This is the problem with grading...

[cardbroker]

Shell card has no business in a 10. 3 print marks on back with a print dot in the green emblem on front. Bottom corners do not come to a point. First grade was accurate. 8.5 tops.

I am not sure if the 2nd card is the same card. Possibly a bad scan. Markings do not seem to match up but nevertheless this card is a 7.5 at best. Just from the scan you can tell 3 corners have touches. 7 was an accurate grade.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

In my opinion, the way PSA has continued to handled this debacle has significantly hurt their credibility as a company who provides a quality service.

Also consider this. In my opinion the '73 Shell looks like an 8, so the latest buyer overpaid by about $3100. But there's also another victim. The 1973 Topps Art Shell PSA 10 is now a pop 2. The other PSA 10 card has, at least theoretically, now been significantly devalued since the supply has now artificially doubled.

By the way, whether many people know this or not, many deleted CU Board threads do get saved by Google's webcache feature.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

[smotan_02]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

.

By the way, whether many people know this or not, many deleted CU Board threads do get saved by Google's webcache feature.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Thank you for pointing this out. Can you post the other pages of the thread? I can't search it from an iPad. Thank you

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by smotan_02

Thank you for pointing this out. Can you post the other pages of the thread? I can't search it from an iPad. Thank you

For whatever reason, some pages only have one or several posts, but here’s the rest:



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a





Another relevant “poofed” thread



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a

[travrosty]

if they collect the number, then take the card out of the holder and sell the numbered holder.

i have the number 6 on sale right now, only 3,000 dollars. pretty cheap considering.


buying any modern card produced in enormous qty, most in superb collectable condition , just because of the number 10 on the holder, and buying it for 10's of thousands of dollars is stupid.

It used to be everyone knew what stupid was. now we disagree because everyones feelings are hurt at the drop of a hat?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

In my opinion, the way PSA has continued to handled this debacle has significantly hurt their credibility as a company who provides a quality service.

Also consider this. In my opinion the '73 Shell looks like an 8, so the latest buyer overpaid by about $3100. But there's also another victim. The 1973 Topps Art Shell PSA 10 is now a pop 2. The other PSA 10 card has, at least theoretically, now been significantly devalued since the supply has now artificially doubled.

By the way, whether many people know this or not, many deleted CU Board threads do get saved by Google's webcache feature.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Dan, he didn't overpay. He got exactly what he wanted -- a PSA 10 to add to his registry set. If he cared about the condition of the actual card, he could have returned it, or sent it to PSA to review. Instead, he added it happily to his registry set. We always say, buy the card, not the label, but there are folks to whom the label is just as -- or more -- important.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We always say, buy the card, not the label, but there are folks to whom the label is just as -- or more -- important.

Sad, but very true. That's part of what I meant by the title of this thread, "This is the problem with grading..."

The grading companies have taken a hobby and turned it into a competition. And we wonder why many kids take no interest in this hobby?

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The grading companies have taken a hobby and turned it into a competition. And we wonder why many kids take no interest in this hobby?

Grading didn’t turn this hobby into a competition it’s been competitive as are most hobbies car, art, gem, rare book collecting etc.

What grading companies did was find a way to capitalize on the underlined competition.

Some collectors choose to get caught up in this and some not so much, but at the end of the day the very root of all collecting has a competitive side grading companies didn’t create that. You’re giving these guys too much credit.

Cheers,

John

[Jay Wolt]

The grading companies have taken a hobby and turned it into a competition. And we wonder why many kids take no interest in this hobby?

Not all who collect PSA/SGC/Beckett cards do it to compete. There are some that do & good for them.
And a bunch like myself are content getting the cards we like at the prices we can afford.
And I'm not sure about the parallel about grading companies being a detriment to kids collecting.
I'd give more blame to card companies that retail packs at $5, $10, $20 and higher.

[wonkaticket]

Jay +1

When I was a kid $10 bucks bought you a full box of packs....I woudl rip packs for hours....

I remember hitting a card shop when I got back from Japan in my early 20's and seeing the prices...saying what kid has $5 bucks a pack? Crazy.

Cheers,

John

[Leon]

Let me be devil's advocate for a moment. As I said elsewhere (sort of).

If these registry guys want to collect the number on the plastic, who cares? I think it's great they are having fun and not hurting people. I am very happy with the way I collect and I am sure they are happy how the collect too. It's their money.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Leon

Let me be devil's advocate for a moment. As I said elsewhere (sort of).

If these registry guys want to collect the number on the plastic, who cares? I think it's great they are having fun and not hurting people. I am very happy with the way I collect and I am sure they are happy how the collect too. It's their money.

+1

I'm in the care less camp as well. Hey knock yourself out if you want to pay 100k for a PSA 10 1978 Topps common enjoy.

[peterose4hof]

I've had the pleasure of speaking with one of the biggest "registry" collectors on many occasions and I can tell you matter-of-factly that he gets the same kid on Christmas morning feeling that the rest of us get when he adds something to his collection.

What's the first thing most collectors will suggest when someone new comes into the hobby? Collect what you like and spend what you can afford.

I marvel at the amounts of money these folks spend, but I would never fault them for spending their money however they see fit. As an added bonus, the big money purchases often bring media attention to our hobby which can only be a good thing in my opinion as it often brings new collectors into the hobby.

[barrysloate]

As John said collectors have always been competitive, but what the grading companies have done is allow collectors to quantify that competition.

In the old days you and I could have both had raw T206 sets, and maybe I looked at yours and thought mine was better, and you looked at mine and felt your set was the better one. Who knew? We may have both been competitive but we couldn't really determine for sure who had the better collection because there were simply too many variables.

Today, if my set averages 5.1 and yours averages 5.3, the discussion is over. According to the rules of the game, you have the better set. And maybe that appeals to collectors a whole lot. They like to take the guesswork out of competing. Quantifying it makes things more precise.

Of course, the joke is that grading is so subjective to begin with that this illusion of precision is just that: an illusion that collectors buy into hook, line, and sinker. You can't blame the TPG for coming up with this incredible marketing tool for themselves.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dan, he didn't overpay. He got exactly what he wanted -- a PSA 10 to add to his registry set. If he cared about the condition of the actual card, he could have returned it, or sent it to PSA to review. Instead, he added it happily to his registry set. We always say, buy the card, not the label, but there are folks to whom the label is just as -- or more -- important.

Peter,

There's no dispute that there's an abundant amount of truth to what you wrote. But it's my opinion that a lot of collectors have bought into the marketing aspect of third party grading without scrutizing all the "technical" aspects of this type of service to the extent of what has been revealed on this message board over the years.

Here's one example of a quote from PSA's website:

"By providing the advantage of protection of impartial, third-party grading, PSA has created a market in which collectors can participate with complete confidence and trust."

What I highlighted in bold speaks volumes in itself. I believe there are collectors who buy 10s and even don't bother scrutinizing the condition of the card since they base all of their trust and confidence in PSA anyway. Undoubtedly some will say, "If PSA says it's a 10, then it is".

http://www.psacard.com/about/why_psa_and_psadna.chtml

I don't think there's any question there are collectors who do have complete trust and confidence in PSA as the result of beng indoctrinated into this intense, on-going marketing campaign. PSA devotes a lot of their energy bragging about how many record sales were attained, but I don't recall ever reading anything regarding how they've improved their methods of alteration detection, etc.

But as I've said before, nobody has ever graded the graders. What's the measurable reliability of how good they are at what they do? Are they 99.9% accurate or only 75% accurate? Obviously when there is a lot of money involved it makes a difference - at least to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The good news, if there is any, is that from talking to guys who submit a lot, PSA tends to undergrade a lot more than they overgrade. And the frequency with which grades change on resubmission suggests to me that multiple graders are NOT looking at each card.

[barrysloate]

I don't know if PSA is accurate 99.9% of the time or 75%, and suspect it is somewhere in between. But what I do feel is they have to be better at what they do. There's no shame in that, every company strives to put out a better product.

I don't know Joe Orlando personally but I know he reads this board. If he's truly committed to having PSA do the best job possible, he might want to start by taking a look at the Art Shell PSA 10 and see if he can figure out why that card was so badly misgraded. Perhaps he could find the grader who gave it a 10 and try to understand why it happened. Even Joe would have to agree that 10 was a mistake, and that PSA needs to try to avoid these issues as much as possible. Graders simply need to do a better job. All businesses face that problem at some point.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Barry -- PSA is actively denying there is any issue with the Wagner. Addressing that would seem a bigger priority than an Art Shell card.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Perhaps he could find the grader who gave it a 10 and try to understand why it happened. Even Joe would have to agree that 10 was a mistake, and that PSA needs to try to avoid these issues as much as possible. Graders simply need to do a better job. All businesses face that problem at some point.

According to the PSA grading process, it isn't "a" grader. It takes at least four graders all agreeing that it is a 10.

"Each grader receives the order and they will enter the order number into the computer. Once that is done, the contents of that order will appear on the PSA grading screen. Grader #1 will then enter his grade for the card in question (and for each card within the order until the order is completed if there is more than one card) and close the order on his screen. Once that is done and after redistribution of the order, Grader #2 will do the same – not knowing the opinion of the first grader on any of the cards within that order.

If their grades match in the computer, the card would then eventually reach a 3rd grader for verification of the grade. If the opinion of the first two graders does not match, that card will be assigned to a 3rd grader whose opinion is required to break the tie, so to speak. As with the first example, the card would still be assigned to another grader for verification (a 4th grader in the process) to make sure the grade is accurate and consistent with our standards."

Then there is the verification step in which yet another person has to agree with the grade:

"After the cards have been sealed in the PSA holders, they are then sent to the Grading Verification stage. As mentioned earlier, this is where another grader will check the orders for accuracy and consistency in relation to PSA standards. If the cards appear to meet PSA's guidelines, the order is then sent on to the next step in the process. If any of the cards do not appear to meet the standards, the card is then removed from the holder and re-evaluated by our staff."

I know that they do a tremendous volume, but policy is policy and steps shouldn't be skipped even when cards are being evaluated at a convention. This probably goes doubly for cards graded a ten. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the process and policy states that for a ten to be assigned, encapsulated and returned to the submitter, at least four PSA graders have to agree that the card is a 10.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I don't know if PSA is accurate 99.9% of the time or 75%, and suspect it is somewhere in between. But what I do feel is they have to be better at what they do. There's no shame in that, every company strives to put out a better product.

I don't know Joe Orlando personally but I know he reads this board. If he's truly committed to having PSA do the best job possible, he might want to start by taking a look at the Art Shell PSA 10 and see if he can figure out why that card was so badly misgraded. Perhaps he could find the grader who gave it a 10 and try to understand why it happened. Even Joe would have to agree that 10 was a mistake, and that PSA needs to try to avoid these issues as much as possible. Graders simply need to do a better job. All businesses face that problem at some point.

Good points Barry. This isn't rocket science. There are ways of improving quality. I work for a Fortune 500 company and we have programs like a Six Sigma which if implemented correctly can vastly improve reliability and quality. There's no reason something like that can't happen here.