Post-War PSA Grading

[Zach Wheat]

I recently started grading my cards. Most of my cards are pre-war. I had little experience with grading services prior and really don't want this to degenerate into a grading company bashing thread.

Regarding some post-war cards, there appeared to be several cards that appeared to be consistently more harshly graded. I started digging and noted the population reports show grading scarcities for these exact same cards ('52 Bartirome, '80 Henderson are two). In fact, Vintage Card Curators made a video on the grading scarcity anomaly regarding the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson.

Is this just me or does anyone else feel that grading companie(s) may be creating "high grade" scarcities for certain cards? I bet Jolly Elm has a word for this....

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

I recently started grading my cards. Most of my cards are pre-war. I had little experience with grading services prior and really don't want this to degenerate into a grading company bashing thread.

Regarding some post-war cards, there appeared to be several cards that appeared to be consistently more harshly graded. I started digging and noted the population reports show grading scarcities for these exact same cards ('52 Bartirome, '80 Henderson are two). In fact, Vintage Card Curators made a video on the grading scarcity anomaly regarding the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson.

Is this just me or does anyone else feel that grading companie(s) may be creating scarcities for certain cards? I bet Jolly Elm has a word for this....

Don't know about the Henderson cards, but for the '52 Bartirome cards there is an alleged person that is/was going after and hoarding just those cards from the '52 Topps set, and therefore supposedly responsible for the dearth of them appearing for sale as opposed to similar hi-number series cards from that set. And is also supposedly why '52 Topps Bartirome cards typically go for higher prices than similar hi-number series commons.

That wouldn't seem to be a plausible explanation for '80 Henderson cards though as I don't believe they were SP'd, Topps cards were no longer being issued in series after 1973, and I'd never heard stories of anyone trying to hoard them.

[steve B]

I don't think they're deliberately holding back.

Most sets of that era have worse than expected centering etc. so very high grades won't always be common.
It may seem out of the ordinary, but when you think about who would be sending in commons from a very common set, they're probably very good at matching up their grading with PSA and only sending in the very best ones. With a popular card Like Henderson, anyone with a somewhat nice one will send it in hoping for a big grade. So many that aren't fantastic get graded.

If I remember correctly, the card is susceptible to tilted cuts. Or probably more accurately it was on the sheet slightly tilted so when it's cut properly the image portion is tilted in relation to the edges.

Looking at it another way
Consider the pricing. They charge more for more expensive cards, and a Henderson rookie could easily be sent in valued low with an expectation of an upcharge if it graded high.
8- 290
9- 2425
10- 125,250

8s probably fit well under one of their limits, so you'd expect if they were playing with the population, they'd do more 9s and the occasional 10 and upcharge.

Compare to a more typical card Mike Schmidt
8- 20
9-40
10- 375

All fit under a limit, so no potential for playing with the population.

With no real financial benefit to them from withholding 9s and 10s I'm not seeing why they'd do that.
I suppose long term, they might figure that having fewer of a popular card in a 10 would lead to more cards being sent in, but that's a bit of a stretch.

[steve B]

Forgot to mention those prices are from the PSA website, and probably are about what they'd use to figure an upcharge.

[JollyElm]

You bet your sweet bippy I have something for this situation. It will be part of my latest trilogy of 'New Collectorisms.'

If you haven't checked it out yet, go to post #50 to see Part 1:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=293235

Here's a sneak preview of Part 2:

Uppercrushment (also Starfoul)
The undeniable existence of a two-tiered grading system, wherein if you submit a valuable Hall of Famer and a common that are both in the exact same shape, the HOF’er will undoubtedly come back with a lower number on its slab than the nobody.

See also: Dearth Grader - the villainous way TPGs seem to purposely and consistently give lower, harsher grades to certain specific cards, creating a false scarcity of high grade examples.

[Kutcher55]

There’s little question PSA has played games on high profile cards like the Henderson RC, Eddie Murray RC and others from that era. Vintage Card Curator has demonstrated the statistical anomalies associated with these cards by showing the ratio of 10s related to 9s as compared to other cards from the same set. PSA 10s of these cards represent some of the most overvalued cards in the hobby. People who spend for cards like these are buying the grade and not the card. $125k for a Henderson RC is complete insanity - same goes for whatever a PSA 10 Jordan RC is selling for these days not that I would know.

[rats60]

I don't see how Bartirome is a grading scarcity. There are 5 9s and 38 8s. Rutherford is a much tougher grade, no 9s or 10s and only 16 8s.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't see how Bartirome is a grading scarcity. There are 5 9s and 38 8s. Rutherford is a much tougher grade, no 9s or 10s and only 16 8s.

Rutherford and likley Bob Chipman due to centering. Although Rosen claims there was very few Rutherford's in his find.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

I recently started grading my cards. Most of my cards are pre-war. I had little experience with grading services prior and really don't want this to degenerate into a grading company bashing thread.

Regarding some post-war cards, there appeared to be several cards that appeared to be consistently more harshly graded. I started digging and noted the population reports show grading scarcities for these exact same cards ('52 Bartirome, '80 Henderson are two). In fact, Vintage Card Curators made a video on the grading scarcity anomaly regarding the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson.

Is this just me or does anyone else feel that grading companie(s) may be creating "high grade" scarcities for certain cards? I bet Jolly Elm has a word for this....

The Rickey Henderson is definitely intentional, as has already been said. The 14 minute vid VCC's did on it leaves no doubt in my mind, and shouldn't in others as well.

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't see how Bartirome is a grading scarcity. There are 5 9s and 38 8s. Rutherford is a much tougher grade, no 9s or 10s and only 16 8s.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Rutherford and likley Bob Chipman due to centering. Although Rosen claims there was very few Rutherford's in his find.

Exactly this. Not many realize, I assume, that there are quite a few 52 Topps cards that don't have some 9 grades and even less 10's. They simply don't exist.
IIRC, Rosen mentioned something along the lines of there also being a line/mark across Rutherford's head?
I remember him also mentioning the rarity of the Rutherford cards too and when nice copies come up, they certainly sell for a premium, like this PSA 8 that sold last year for $14,400. Looking at SMR, an 8 is the highest graded (as Rats mentioned) as is Bob Chipman.
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...umbnail-071515
https://www.psacard.com/priceguide/b...952-topps/1129

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

There’s little question PSA has played games on high profile cards like the Henderson RC, Eddie Murray RC and others from that era. Vintage Card Curator has demonstrated the statistical anomalies associated with these cards by showing the ratio of 10s related to 9s as compared to other cards from the same set. PSA 10s of these cards represent some of the most overvalued cards in the hobby. People who spend for cards like these are buying the grade and not the card. $125k for a Henderson RC is complete insanity - same goes for whatever a PSA 10 Jordan RC is selling for these days not that I would know.

+1. It is very difficult to see how these are not manipulated at this point.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

+1. It is very difficult to see how these are not manipulated at this point.

What does the group feel is the motivation for manipulating the pop counts? Just to motivate submitters to keep sending more of them in?

Or is there some insider trading going on that gives them another incentive to undergrade some cards?

[AP34]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

There’s little question PSA has played games on high profile cards like the Henderson RC, Eddie Murray RC and others from that era. Vintage Card Curator has demonstrated the statistical anomalies associated with these cards by showing the ratio of 10s related to 9s as compared to other cards from the same set. PSA 10s of these cards represent some of the most overvalued cards in the hobby. People who spend for cards like these are buying the grade and not the card. $125k for a Henderson RC is complete insanity - same goes for whatever a PSA 10 Jordan RC is selling for these days not that I would know.

I believe this is the video I watched that was eye opening

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by raulus

What does the group feel is the motivation for manipulating the pop counts? Just to motivate submitters to keep sending more of them in?

Or is there some insider trading going on that gives them another incentive to undergrade some cards?

The difference between a 9 and a 10 in many cases is astronomical in price differential. I can imagine how many 9's have been sent in to see if they would bump to a 10. Sad thing is that I have seen a lot of 9's in person that can be 10's any day of the week.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

...Is this just me or does anyone else feel that grading companie(s) may be creating "high grade" scarcities for certain cards...

Personally, yes, I feel that grading companies are creating "high grade" scarcities. Whether they purposefully set out to do so is another question entirely.

It's somewhat likely that particular cards draw a higher degree of scrutiny from the graders. In some cases, the value difference between a 9 and 10 is tens of thousands of dollars. If you were the grader, would you take a little extra time to make sure the grade was correct?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Tomi

The difference between a 9 and a 10 in many cases is astronomical in price differential. I can imagine how many 9's have been sent in to see if they would bump to a 10. Sad thing is that I have seen a lot of 9's in person that can be 10's any day of the week.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I guess I’m still not understanding why there is manipulation there. Does the grading company somehow benefit from limiting the number of 10s that it slabs?

I totally understand the dramatic price differential as you work your way up the grade ladder, but I’m just not clear what incentive the grading companies have to somehow deliberately undergrade cards to limit the pop count at the upper echelons.

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by raulus

I guess I’m still not understanding why there is manipulation there. Does the grading company somehow benefit from limiting the number of 10s that it slabs?

I totally understand the dramatic price differential as you work your way up the grade ladder, but I’m just not clear what incentive the grading companies have to somehow deliberately undergrade cards to limit the pop count at the upper echelons.

You do it with a star player and not a common. If there were 500 PSA 10 Henderson rookies right now they would probably sell for a few thousand dollars. Instead PSA 9's sell for thousands of dollars since there are very few 10's. There will be MANY more submissions of the card since 9's are not rare and are still bringing a big dollar. If PSA 9's were bringing $100 or less there would be much fewer submissions.

[irv]

Originally Posted by raulus

I guess I’m still not understanding why there is manipulation there. Does the grading company somehow benefit from limiting the number of 10s that it slabs?

I totally understand the dramatic price differential as you work your way up the grade ladder, but I’m just not clear what incentive the grading companies have to somehow deliberately under grade cards to limit the pop count at the upper echelons.

Look at the buzz it creates, the hype, the interest, the yearning to own a 10, the ever, although ignorant, praise PSA gets for being tough graders. There is more there that others can add but that is the gist of it I believe.

[Kutcher55]

They also play favorites with their big customers as VCC has illustrated, in noting that high grades get disproportionately handed out to the largest submissions. You can see this in the serial number sequencing. Also, as others have noted, by restricting 10s on high profile cards it increases the “value” of the card and helps PSA keep its somewhat muddled reputation as the slab that is easiest to sell and generates the highest returns.

I should add that I collect PSA and SGC and raw and I do find it interesting how collectors like myself who basically know PSA has a lot of shady underhanded business practices still remain customers. It’s sort of unusual when you think about it at least when it comes to businesses that don’t have a monopoly. Although on second thought maybe it isn’t as unusual as I think.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by raulus

What does the group feel is the motivation for manipulating the pop counts? Just to motivate submitters to keep sending more of them in?........

Yes, that was my original question/concern....

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Yes, that was my original question/concern....

The reasoning suggested by the others is certainly intriguing. And it is no doubt plausible!

To some extent, it does suggest that there would need to be a bit of coordination, planning, and masterminding behind the scenes. Based on the dim view that some around here take of the TPGs, I guess we can debate whether the TPGs possess the level of sophistication necessary to actually orchestrate such an operation, as they often seem to have plenty of challenges in just running their shop as it is.

I would also think that this level of masterminding would require a number of employees to be involved in it. And I guess I would halfway expect someone to come out as a whistleblower if it were happening. But on the other hand, maybe they are all too invested in the scheme to go there.

Ultimately, I’m not sure that I buy the manipulation theory, although I’m certainly also not going to dismiss it out of hand.

[Zach Wheat]

Vintage Card Curator did a similar video on the 1968 Topps Ryan rookie card (2nd series, not condition sensitive, not a short print).

He makes a compelling case for some sort of grade control. It is worth watching

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Vintage Card Curator did a similar video on the 1968 Topps Ryan rookie card (2nd series, not condition sensitive, not a short print).

He makes a compelling case for some sort of grade control. It is worth watching

Found it here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=

I agree that he makes a compelling case, at least after the first few minutes once he gets going a bit.

At the same time, I do think that his focus on the 9:10 ratio has the potential to be a little bit misleading. For example, if there was just one more piece graded a 10, then the ratio no longer seems so out of line. And if there were just 2 more, then it’s actually pretty close to landing where the rest of the cards land.

Calling for manipulation on the basis of having one or two fewer examples seems like it could be a bit of a stretch. While it’s certainly still possible, and given their other well-documented failings, I think we can all agree that PSA is by no means a paragon of virtue. But when the stats could be easily changed simply with one or two more examples, it seems like relying on those stats to make pretty damning accusations might be a bit aggressive.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by raulus

Found it here:

At the same time, I do think that his focus on the 9:10 ratio has the potential to be a little bit misleading. For example, if there was just one more piece graded a 10, then the ratio no longer seems so out of line. And if there were just 2 more, then it’s actually pretty close to landing where the rest of the cards land.

But...there's not 1 or 2 more examples. Maybe there will be someday, but his point in the video makes sense mathematically. In fact in looking at the pop since he made the video, I see where PSA has added two more 9 Ryan rookies to their "mint" totals. So his point is even further augmented.

I think the VCC videos are pretty convincing. Still I realize there are those who don't understand, and likely still more with big bucks tied up in PSA slabs that just don't care.

The '68 Ryan is a good example because it's not a rare or condition sensitive card. Noteworthy and valuable? Sure. But by the standards with which collectors have judged attainability on factors other than pure dollars for decades now - the Ryan RC is not remotely a tough card. Unlike even some of it's late 60's contemporaries (the '67 Denehy / Seaver, for example) there is a Ryan for every collector who wants one assuming they are willing to pay within a wide ballpark range of what different conditioned examples go for. So this is all just further evidence that there is no real reason in the population of the cards that this discrepancy between 9's and 10's is what it is.

PSA of course has the ultimate upper hand here. All of their grades issued are subjective judgment calls anyway, and the difference between a 9 and a 10 is even worse. Besides a notation on centering in their standard, it's pure subjectivity. When grading first got popular in the early 2000's, the difference was supposedly only the eye appeal that a 10 was a "mint plus" card. It was totally up to the whim of the grader - and clearly still is. (Maybe with some discreet corporate "guidance" now on certain cards?) "Gem" mint as a concept is virtually useless outside of the world of TPG's. And inside that world, there is nothing objective to bring back to PSA to hold them accountable, or to say that they are doing it wrong.

This is where you kind of have to digest your grading with a large grain of salt. People can believe whatever they want, but it's going to be a hell of a lot easier to get a PSA 10 on your 1980 Topps Rick Cerone than it is your Rickey Henderson.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

But...there's not 1 or 2 more examples. Maybe there will be someday, but his point in the video makes sense mathematically. In fact in looking at the pop since he made the video, I see where PSA has added two more 9 Ryan rookies to their "mint" totals. So his point is even further augmented.

I think the VCC videos are pretty convincing. Still I realize there are those who don't understand, and likely still more with big bucks tied up in PSA slabs that just don't care.

The '68 Ryan is a good example because it's not a rare or condition sensitive card. Noteworthy and valuable? Sure. But by the standards with which collectors have judged attainability on factors other than pure dollars for decades now - the Ryan RC is not remotely a tough card. Unlike even some of it's late 60's contemporaries (the '67 Dehney / Seaver, for example) there is a Ryan for every collector who wants one assuming they are willing to pay within a wide ballpark range of what different conditioned examples go for. So this is all just further evidence that there is no real reason in the population of the cards that this discrepancy between 9's and 10's is what it is.

PSA of course has the ultimate upper hand here. All of their grades issued are subjective judgment calls anyway, and the difference between a 9 and a 10 is even worse. Besides a notation on centering in their standard, it's pure subjectivity. When grading first got popular in the early 2000's, the difference was supposedly only the eye appeal that a 10 was a "mint plus" card. It was totally up to the whim of the grader - and clearly still is. (Maybe with some discreet corporate "guidance" now on certain cards?) "Gem" mint as a concept is virtually useless outside of the world of TPG's. And inside that world, there is nothing objective to bring back to PSA to hold them accountable, or to say that they are doing it wrong.

This is where you kind of have to digest your grading with a large grain of salt. People can believe whatever they want, but it's going to be a hell of a lot easier to get a PSA 10 on your 1980 Topps Rick Cerone than it is your Rickey Henderson.

I'm picking up what you're laying down. And I don't disagree.

My point is simply mathematical, that if there had happened to be 1 or 2 more of the PSA 9s that instead came out as 10s, then the results would be wildly different. Just because there's only 1 instead of 2 or 3 doesn't seem like a big difference in the pop counts. But perhaps it does to the person who has that 1 card, and paid a king's ransom for it.

In large part, the thrust of my argument is that statistics based on small sample sizes aren't particularly relevant. And 1 is a pretty small sample size.

Is it possible that PSA is manipulating pop counts? Absolutely. And with any luck, tomorrow some former PSA employee will come out and confirm as much.

Do the provided statistics alone prove it? I suspect that it probably depends on your viewpoint.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by raulus

My point is simply mathematical, that if there had happened to be 1 or 2 more of the PSA 9s that instead came out as 10s, then the results would be wildly different.

Your point on the small sample size with the Ryan is valid. I'm just saying, you have to know when a really nice card like that walks in - and some grader or team of graders is saying this is a 9, is it possibly higher? Like how many people get called in on that decision do you think? I would love to be a fly on the wall.

In this regard, the '80 Henderson is a better example of them pop controlling. There are currently 25 PSA 10's, and 2,115 PSA 9's. So about 1.18% of all "mint" Rickey rookies get 10's. VCC Keith's point is simply that that is waaaay out of whack compared to everything else in the 1980 Topps set. Much the same with the '68 Ryan, the '71 Topps Ryan...and lots of other vintage cards here and there if you are paying attention.

This is all kind of tongue-in-cheek amusing to me. I usually consider a PSA 6 a "really nice" vintage card. Most of those are going to have sharp corners, a nice surface with no creases, and maybe a mild (to me, anyway) centering problem. My own Ryan RC is a nicely centered raw example in the EX range, and I'm guessing my '80 Rickey Henderson might be a PSA 7 on a good day. Cards are my hobby and diversion. I will never pay on the level of what my house is currently worth just to say I own a PSA 10 of something.

[steve B]

What you're all forgetting in all this math is that the cards production was largely manual, and almost entirely manual at a few points during production.

Having a card set up slightly crooked, or slightly off center on the sheet, or even one color being slightly off making most of the print run be poorly registered for one card but not others is common.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

What you're all forgetting in all this math is that the cards production was largely manual, and almost entirely manual at a few points during production.

Having a card set up slightly crooked, or slightly off center on the sheet, or even one color being slightly off making most of the print run be poorly registered for one card but not others is common.

Not sure how that plays into the discussion about the 9/10 ratio in the VCC video. Cards that were diamond cut, or printed with slight tilt or registration problems aren't going to be eligible for PSA 9 or higher anyway. Those all get weeded out at nice midgrade - maybe PSA 6/7 at best. The cards that they most notoriously control like the '80 Henderson and the '68 Ryan don't have sheet positioning or registration problems; I'm not sure about others.

[GasHouseGang]

I don't have access to all the PSA population numbers, but a good basketball card example that I feel is being manipulated is the Skybox E-X2000 #30 of Kobe from 1996-1997. When I was trying to buy one, there were 23 PSA10's and 682 PSA 9's. This card should not be that rare in high grade. And the difference in price between a 10 and a 9 is now astronomical. VCP lists the PSA 9 current average sales price as $1134 while the PSA 10 is $22,625. This is due primarily to the low population and desirability of that card in a 10.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I don't have access to all the PSA population numbers, but a good basketball card example that I feel is being manipulated is the Skybox E-X2000 #30 of Kobe from 1996-1997. When I was trying to buy one, there were 23 PSA10's and 682 PSA 9's. This card should not be that rare in high grade. And the difference in price between a 10 and a 9 is now astronomical. VCP lists the PSA 9 current average sales price as $1134 while the PSA 10 is $22,625. This is due primarily to the low population and desirability of that card in a 10.

Exactly. Even with modern, above a 9 for sure and there is a strong argument you are more about the flip than you are the card. The desire for the pop and slab you want are equal if nothing else with the desire of the eye appeal of the card.

[Kutcher55]

Yes agree on the difference between a 9 and 10. Still can’t see how anyone in their right mind would pay market on a PSA 10 Henderson rookie. It’s just not a condition sensitive card the way, say a 79 Ozzie Smith RC is. That card is next to impossible to find without a left leaning tilt, not to mention low top-to-bottom centering.

jcollins does a good job covering the most compelling elements of VCC’s analysis, particularly the ratio of gem mint grades in high profile examples, the Henderson being particularly compelling as compared to all the other cards in the set combined. VCC also has a good video on 71s and how Ryan and other star cards are very lean on the % of 9s and 10s compared to the rest of the set. His recent video on the 10/10 PSA DNA 89 Griffey UD rookie fiasco is also very compelling. It just seems like certain big customers got handed some sweetheart deals on a card that was once selling for an absurd $50k before the population suddenly went up 10x or something like that and dropped the market price to a less-absurd-but-still-absurd $7k. It’s some great muckracking on his part and while his math is not always on point, he lands a lot of uppercuts in his videos for sure.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Not sure how that plays into the discussion about the 9/10 ratio in the VCC video. Cards that were diamond cut, or printed with slight tilt or registration problems aren't going to be eligible for PSA 9 or higher anyway. Those all get weeded out at nice midgrade - maybe PSA 6/7 at best. The cards that they most notoriously control like the '80 Henderson and the '68 Ryan don't have sheet positioning or registration problems; I'm not sure about others.

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

It's not just sheet position, it's how the card is positioned on the sheet, or on the camera ready art. Topps wouldn't notice a small difference in spacing between cards, like if it was half a mm off to one side or another. But once cut, that small difference will make centering less than perfect on every example of that card unless it's miscut just right.

The cutting and packing processes have a lot of their own hazards. Henderson can be on top of a cello, and there's one spot it can get tweaked just enough to put it out of being a 10.

I'm not seeing any real benefit to PSA to control grades. And even with some benefit, like more being sent in, there are still a lot of reason to think they don't do that.
Like... every grader would have to know not to grade certain cards higher than an 8 or 9. If that was really the case..
The graders who can't spot alterations would have to have a list of don't grade high cards memorized -Not likely.
In close to 30 years, none of those graders, even disgruntled fired ones have ever said anything, not even by accident. Nobody has that level of silence anymore. Not without serious legal backup or the threat of violence. And even then... People talk.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but most are about as legit as bat boy hanging out on the UFO with Elvis.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

The argument on pop control and reference to Keith's video is only about 9's and 10's, and the fact that with certain cards (like the '80 Henderson) - there are a disproportionate amount of 9's among the total population of mint cards. Nobody is arguing that they are pop controlling by not properly grading non-mint cards.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

It's not just sheet position, it's how the card is positioned on the sheet, or on the camera ready art. Topps wouldn't notice a small difference in spacing between cards, like if it was half a mm off to one side or another. But once cut, that small difference will make centering less than perfect on every example of that card unless it's miscut just right.

The cutting and packing processes have a lot of their own hazards. Henderson can be on top of a cello, and there's one spot it can get tweaked just enough to put it out of being a 10.

I'm not seeing any real benefit to PSA to control grades. And even with some benefit, like more being sent in, there are still a lot of reason to think they don't do that.
Like... every grader would have to know not to grade certain cards higher than an 8 or 9. If that was really the case..
The graders who can't spot alterations would have to have a list of don't grade high cards memorized -Not likely.
In close to 30 years, none of those graders, even disgruntled fired ones have ever said anything, not even by accident. Nobody has that level of silence anymore. Not without serious legal backup or the threat of violence. And even then... People talk.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but most are about as legit as bat boy hanging out on the UFO with Elvis.

It’s becomes more than just a conspiracy theory when backed by mathematical fact. Anyone who understands math and probability would understand that it’s hard to argue otherwise. VCC has presented overwhelming evidence. And this comes from somebody (me) who generally abhors conspiracy theory and is quite convinced that Oswald acted alone.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

It's not just sheet position, it's how the card is positioned on the sheet, or on the camera ready art. Topps wouldn't notice a small difference in spacing between cards, like if it was half a mm off to one side or another. But once cut, that small difference will make centering less than perfect on every example of that card unless it's miscut just right.

The cutting and packing processes have a lot of their own hazards. Henderson can be on top of a cello, and there's one spot it can get tweaked just enough to put it out of being a 10.

I'm not seeing any real benefit to PSA to control grades. And even with some benefit, like more being sent in, there are still a lot of reason to think they don't do that.
Like... every grader would have to know not to grade certain cards higher than an 8 or 9. If that was really the case..
The graders who can't spot alterations would have to have a list of don't grade high cards memorized -Not likely.
In close to 30 years, none of those graders, even disgruntled fired ones have ever said anything, not even by accident. Nobody has that level of silence anymore. Not without serious legal backup or the threat of violence. And even then... People talk.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but most are about as legit as bat boy hanging out on the UFO with Elvis.

I feel like you might be under-appreciating PSA's interest in keeping low population counts in popular cards. And also over-appreciating what is necessary to keep those pops low. It's not something extremely nefarious they need to put in place. Just have management tell graders to scrutinize big vintage cards because 10s should be very rare, and/or require them to get approval by senior graders/managers before handing out 10s to major cards. I'm sure some type of oversight like that exists.

[BobC]

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson? And since not many really cared much about all of the Joe Nobody common cards they'd also gotten, those were likely to get stuck in a box or drawer and quickly forgotten. Thus, more likely to stay in pristine and perfect condition due to not being handled much at all.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson. And since not many really cared much about all of the Joe Nobody common cards they'd also gotten, those were likely to get stuck in a box or drawer and quickly forgotten. Thus, more likely to stay in pristine and perfect condition due to not being handled much at all.

Not enough conspiracy in this explanation for me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Not enough conspiracy in this explanation for me.

LOL

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the conspiracy theory entertainment. Carry on!

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I feel like you might be under-appreciating PSA's interest in keeping low population counts in popular cards. And also over-appreciating what is necessary to keep those pops low. It's not something extremely nefarious they need to put in place. Just have management tell graders to scrutinize big vintage cards because 10s should be very rare, and/or require them to get approval by senior graders/managers before handing out 10s to major cards. I'm sure some type of oversight like that exists.

Really well said. As far as the “star cards are handled more than commons” theory, it has merit but it fails to address the ratio of 10s to 9s conundrum. Since both 9s and 10s are all pack fresh by definition then how is the ratio of 10s to 9s so much higher for star cards in so many cases? It’s basically a statistical impossibility without manipulation taking place. At least it is for those of us who understand statistics and probability. Now excuse me while I go put on my tin hat for the day.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson?

This is beside the point. Yes, star cards like Mantles in the 60's and Reggies in the 70's, and Rickey's in the 80's were handled more, and thus more likely to survive today with signs of wear than some of the Joe Schlabotnik's and other commons that were put in a box the same day and remain pack fresh, NM-MT or higher.

The arguments for PSA pop control that have been put forward are based on cards that are already in Mint condition. Nobody is saying that PSA is giving cards that should be "Mint" only 7's or 8's. They are simply pointing out that if a card is "Mint" (a 9 or 10) already, in some very suspicious cases there are waaaaaaay less 10's for say, the Rickey Hendersons or Nolan Ryans of the world than there are other common cards in the set. So a card that was handled, traded, walked around showing off isn't going to be a 10, no. But it's not going to be a 9 either, and probably not even a 7. Acknowledged that for the vast, vast majority of vintage cards - getting a 9 is a pretty rare thing anyway.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

It’s becomes more than just a conspiracy theory when backed by mathematical fact. Anyone who understands math and probability would understand that it’s hard to argue otherwise. VCC has presented overwhelming evidence. And this comes from somebody (me) who generally abhors conspiracy theory and is quite convinced that Oswald acted alone.

Probability has little to do with manufacturing processes. The processes are designed to make identical objects, and when those processes fail they make identical objects that don't meet specs. Especially specs developed later that they were never intended to meet.

The video link above only went to a video saying something like you tube doesn't work on this machine. A nice prank, but not a card video.

[steve B]

Another strange thing in all this is that the very high profile cards in prewar often get graded higher than a similarly damaged common would be graded.

I suppose they could have oversight on cards that the grader thinks are 10s, but it seems like a lot of fussing around for little benefit.
They have no direct benefit, unless you think they get kickbacks.
In fact, they have a direct loss on a Henderson that's a 9 instead of 10 because of the difference in grading fee.

Current grading fee on a 10 = 5000
Current grading fee on a 9 = 150

A bit over 33x as much.

The money left on the table if all 2119 9s were actually 10s.
$10,277,150.
even if it was half of them, that's a lot to spend on a "maybe people will send in more of a card they already send in a ton of"

5 Million would buy years worth of more effective advertising.
And considering that some cards would be down graded further into the 8 category it could be much more.

I'm just not seeing it from a business standpoint.

And that people will send in that card without really looking at it... just look at how many there are graded 2 and 3. Who the heck sends in a 1980 anything thats a 2? Apparently 129 people did. and even more, 398 threes.

The total number of 10s divided by the number of cards in the set is a bit over 24, a fairly close match with the 25 population of PSA10 Hendersons.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

Probability has little to do with manufacturing processes. The processes are designed to make identical objects, and when those processes fail they make identical objects that don't meet specs. Especially specs developed later that they were never intended to meet.

The video link above only went to a video saying something like you tube doesn't work on this machine. A nice prank, but not a card video.

The argument presented re: math / ratios in the videos referenced are about the subjective awarding of 9's v. 10's to truly mint cards, not the manufacturing process, or cards that don’t get 9's or 10's because they aren't truly mint anymore and thus did not deserve them. You can certainly choose not to believe that PSA is doing anything intentionally with the rest of it, but right now it seems we are still trying to compare apples to oranges. The argument is that PSA is being biased between the (two) mint grades based on the very subjective bump of cards that are already 9's to 10's - not that sorry, just not that many cards deservedly get to true mint grades on their own, and thus they are "controlling" by somehow seeing flaws that aren't really there. Does this makes sense?

If they are pop controlling only the 10’s as alleged, then yes, your point that they are leaving a lot of money on the table in doing that would in theory be correct. Does anyone know how PSA handles this in reality if someone gets a 10 on a huge card and is unprepared to pay the hefty fee bump? Would they get the option maybe of taking the 9 and paying less? Surely not...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

This is besides the point. Yes, star cards like Mantles in the 60's and Reggies in the 70's, and Rickey's in the 80's were handled more, and thus more likely to survive today with signs of wear than some of the Joe Schlabotnik's and other commons that were put in a box the same day and remain pack fresh, NM-MT or higher.

The arguments for PSA pop control that have been put forward are based on cards that are already in Mint condition. Nobody is saying that PSA is giving cards that should be "Mint" only 7's or 8's. They are simply pointing out that if a card is "Mint" (a 9 or 10) already, in some very suspicious cases there are waaaaaaay less 10's for say, the Rickey Hendersons or Nolan Ryans of the world than there are other common cards in the set. So a card that was handled, traded, walked around showing off isn't going to be a 10, no. But it's not going to be a 9 either, and probably not even a 7. Acknowledged that for the vast, vast majority of vintage cards - getting a 9 is a pretty rare thing anyway.

That is not what I'm suggesting at all regarding 7's and 8's. What I'm suggesting is there may be less 10's because they ended up with 9 grades due to extra handling. I don't get anything graded and still don't understand the differences between 9's and 10's. Are you saying the differences between 9's and 10's are onlyy for things that could never have anything to do with handling a card?

I may have overstepped in the way I stated about a star player card being traded, walked around, or shown off, to overly emphasize my point. But you know that someone who has a star card, versus an ordinary common player card, is much more likely over time to look at that star player card and end up handling it way more than any other cards in the set. And I'm not necessarily saying you guys are wrong, just wondering if this is a possible alternative reason for even a portion of the perceived grade disparity.

Or another thought, is it possible a TPG would funnel the potentially higher value star cards to only a select few, more experienced graders who have a finer, more discerning eye, in giving out 10's? Whereas the commons from the same sets go to the general grading population of the TPG, maybe not always as discerning as the in-house, experienced experts, and as a result maybe they give out few more 10's?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Are you saying the differences between 9's and 10's are onlyy for things that could never have anything to do with handling a card?

Yes. Bingo. This is exactly what I am saying. A "10" is the total fabrication / dream construct of professional grading. Both 9's and 10's are "Mint" cards. The bump from 9 to 10 is supposedly so that Mint cards with "extra eye appeal" or pop or whatever can be recognized for being extra special, (and so that TPG's can charge extra fees, and so that their slabs with 10's can garner additional ooh's and aah's.) The 10 was the original purple label sticker, or PWCC "E" designation. It means nothing other than an already Mint card is somehow "extra" minty. It is a total superlative if you will, that the TPG's pull out of thin air. In practice on their scale since PSA does not have a 9.5, the 10 is the ".5" to any other grade for the 9, and there is no super clear rhyme or reason other than perhaps centering as to how it is awarded.

So yes, the argument that they may legit be giving out 9's instead of as many 10's as with other cards in the rest of the sets in question is not based on the fact that maybe the 9's would show a microscopic bit more handling. If so, those cards wouldn't be 9's to start with. As simple as it gets, the argument here is "If they are both already Mint cards - why does Joe Blow get X percentage of 10's, and Rickey Henderson gets Y (much lower percentage)?

We could have a pile of 100 cards all Mint, and say fifty of them are 10's and fifty of them are 9's. Without the flips, could you tell which are the 10's? In classic Jolly Elm "guess the qualifier" style - of course not! Neither could the people who graded them an hour or a day later. It's a complete gimmick in the vast majority of cases where minute centering differences are not an obvious factor - and even then it's super arguable. And if you busted all the cards and sent them back to be graded again - you would likely end up with totally different results. So once again - the argument that they are from the gate being stingy with 10's v. 9's on marquee vintage cards suggests not that those cards don't meet specs for mint - but just that they don't want so many 10's. If people don't believe this is happening, fine. I just think that most people are not taking the time to understand the argument.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Or another thought, is it possible a TPG would funnel the potentially higher value star cards to only a select few, more experienced graders who have a finer, more discerning eye, in giving out 10's? Whereas the commons from the same sets go to the general grading population of the TPG, maybe not always as discerning as the in-house, experienced experts, and as a result maybe they give out few more 10's?

Yes, certainly. I think this goes to the "how the sausage is made" at PSA that we don't know. If they are pop controlling and a red light goes off when someone puts a "10" in the system for a certain handful of vintage cards, maybe it does go to a senior grading overlord or something. I would be interested to know how this works. But not super hopeful that I will soon, or ever - find out...

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by steve B

Another strange thing in all this is that the very high profile cards in prewar often get graded higher than a similarly damaged common would be graded.

I suppose they could have oversight on cards that the grader thinks are 10s, but it seems like a lot of fussing around for little benefit.
They have no direct benefit, unless you think they get kickbacks.
In fact, they have a direct loss on a Henderson that's a 9 instead of 10 because of the difference in grading fee.

Current grading fee on a 10 = 5000
Current grading fee on a 9 = 150

A bit over 33x as much.

The money left on the table if all 2119 9s were actually 10s.
$10,277,150.
even if it was half of them, that's a lot to spend on a "maybe people will send in more of a card they already send in a ton of"

5 Million would buy years worth of more effective advertising.
And considering that some cards would be down graded further into the 8 category it could be much more.

I'm just not seeing it from a business standpoint.

And that people will send in that card without really looking at it... just look at how many there are graded 2 and 3. Who the heck sends in a 1980 anything thats a 2? Apparently 129 people did. and even more, 398 threes.

The total number of 10s divided by the number of cards in the set is a bit over 24, a fairly close match with the 25 population of PSA10 Hendersons.

Again, I don't think you are quite understanding the benefits to PSA for having low pops on gem mint iconic cards. It's more than just "maybe more people will send cards to us." It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

[Kutcher55]

Here's another link to the Henderson video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTMS1dmddc&t=216s

If it doesn't work and you care to review the video, simply go to Youtube and search "Vintage Card Curator Henderson." The video is approximately 14 minutes long. He goes through several different analysis to show the statistical improbability of 9s to 10s of the Henderson card (and 10s in general) relative to the rest of the set. At the time the video was made there were over 1,900 PSA 9 Hendersons and only 24 PSA 10s. The ratio of 9s to 10s is 81 to 1! For the rest of the set, the ratio of 9s to 10s is 2.4 to 1. If you understand statistics and probability, you can understand that this is difficult to reconcile logically without some behind-the-scenes wrangling involving the Henderson (and other high-profile cards). Some of the explanations are intriguing but ultimately fail to explain the above anomaly.

As for this suggestion that PSA is hurt financially by not rewarding more 10s, it's not entirely without merit, but if they gave all those 9s 10s, they would be a laughingstock and their brand would suffer, so the mathematics used there are faulty to say the least. I couldn't really follow the rest of the argument. But let's just say you'd make a fine defense lawyer for PSA.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yes. Bingo. This is exactly what I am saying. A "10" is the total fabrication / dream construct of professional grading. Both 9's and 10's are "Mint" cards. The bump from 9 to 10 is supposedly so that Mint cards with "extra eye appeal" or pop or whatever can be recognized for being extra special, (and so that TPG's can charge extra fees, and so that their slabs with 10's can garner additional ooh's and aah's.) The 10 was the original purple label sticker, or PWCC "E" designation. It means nothing other than an already Mint card is somehow "extra" minty. It is a total superlative if you will, that the TPG's pull out of thin air. In practice on their scale since PSA does not have a 9.5, the 10 is the ".5" to any other grade for the 9, and there is no super clear rhyme or reason other than perhaps centering as to how it is awarded.

So yes, the argument that they may legit be giving out 9's instead of as many 10's as with other cards in the rest of the sets in question is not based on the fact that maybe the 9's would show a microscopic bit more handling. If so, those cards wouldn't be 9's to start with. As simple as it gets, the argument here is "If they are both already Mint cards - why does Joe Blow get X percentage of 10's, and Rickey Henderson gets Y (much lower percentage)?

We could have a pile of 100 cards all Mint, and say fifty of them are 10's and fifty of them are 9's. Without the flips, could you tell which are the 10's? In classic Jolly Elm "guess the qualifier" style - of course not! Neither could the people who graded them an hour or a day later. It's a complete gimmick in the vast majority of cases where minute centering differences are not an obvious factor - and even then it's super arguable. And if you busted all the cards and sent them back to be graded again - you would likely end up with totally different results. So once again - the argument that they are from the gate being stingy with 10's v. 9's on marquee vintage cards suggests not that those cards don't meet specs for mint - but just that they don't want so many 10's. If people don't believe this is happening, fine. I just think that most people are not taking the time to understand the argument.

Now this I'm on board with. I've always wondered how/why TPGs discern between a 9 and 10, or even worse if they do half points, add a third grade in there with 9.5's. Jolly Elm/Darren's other thread in this same forum, Certified, Qualified, and Glorified!!!, points out and shows how inane and inconsistent the high-end grading by TPGs can be. Meanwhile, look at the unbelievably vast differences in looks, condition, and appeal of cards graded at the lower end of the grading scale. Top end, the differences are so narrow (or non-existent) you can't see any light between them. At the bottom end some of the holes/gaps in condition between cards of supposedly the same grade are so big you could drive a Mack truck through them. I can see the potential for the possible manipulation of the grading system, what I don't get though is the why. TPGs artificially controlling the population of cards in certain grades doesn't directly benefit them over the long term, as far as I can tell. Are they doing this on behalf of certain collectors/dealers so they can take advantage of the market and get a big score, or is it more to preserve the value of cards already in the hands of certain collectors so that if more cards of similar high grade are suddenly found and graded it doesn't shrink the perceived value of those cards in the hands of those original collectors? I can understand the numbers and the perceived grading disparity, but without a why (motive) for the supposedly guilty parties (TPGs) doing this, it makes no real sense for the TPGs doing this without there being something in it for them. And anything suggested so far as a possible motive just doesn't seem that plausible for any TPG to go through the trouble of manipulating high-end grade pops of certain cards, at least not to me.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

........It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

˄˄˄This person gets it.

[Kutcher55]

Taking it one step further, if the Henderson RC followed the same 2.4 to 1 profile as the rest of the set, based on the number of PSA 9 Hendersons, there should be 792 PSA 10 Hendersons. Instead there are 24 (or is it 25 now?). Hmm.