[jchcollins]

I think it’s more frustrating now than it’s been in some time. While I think we can all agree that “BVG-esque” grading that is too easy / reminiscent of raw grading in the early 1990’s or even 80’s is no longer the standard - there is no reason for PSA today to be grading cards with decent centering, clean surfaces and just minor touches of corner wear 3’s and 4’s when as recently as earlier in the Lighthouse holder generation - the same cards were grading at least 2 points higher on average.

I don’t submit myself, but as an example - I bought a ‘63 Clemente in a PSA 4 fairly recently on eBay. The card is not perfectly centered, but I would imagine meets the criteria for at least a 6. The surface is clean, the color is bright, and the card has three NM corners and one that I would call probably EX at worst with a light ding. I wouldn’t expect it to be a 6.5 or anything, but….a 4? Really? I have scrutinized it up and down and I really see nothing that should prevent the card from having gotten at least a 5. In the early days of PSA (1990’s - maybe 2005) I could have seen it pulling a 6.

I get that the goalposts will always move in an industry where they will not change their written standards, but the “allowable” shift in reality based on subjectivity lets them get away with it. This has been PSA’s MO ever since they started. But at what point do you actually change the written rules when things seem to be missing so badly? I know, don’t answer that - they won’t.

To me this just means I’ll go back to looking for nice cards first and foremost over a number on a slab. I’m glad to have my 6-ish looking ‘63 Clemente that I got at a 4 price…the lesson once again for me is just to think that a lot of credence given to PSA is silly and pointless when the standard clearly fluctuates so significantly over time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk