PSA 9's. So about 1.18% of all "mint" Rickey rookies get 10's. VCC Keith's point is simply that that is waaaay out of whack compared to everything else in the 1980 Topps set. Much the same with the '68 Ryan, the '71 Topps Ryan...and lots of other vintage cards here and there if you are paying attention.

This is all kind of tongue-in-cheek amusing to me. I usually consider a PSA 6 a "really nice" vintage card. Most of those are going to have sharp corners, a nice surface with no creases, and maybe a mild (to me, anyway) centering problem. My own Ryan RC is a nicely centered raw example in the EX range, and I'm guessing my '80 Rickey Henderson might be a PSA 7 on a good day. Cards are my hobby and diversion. I will never pay on the level of what my house is currently worth just to say I own a PSA 10 of something.

What you're all forgetting in all this math is that the cards production was largely manual, and almost entirely manual at a few points during production.

Having a card set up slightly crooked, or slightly off center on the sheet, or even one color being slightly off making most of the print run be poorly registered for one card but not others is common.

Not sure how that plays into the discussion about the 9/10 ratio in the VCC video. Cards that were diamond cut, or printed with slight tilt or registration problems aren't going to be eligible for PSA 9 or higher anyway. Those all get weeded out at nice midgrade - maybe PSA 6/7 at best. The cards that they most notoriously control like the '80 Henderson and the '68 Ryan don't have sheet positioning or registration problems; I'm not sure about others.

I don't have access to all the PSA population numbers, but a good basketball card example that I feel is being manipulated is the Skybox E-X2000 #30 of Kobe from 1996-1997. When I was trying to buy one, there were 23 PSA10's and 682 PSA 9's. This card should not be that rare in high grade. And the difference in price between a 10 and a 9 is now astronomical. VCP lists the PSA 9 current average sales price as $1134 while the PSA 10 is $22,625. This is due primarily to the low population and desirability of that card in a 10.

Exactly. Even with modern, above a 9 for sure and there is a strong argument you are more about the flip than you are the card. The desire for the pop and slab you want are equal if nothing else with the desire of the eye appeal of the card.

Yes agree on the difference between a 9 and 10. Still can’t see how anyone in their right mind would pay market on a PSA 10 Henderson rookie. It’s just not a condition sensitive card the way, say a 79 Ozzie Smith RC is. That card is next to impossible to find without a left leaning tilt, not to mention low top-to-bottom centering.

jcollins does a good job covering the most compelling elements of VCC’s analysis, particularly the ratio of gem mint grades in high profile examples, the Henderson being particularly compelling as compared to all the other cards in the set combined. VCC also has a good video on 71s and how Ryan and other star cards are very lean on the % of 9s and 10s compared to the rest of the set. His recent video on the 10/10 PSA DNA 89 Griffey UD rookie fiasco is also very compelling. It just seems like certain big customers got handed some sweetheart deals on a card that was once selling for an absurd $50k before the population suddenly went up 10x or something like that and dropped the market price to a less-absurd-but-still-absurd $7k. It’s some great muckracking on his part and while his math is not always on point, he lands a lot of uppercuts in his videos for sure.

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

It's not just sheet position, it's how the card is positioned on the sheet, or on the camera ready art. Topps wouldn't notice a small difference in spacing between cards, like if it was half a mm off to one side or another. But once cut, that small difference will make centering less than perfect on every example of that card unless it's miscut just right.

The cutting and packing processes have a lot of their own hazards. Henderson can be on top of a cello, and there's one spot it can get tweaked just enough to put it out of being a 10.

I'm not seeing any real benefit to PSA to control grades. And even with some benefit, like more being sent in, there are still a lot of reason to think they don't do that.
Like... every grader would have to know not to grade certain cards higher than an 8 or 9. If that was really the case..
The graders who can't spot alterations would have to have a list of don't grade high cards memorized -Not likely.
In close to 30 years, none of those graders, even disgruntled fired ones have ever said anything, not even by accident. Nobody has that level of silence anymore. Not without serious legal backup or the threat of violence. And even then... People talk.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but most are about as legit as bat boy hanging out on the UFO with Elvis.

The argument on pop control and reference to Keith's video is only about 9's and 10's, and the fact that with certain cards (like the '80 Henderson) - there are a disproportionate amount of 9's among the total population of mint cards. Nobody is arguing that they are pop controlling by not properly grading non-mint cards.

It’s becomes more than just a conspiracy theory when backed by mathematical fact. Anyone who understands math and probability would understand that it’s hard to argue otherwise. VCC has presented overwhelming evidence. And this comes from somebody (me) who generally abhors conspiracy theory and is quite convinced that Oswald acted alone.

I feel like you might be under-appreciating PSA's interest in keeping low population counts in popular cards. And also over-appreciating what is necessary to keep those pops low. It's not something extremely nefarious they need to put in place. Just have management tell graders to scrutinize big vintage cards because 10s should be very rare, and/or require them to get approval by senior graders/managers before handing out 10s to major cards. I'm sure some type of oversight like that exists.

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson? And since not many really cared much about all of the Joe Nobody common cards they'd also gotten, those were likely to get stuck in a box or drawer and quickly forgotten. Thus, more likely to stay in pristine and perfect condition due to not being handled much at all.

Not enough conspiracy in this explanation for me.

LOL

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the conspiracy theory entertainment. Carry on! :D

Really well said. As far as the “star cards are handled more than commons” theory, it has merit but it fails to address the ratio of 10s to 9s conundrum. Since both 9s and 10s are all pack fresh by definition then how is the ratio of 10s to 9s so much higher for star cards in so many cases? It’s basically a statistical impossibility without manipulation taking place. At least it is for those of us who understand statistics and probability. Now excuse me while I go put on my tin hat for the day.

Post-War PSA Grading
 

This is beside the point. Yes, star cards like Mantles in the 60's and Reggies in the 70's, and Rickey's in the 80's were handled more, and thus more likely to survive today with signs of wear than some of the Joe Schlabotnik's and other commons that were put in a box the same day and remain pack fresh, NM-MT or higher.

The arguments for PSA pop control that have been put forward are based on cards that are already in Mint condition. Nobody is saying that PSA is giving cards that should be "Mint" only 7's or 8's. They are simply pointing out that if a card is "Mint" (a 9 or 10) already, in some very suspicious cases there are waaaaaaay less 10's for say, the Rickey Hendersons or Nolan Ryans of the world than there are other common cards in the set. So a card that was handled, traded, walked around showing off isn't going to be a 10, no. But it's not going to be a 9 either, and probably not even a 7. Acknowledged that for the vast, vast majority of vintage cards - getting a 9 is a pretty rare thing anyway.

Probability has little to do with manufacturing processes. The processes are designed to make identical objects, and when those processes fail they make identical objects that don't meet specs. Especially specs developed later that they were never intended to meet.

The video link above only went to a video saying something like you tube doesn't work on this machine. A nice prank, but not a card video.

Another strange thing in all this is that the very high profile cards in prewar often get graded higher than a similarly damaged common would be graded.

I suppose they could have oversight on cards that the grader thinks are 10s, but it seems like a lot of fussing around for little benefit.
They have no direct benefit, unless you think they get kickbacks.
In fact, they have a direct loss on a Henderson that's a 9 instead of 10 because of the difference in grading fee.

Current grading fee on a 10 = 5000
Current grading fee on a 9 = 150

A bit over 33x as much.

The money left on the table if all 2119 9s were actually 10s.
$10,277,150.
even if it was half of them, that's a lot to spend on a "maybe people will send in more of a card they already send in a ton of"

5 Million would buy years worth of more effective advertising.
And considering that some cards would be down graded further into the 8 category it could be much more.

I'm just not seeing it from a business standpoint.

And that people will send in that card without really looking at it... just look at how many there are graded 2 and 3. Who the heck sends in a 1980 anything thats a 2? Apparently 129 people did. and even more, 398 threes.

The total number of 10s divided by the number of cards in the set is a bit over 24, a fairly close match with the 25 population of PSA10 Hendersons.

Post-War PSA Grading
 

The argument presented re: math / ratios in the videos referenced are about the subjective awarding of 9's v. 10's to truly mint cards, not the manufacturing process, or cards that don’t get 9's or 10's because they aren't truly mint anymore and thus did not deserve them. You can certainly choose not to believe that PSA is doing anything intentionally with the rest of it, but right now it seems we are still trying to compare apples to oranges. The argument is that PSA is being biased between the (two) mint grades based on the very subjective bump of cards that are already 9's to 10's - not that sorry, just not that many cards deservedly get to true mint grades on their own, and thus they are "controlling" by somehow seeing flaws that aren't really there. Does this makes sense?

If they are pop controlling only the 10’s as alleged, then yes, your point that they are leaving a lot of money on the table in doing that would in theory be correct. Does anyone know how PSA handles this in reality if someone gets a 10 on a huge card and is unprepared to pay the hefty fee bump? Would they get the option maybe of taking the 9 and paying less? Surely not...

That is not what I'm suggesting at all regarding 7's and 8's. What I'm suggesting is there may be less 10's because they ended up with 9 grades due to extra handling. I don't get anything graded and still don't understand the differences between 9's and 10's. Are you saying the differences between 9's and 10's are onlyy for things that could never have anything to do with handling a card?

I may have overstepped in the way I stated about a star player card being traded, walked around, or shown off, to overly emphasize my point. But you know that someone who has a star card, versus an ordinary common player card, is much more likely over time to look at that star player card and end up handling it way more than any other cards in the set. And I'm not necessarily saying you guys are wrong, just wondering if this is a possible alternative reason for even a portion of the perceived grade disparity.

Or another thought, is it possible a TPG would funnel the potentially higher value star cards to only a select few, more experienced graders who have a finer, more discerning eye, in giving out 10's? Whereas the commons from the same sets go to the general grading population of the TPG, maybe not always as discerning as the in-house, experienced experts, and as a result maybe they give out few more 10's?

Yes. Bingo. This is exactly what I am saying. A "10" is the total fabrication / dream construct of professional grading. Both 9's and 10's are "Mint" cards. The bump from 9 to 10 is supposedly so that Mint cards with "extra eye appeal" or pop or whatever can be recognized for being extra special, (and so that TPG's can charge extra fees, and so that their slabs with 10's can garner additional ooh's and aah's.) The 10 was the original purple label sticker, or PWCC "E" designation. It means nothing other than an already Mint card is somehow "extra" minty. It is a total superlative if you will, that the TPG's pull out of thin air. In practice on their scale since PSA does not have a 9.5, the 10 is the ".5" to any other grade for the 9, and there is no super clear rhyme or reason other than perhaps centering as to how it is awarded.

So yes, the argument that they may legit be giving out 9's instead of as many 10's as with other cards in the rest of the sets in question is not based on the fact that maybe the 9's would show a microscopic bit more handling. If so, those cards wouldn't be 9's to start with. As simple as it gets, the argument here is "If they are both already Mint cards - why does Joe Blow get X percentage of 10's, and Rickey Henderson gets Y (much lower percentage)?

We could have a pile of 100 cards all Mint, and say fifty of them are 10's and fifty of them are 9's. Without the flips, could you tell which are the 10's? In classic Jolly Elm "guess the qualifier" style - of course not! Neither could the people who graded them an hour or a day later. It's a complete gimmick in the vast majority of cases where minute centering differences are not an obvious factor - and even then it's super arguable. And if you busted all the cards and sent them back to be graded again - you would likely end up with totally different results. So once again - the argument that they are from the gate being stingy with 10's v. 9's on marquee vintage cards suggests not that those cards don't meet specs for mint - but just that they don't want so many 10's. If people don't believe this is happening, fine. I just think that most people are not taking the time to understand the argument.

Yes, certainly. I think this goes to the "how the sausage is made" at PSA that we don't know. If they are pop controlling and a red light goes off when someone puts a "10" in the system for a certain handful of vintage cards, maybe it does go to a senior grading overlord or something. I would be interested to know how this works. But not super hopeful that I will soon, or ever - find out...

Again, I don't think you are quite understanding the benefits to PSA for having low pops on gem mint iconic cards. It's more than just "maybe more people will send cards to us." It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

Here's another link to the Henderson video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTMS1dmddc&t=216s

If it doesn't work and you care to review the video, simply go to Youtube and search "Vintage Card Curator Henderson." The video is approximately 14 minutes long. He goes through several different analysis to show the statistical improbability of 9s to 10s of the Henderson card (and 10s in general) relative to the rest of the set. At the time the video was made there were over 1,900 PSA 9 Hendersons and only 24 PSA 10s. The ratio of 9s to 10s is 81 to 1! For the rest of the set, the ratio of 9s to 10s is 2.4 to 1. If you understand statistics and probability, you can understand that this is difficult to reconcile logically without some behind-the-scenes wrangling involving the Henderson (and other high-profile cards). Some of the explanations are intriguing but ultimately fail to explain the above anomaly.

As for this suggestion that PSA is hurt financially by not rewarding more 10s, it's not entirely without merit, but if they gave all those 9s 10s, they would be a laughingstock and their brand would suffer, so the mathematics used there are faulty to say the least. I couldn't really follow the rest of the argument. But let's just say you'd make a fine defense lawyer for PSA.

Now this I'm on board with. I've always wondered how/why TPGs discern between a 9 and 10, or even worse if they do half points, add a third grade in there with 9.5's. Jolly Elm/Darren's other thread in this same forum, Certified, Qualified, and Glorified!!!, points out and shows how inane and inconsistent the high-end grading by TPGs can be. Meanwhile, look at the unbelievably vast differences in looks, condition, and appeal of cards graded at the lower end of the grading scale. Top end, the differences are so narrow (or non-existent) you can't see any light between them. At the bottom end some of the holes/gaps in condition between cards of supposedly the same grade are so big you could drive a Mack truck through them. I can see the potential for the possible manipulation of the grading system, what I don't get though is the why. TPGs artificially controlling the population of cards in certain grades doesn't directly benefit them over the long term, as far as I can tell. Are they doing this on behalf of certain collectors/dealers so they can take advantage of the market and get a big score, or is it more to preserve the value of cards already in the hands of certain collectors so that if more cards of similar high grade are suddenly found and graded it doesn't shrink the perceived value of those cards in the hands of those original collectors? I can understand the numbers and the perceived grading disparity, but without a why (motive) for the supposedly guilty parties (TPGs) doing this, it makes no real sense for the TPGs doing this without there being something in it for them. And anything suggested so far as a possible motive just doesn't seem that plausible for any TPG to go through the trouble of manipulating high-end grade pops of certain cards, at least not to me.

˄˄˄This person gets it.

Taking it one step further, if the Henderson RC followed the same 2.4 to 1 profile as the rest of the set, based on the number of PSA 9 Hendersons, there should be 792 PSA 10 Hendersons. Instead there are 24 (or is it 25 now?). Hmm.

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.