Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
It really irks me every time I hear Nat Turner respond to questions about whether or not PSA has gotten more strict with respect to vintage grading. He always responds with this same "well some people think we've actually gotten more lenient, it just depends who you ask" nonsense. Then he just sorta laughs it off like we're all a bunch of idiots that don't know how to grade cards. That level of hubris is wild. Nobody that grades cards today thinks they've gotten softer on vintage grading. NOBODY. The only people that I've ever seen try to claim that are dinosaurs with a bunch of old cert cards who never grade today, and are disingenuously trying to protect their investments.
I could crack out and resubmit 100 random PSA 6s with cert numbers starting with a 0 or 1 and I'd be lucky to get even one 6 back in return.
Nat, if you're reading this, let's place a little wager if you're so confident that grading standards haven't changed for vintage. I'll crack out and pay for 50 random old cert vintage cards to get regraded across 4 separate orders. If they come back lower with statistical significance, then you have to donate $10k to a charity of my choosing. If they come back more than a full grade lower, then you owe $25k to the charity and have to retrain your vintage grading team to align with PSA's historical standards. But if they come back higher, by even just +0.1 avg or more, I'll donate $30k to the charity of your choice. It's a win win. What do you say?
|
As I like to say, 6 is the new 8. There were a couple of period in the past where they were RELATIVELY strict (0900 certs come to mind for some reason), but no chance has grading become more lenient.