Quote:
Originally Posted by raulus
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.