[seanofjapan]

That was a really great video, I enjoyed the way you laid out the evidence, its quite convincing.

One question I have though is with the conclusion you reach that the evidence indicates that PSA grades key cards too harshly. It seems to me that the evidence you present is actually consistent with not one but two potential conclusions:

1) PSA grades key Mint cards way too harshly; or
2) PSA grades common Mint cards too lightly

This is a key difference. If it is #1, then it obviously raises serious ethical issues that you allude to at the end of the video, particularly that PSA is basically rigging the market, may be using grading to favor certain customers or to entice resubmission of 9s, etc.

If it is #2, then the problem is that they are just being lazy with common cards and not subjecting them to the same level of scrutiny that they do with higher cards. This is obviously also problematic since it indicates poor quality control, but the ethical implications are also a bit more benign than if #1 is the case.

Its also of course possible that the data is a reflection of a bit of both of these going on at the same time. It seems to me that its likely a combination of the two. There are obvious incentives for PSA to do #1, while at the same time human nature and the temptation to be a lot more generous when the stakes are lower probably also contributes to #2. I guess one would need inside information to understand the relative importance of each.

Either way its quite interesting and certainly shows the stupidity of the hobby putting so much financial importance on what is essentially a totally subjective and arbitrary decision over the difference between a 9 and a 10.