How Far does the CU dictatorship go to silence whisleblowers?

[markf31]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Hey Leon- how can you have a weak 10? With all due respect, you can't have a weak 10. Another term for a weak 10 is a misgraded card.

As I remember the Art Shell, it had two corners that were imperceptibly touched, and there were two surface print flaws. That's a total of four things wrong with it. Even if they are tiny, that's a strong 8 at best.

Imperceptibly (impossible or difficult to perceive by the mind or senses) IMO meets the requirements of four sharp corners. If you can't perceive it, how can the corners be imperfect then?

And PSA's own granding standards details that while a card to meet PSA 10 must be free of staining "an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card." I tend to agree with Leon that it's a weak 10, I don't think the printing imperfection imparied the appeal of the card. There are many other PSA 10's from the 1970s and 1980s that exhibit similar printing imperfections, but as their own grading standard says, it can be allowed even on a PSA 10.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by markf31

Imperceptibly (impossible or difficult to perceive by the mind or senses) IMO meets the requirements of four sharp corners. If you can't perceive it, how can the corners be imperfect then?

And PSA's own granding standards details that while a card to meet PSA 10 must be free of staining "an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card." I tend to agree with Leon that it's a weak 10, I don't think the printing imperfection imparied the appeal of the card. There are many other PSA 10's from the 1970s and 1980s that exhibit similar printing imperfections, but as their own grading standard says, it can be allowed even on a PSA 10.

That said, I think the Shell is an 8.5, or a weak 9. It's not a 10. You may feel free to disagree.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

That said, I think the Shell is an 8.5, or a weak 9. It's not a 10. You may feel free to disagree.

I agree with you Barry and to me it's hard to argue it any other way. If PSA now concedes that there's that much subjectivity in which a card grade can vary as much as 2 points, then there was no legitimate reason (other than money) of going to half grades.

[barrysloate]

Thanks Dan, and to put it another way: if the card genuinely was a 10, what was going on in the grader's head when he gave it an 8? You mean to say a professional grader can be off by two whole grades? Not very professional at all.

[smtjoy]

No way the Shell is a 10 much less a 9, I agree with Barry. The issue I had was this was one of about 7 cards (that we know of) that were all bumped at the national that were very suspect by the same submitter. I am a submitter to PSA and I do feel Joe O is working hard to make sure all cards get the correct grades but my bigger concern is the possibility of a grader maybe getting a kickback or a deal with a friend to bump cards with so much money on the line (ie turning a $50 card into a $3000). It happens in the oil industry I work in and well I hate to think it might be happening in my hobby, that's my concern and wish PSA was making it clear that this does not happen and taking steps to make sure it doesn't.

[oldjudge]

Barry--what has your life come to when you are on a chat board arguing whether a modern football card is an 9 or a 10?

[barrysloate]

Hi Jay- I think the argument is about what may or may not have gone on behind the scenes for this card to have been bumped from an 8 to a 10. It's really not about whether the card is accurately graded. Either you are joking with me, or you missed the point of this discussion. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in football cards.