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?
|
Travis you are spot on with your observation. I put the 1952 set together 8 years ago and had a grade average of 6.5. I am now putting the set together again and the difference in grades is shocking. PSA has tightened up the standards by about 1.5-2.0 on most cards. That is why I am putting this set together using only recently graded cards. My average grade for this set will be around 5.5 but it will be a far superior set to my first one. Is it just me or is the bulk of the grades now a 4??