[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

To me, this illustrates one of the most troubling aspects of card grading: the allegations of preferential treatment based upon whom the submitter is.

In this case it is conceivable (but not probable) that greenmonster did not impart the same information to PSA/DNA as he/she did to the auction company, and the auction company was able to provide more information to PSADNA to show provenance and gain an authentication the second time around.

Too often, though, we hear about auction owners advising potential consigners to be the ones to submit cards so as to maximize the grade, and I often wonder how many of the overgraded cards I see are mistakes and how many represent favoritism to the large dealer that first submitted it.

The reason it concerns me more than grading/authenticating of altered cards is that 1) it’s so difficult to prove and 2) it’s natural to assume that the grading companies want to take care of their big dealers. To be fair, PSA seems to be the company most rumored to practice this, but can we be sure that any company clawing for market share won’t submit to this temptation to stay in business?

It’s easy to say “buy the card, it the holder,” but in truth many of us rely at least a little on the grading company to provide a little guidance when we have only a scan to make a judgment on.