How much grading has changed
 

I'm reminded daily how much tougher PSA and SGC are getting with grades. Nothing against this card, it's a nice WaJo. But, I wonder if this could get a 2 now, let alone a 3

https://www.ebay.com/itm/T206-Sweet-...ss!98665!US!-1

Lower-end 2, high-end 1.5

Which is precisely the reason for the oft-repeated phrase, "buy the card and not the holder." If it has a pleasing appearance to you when you buy it as a discriminating collector, chances are another will feel the same in the event you decide to sell it.

Best wishes,

Larry

I agree with Greg on this one.
1.5 with a purple sticker :) or a 2, today. Nice looking card though.

The inconsistency of the TPG'ers kinda renders their "opinions" useless...to me!!!

I opened the link expecting to see something I thought was VG, but honestly I'm surprised that ever got a "3." any one of the issues (heavily rounded corners, semi circle crease, light paper loss) could've dinged it to a "3" all of them together and I feel it's a "2" all the way.

Does anyone else have the experience of creasing a card the way the Wajo is? usually it's on the top and comes from pushing it into a holder to forecfully, and yes, I've done it. Instant semi-circle crease.

Are they tougher on paper loss now? I've seen cards with the same amount of paper loss on the back get a "1" and this one has it right on his chin which totally takes away from the eye appeal for me. I would not buy that card at a "3" price. The crease and rounded corners I don't mind at all and I'm not even sure I'd buy that at a "1.5" price because of where the paper loss is. Now, if the paper loss like that was on the back or somewhere else on the front (not on his face) and it was graded a "1.5" then that's right up my alley.

Just curious - do people think that the tougher grading today is 1) more strict adherence to the grading standards set years ago which haven't changed or 2) a shift in the grading standards from those originally set forth?

1&2 sound kinda the same to me??:confused:

So here is an interesting question; perhaps it should be it's own thread. But, for now I'll piggy back here; since PSA guarentee's their grades for lifetime; if you have a older slab PSA 10; that would never get a PSA 10 in today's world and you submit for a new holder, does it

a) get a new holder PSA 10
b) get a new holder - lower grade
c) get a lower grade and you get reimbursed for the difference

1 means that there were standards established, but perhaps early in grading there was more gray area for graders, and graders are now more strictly adhering to the established standards.

2 means that standards were established, but have shifted since then and are now something different.

1 is a change in the graders, 2 is a change in the grading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Pete may be saying that if it all comes out to the same place what's the difference.

Honestly, I think the standards were still very subjective. A "3" could have a crease. But, you rarely find a newly-graded "3" with a crease. On the higher end, PSA seems to be grading 10s like BGS now. The old 10s are now dropping to 9s.

The most subjective piece is the half grades. There are no standards or guidelines on how these are assigned. I had a few recent subs that clearly highlight a major shift in their grading trends. I will write a specific post when I can get scans and assemble my thoughts.

Depends on how you write the submission form. If you select "reholder" and the holder isn't tampered with, they take the 10 it originally is and print a new label and slab it.
If you select "review" and put a much lower grade in than the current grade, they are supposed to lower the grade. That would trigger the guarantee, and PSA would have to figure out the difference in values and reimburse you the difference. That's what I've talked about most recently in the T206 set thread that's ending tonight. Many of those 10s would be 7.5s or worse right now.

When I asked about a couple cards I thought were undergraded SGC said that the grade was cumulative. So while the ones I had were pretty nice as far as corners went and not bad for centering, they each had a small flaw or a couple flaws that reduced it to a lower grade. One I thought had a very generous grade when I really looked closely, had no other flaws. Just a light crease and some corner wear. It's VG, while the nicer looking card - well centered with better corners and a light erasure on the back is also VG. One looks better than that one doesn't.

There is no difference for where we are at, but I find the story of how we got here to be interesting. But I really don't know what that journey was like, as I was leaving the hobby in the 90s when grading really took off. I figured somebody else might know more about it.
And perhaps there may be a difference in the fact that as we look to the future and what grading may turn into, the two different possibilities I outlined might inform what is yet to be.

My wajo is a 3.5 because of the stain on the back. You can't tell me there is only a .05 difference lol. Horrible grading on that 3https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...cb431b98e4.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...fd74b7f2f1.jpg

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Your card looks like a 5.5 to my eye. However, with the slightly slanted top, it might take a couple of submissions to get into a PSA holder. They are getting really tight on "factory miscuts," cards that are not perfect rectangles. I had two Mantles that just got returned ungraded due to that type of miscut.

That's a 4.5 all day long

Do we know if PSA’s published grading standards have changed at all or do you gentlemen feel the more conservative recent grading is purely the result of the individual grader’s or the company’s discretion?