[jchcollins]

All of this is just further proof of what many have contested for quite some time: Grading, beyond certain obvious agreed-upon standards at some point reaches a level of subjectivity that cannot be further defined. ALL of the big 3 are routinely inconsistent at least when it comes to details; I have some cards graded 6.5 that look worse than other 5’s. This has always happened, and will continue to happen with the way the current grading platforms work. While I can tolerate subtle inconsistency, my problem with a major grader such as PSA is how their consistency changes over the decades. Look at a vintage PSA 5 of say, an early 1960’s Topps card that was graded 25 years ago, and tell me if you think many of those would receive the same grade today?

While I still believe that overall, grading has helped the hobby and is a useful tool at a higher level, at some point the subtleties that exist in the system today are simply fallacies due to the inherent subjectivity in the process that is eventually reached.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk