Top Graders' Compensation

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

When I spare a thought for the hobby, which is most of the time these days, I often muse about what it must be like to be a top senior grader at one of the TPG houses. I wonder what it would be like to make the grading call on a T206
green Cobby between 6.5 and 7, or a '52 Topps Mays between 7.5 and 8, knowing full- well how much money my decisions mean. I wonder if they feel real pressure, like I would, or is it just another day at the office? Because they are well-known in collectors circles and have almost some kind of star quality, I have to believe they are highly compensated, with some kind of bonus scheme on top of a nice base salary. And maybe the package would include a free trip to the eye doctor every six months. Love to know.

How many PSA card graders can you name?

[Bicem]

I doubt they care... at all.

[familytoad]

Sometimes I think the eye doctor appointments were rescheduled instead of being fastidiously attended.

Not all cards of course, but just the wrong ones

[nat]

I bet it's really boring. The highlight of your day probably is some weird regional issue that requires some research to figure out just what it is. And the green Cobbys and 53 Mays' are probably few and far between. I suspect that they spend most of their time looking at Noah Syndergard pre-rookie inserts, Ken Griffey Jr. 1990 Topps cards, and the like.

[Arazi4442]

Maybe I'm really naive, but I assumed with so much money at stake it would be a little more scientific than just the eye test. Something similar to Beckett: a list of categories (corners, edges, centering, focus, surface, etc.) would each get a grade, performed by hi-res computer analysis where applicable, then you work a total number based on the subs. Just eyeballing and using micrometers or something similar sounds like what they'd do in the 1980's.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Arazi4442

Maybe I'm really naive, but I assumed with so much money at stake it would be a little more scientific than just the eye test. Something similar to Beckett: a list of categories (corners, edges, centering, focus, surface, etc.) would each get a grade, performed by hi-res computer analysis where applicable, then you work a total number based on the subs. Just eyeballing and using micrometers or something similar sounds like what they'd do in the 1980's.

..


...1980's Eyeballing vs. "based on the subs"....granted, this may be an extreme example ; nothing against Beckett ; I think they're great ; just so you're aware going in how they do things there...

..

...

[darwinbulldog]

We used to just call that mint condition.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many PSA card graders can you name?

Peter, outside of Joe Orlando, who I know slightly, I couldn't give you the name of anybody who works at PSA. I bet the burnout rate for the graders is sky high. I wonder when they go blind if they receive Worker's Comp.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Peter, outside of Joe Orlando, who I know slightly, I couldn't give you the name of anybody who works at PSA. I bet the burnout rate for the graders is sky high. I wonder when they go blind if they receive Worker's Comp.

John same here although I know of Reza, my point is I don't think these guys are celebs as you suggested, I think they toil anonymously.

[Yoda]

You are probably right. There can't be much glamor sitting at your cubicle mindlessly looking at cards of birds or something similar. I do recall that when Steve Rocci was head of PSA any real star card about to receive a high grade was automatically reviewed by 2 other graders for agreement. Don't know if that is still the case. Always thought Mike Baker was very solid and perhaps regrets being part of the GAI saga.

[pherbener]

I know it's been discussed before but I don't understand why a computer program can't be used to determine a grade. You would think it wouldn't be that hard to set up a system that could determine a grade without the subjectivity of a grader having a bad day, hungover, knowing high rolling collectors etc. The current system is fraught with opportunities for abuse and fraud.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by pherbener

I know it's been discussed before but I don't understand why a computer program can't be used to determine a grade. You would think it wouldn't be that hard to set up a system that could determine a grade without the subjectivity of a grader having a bad day, hungover, knowing high rolling collectors etc. The current system is fraught with opportunities for abuse and fraud.

That'll become standard practice within the next decade. I don't know of any job (including architect, novelist, surgeon, scientist) that can't be replaced by better-performing computers within the century. Grading a card is child's play.

[Corporal Lance Boil]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That'll become standard practice within the next decade. I don't know of any job (including architect, novelist, surgeon, scientist) that can't be replaced by better-performing computers within the century. Grading a card is child's play.

I agree with your premise that card grading can be performed, or at least interact, with computers.

But I am curious how you think novelists, scientists, or surgeons will be replaced by computers? Architects I don't know, as that is straight mathematics, as best I can tell, but I am not an architect.

Tony Colacino

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by pherbener

The current system is fraught with opportunities for abuse and fraud.

I have thought about this a lot over the past couple years. Of course, I am not saying it happens, nor do I know their internal submission/grading SOP well enough to know how hard it would be to execute. However, in theory, a few graders in cahoots with a few submitters could make 6, even 7 figure profits by buying and bumping 8s to 9s, 9s to 10s, etc. At those higher levels, the increase in value is nearly exponential. Doubt there's anyway a TPG could ever compensate its graders well enough to offset the temptation of potential monies earned through a scam like this.

I'd hope their chain of custody on any submissions (regardless of the submitters) is totally anonymous and that any card that receives a 10 would need to pass inspection by several graders, thus making this scam more difficult to execute.

[Mdmtx]

I often wonder why obviously extremely low graded 50's commons exist. Doesn't make any financial sense. Maybe, just maybe, those are submitted with a group as a tell of who submitted. As example

Submitter: hey billy bob, I just sent a group of 50's in. You can tell which ones are mine because there is a dog eared paper missing 51 bowman paul Richards in there.
Grader: thanks slick. If I keep the grades up a full point, can I get the trip to Hawaii and the 5k?
Submitter: you bet. Just nothing below 7.5.
Grader: you re the best!

No knowledge, no smoking gun, just conjecture.

Mark Medlin

[ooo-ribay]

I think they throw darts at a board.

[gemmint77]

My guess these "expert graders" make $12-14 bucks an hour and could care less.

[Rich Klein]

I don't know (or care) what the Beckett graders make but many of them have been there nearly 20 years now and I will assure you that they do care about getting the correct grades on a card

Now, and this is not to pick on Beckett but I saw an absolutely ugly BGS 7.5 86 Fleer Jordan at my show this weekend. If Nate or Kyle wants to take a scan of that card and post it to the board, you can see why my untrained eye would have given that card a 2 at best.

I will wager whomever graded that card will look at the card in the slab and be very upset at the grade that is assigned.

Rich

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

John same here although I know of Reza, my point is I don't think these guys are celebs as you suggested, I think they toil anonymously.

That's probably doubly dangerous. They are not held accountable for grade differences that can make thousands of dollars difference, though I have always believed it's a rigged game.

[JollyElm]

They probably go into the eye doctor's office looking for a bump. "I'm at 19.5/20, but i think my vision is better than what the original optometrist said, so I have a shot at 20/20."