TPG- standards change over time? early vs recent grade

[oldschool73]

hello,

just looking for the boards thoughts on TPGs changing their standards over time (specifically PSA & SGC) and the impact it may have on pricing.

1. Are there notable cutoff points (number on graded card) where standards changed?
2. i assume grading has gotten stricter over time...or not?
3. if a card has been newly graded as a 6...does it command a greater price than a much earlier graded card? (eg 5+ years earlier)

thanks
-os73

[Fred]

I bet you can find cards graded in the past that meet today's standards and vice versa. Do you know why? Because the bozos at the TPGs subjectivity from the past and present is consistently inconsistent.

I've read comments on the board that the TPGs are "tightening up" the grading standards but I see recently graded cards with the same appearance for the grade from the past and today.

I'm not anti-TPG, rather I'm anti-inconsistency by the TPGs.

[mq711]

My 2cents; for the most part the old PSA slabs were over graded by 1 then, just prior to Covid they started under grading by 1. Now they are more likely to grade more in line with their guidelines (though sometimes what they do confuses everyone). Prior to the black tux a SGC7 was equal to a PSA6 now they are petty much equal.

[ClementeFanOh]

oldschool73- fascinating question. My observations:

1) I'm not aware of a bright line serial number cutoff point for when
standards changed at PSA/SGC. They did change, though.

2) I noticed that, certainly in 2022, SGCs standards for postwar became
MUCH tougher, and across multiple sports. Both SGC and PSA, for
example, went way over the top punishing 50+ year old cards for light
(and I mean LIGHT) creasing. Strangely- and happily- SGC stayed spot on
with tobacco era cards. I always found this strange, almost as if postwar
graders somehow began to think all cards should be as flawless as laser
cut cards released 6 months ago.

3) I don't feel PSA became more strict, I think they simply ignored their
own standards. There was consistency to SGCs grading madness, whereas
PSA was groping in the darkness. I have a low opinion of them because
they routinely fail at their baseline task of accurately grading cards across
the board.

4) I get the sense that most knowledgeable sellers don't leap to the
conclusion that a new PSA 6 is somehow more valuable than an old PSA
6- provided that 6 is actually the correct grade. I do believe the folks
submitting Doncic and Mahomes cards to get 10s are much more likely
to have the opinion that a "new" grade is somehow more valid than an
"old" one. I give those folks a wide berth (if they use the number grade
as a verb, I run away- "I thought that card would ten!"). See ya later
Trevor, "ten" is a noun rather than a verb

These are my impressions, based on submissions, show attendance, and
purchases and trades between myself and fellow enthusiasts.

Trent King

[Leon]

TPGs have generally gotten a bit tougher standards over time, imo.

These are both in CGC 2 (good) holders, but back in the day these easily would have passed for vg to vg+ ...

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by Leon

TPGs have generally gotten a bit tougher standards over time, imo.

These are both in CGC 2 (good) holders, but back in the day these easily would have passed for vg to vg+ ...

As long as there are no creases these should be 3's.

[Svabinsky78]

It really depends on the card. That is why a lot folks follow the ol' adage, buy the card, not the slab. As someone on here already mentioned, there are plenty of cards in old generation holders that if cracked and resubmitted would get the same grade today. This is my 1964 Aaron. Although in an old slab, I am pretty confident it would get a 7 by today's standards. Although tad off center, it's just a sharp sharp card.....then again, you never know with PSA....maybe it would come back minimum size requirements not met

1964 Topps Aaron .jpg

And then you have Exhibits Hafey that probably today would not get the 4.5 because the corners are a tad too on the worn side and the surface has a tad too much snow.

1929-30 Exhibits Chick Hafey.jpg

[Snowman]

I've actually done a lot of research on this topic because I'm a nutjob who collects data on anything and everything.

While it is true that you can find cards in old slabs that would regrade the same today, those cards are certainly the exception, not the rule. To answer the question posed in the OP, you really need to look at the statistical distributions of grades rather than looking at one-off cards. Also, many of the long-time collectors with impressive vintage collections have large quantities of cards with old cert numbers. They often defend them out of bias (even if it's a subconscious bias). Typically, when you see an older cert that would grade the same today, it is because of the centering requirements. Like with Phil's beautiful 64 Topps Hank Aaron posted above. Many of these cards could have graded higher at the time if they had better centering, but the centering held them back. Those cards would grade the same today if the corners looked better than the assigned grades but centering held them back. The centering standards haven't really shifted, at least not as PSA. Not by much (although the variance in results from one grader to the next has gotten worse).

Here is what the data I have collected shows. The data was gathered by me looking at thousands of cards in holders and grading them myself (mostly post-war vintage, although I think it's fair to assume these observations apply to pre-war as well), by PSA's & SGC's published grading standards. Then I compare my grade against the grade on the slab and align them to when they were graded.

Early PSA cert numbers (00xxxxxx to ~15xxxxxx & some of the certs that were used at shows and various events like 3000xxxx, 4000xxxx, 5000xxxx, and 9000xxxx) all have a median grading delta distribution of about 1 grade more generous than I would give them (that's the center of the distribution - think of a bell curve - yay Central Limit Theorem!).

Less early, or somewhat more recent, cert numbers (~15xxxxxx to ~2999xxxx) have a median grading delta distribution of approximately zero, which is to say they align with my grades pretty closely - the median & average grade differences that is. So, most cards that I would grade as a 5 or 6 are in fact graded as a 5 or 6 from this era. Hence the delta is centered around 0.

For more recent certs (~4100xxxx to 8xxxxxxx) the grades are much harsher. The center of the grading delta distribution is approximately one full grade tougher than I would assign. There's also more variance among these cert numbers with respect to the distributions, meaning the tails on the bell curve of the delta between my grades and the assigned grades are wider than it is for the other earlier cert numbers. This reflects the fact that PSA has gotten less consistent as they've had to hire graders rapidly to keep up with the demand in the pandemic era.

One thing you'll notice is that if you look at the high-grade vintage cards (9s and 10s) in pretty much every major auction, almost all of them have old cert numbers. This is telling. Also, the majority of them have, in my opinion, likely been altered/trimmed.

SGC has also gotten more strict over time, but not as much as PSA. Early SGC cards are about 1 grade more generous than my grades while current SGC grades and grades from about 8 years ago or so have delta distributions that are centered right around where my grades are. So they are in alignment with how I grade, currently. They also have shorter tails, so less variance (likely due to having a smaller grading team and just being better/more experienced graders overall than PSA - at least on average).

BGS/BVG - I have no idea, and I don't care. I don't track them.