Top Graders' Compensation

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Really? PSA 8 Wagner. Who took that hit?

Doug Allen's rebacked Plank PSA 6. Who took that hit?

No excuses for why that didn't have more impact, maybe because it was graded several years prior (?), who knows. I cannnot imagine if a repetitive scam were exposed, in real time, in which a handful of employees were systematically bumping grades for profit, or whatever... perhaps slabbing fake signatures.

When there are 2 or more highly motivated competitors, offering a nearly equal service, I can't imagine something like this would not have a huge negative impact on the company that gets busted.

Hopefully none of this plays out, regardless of which speculative outcome is more accurate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

No excuses for why that didn't have more impact, maybe because it was graded several years prior (?), who knows. I cannnot imagine if a repetitive scam were exposed, in real time, in which a handful of employees were systematically bumping grades for profit, or whatever... perhaps slabbing fake signatures.

When there are 2 or more highly motivated competitors, offering a nearly equal service, I can't imagine something like this would not have a huge negative impact on the company that gets busted.

Hopefully none of this plays out, regardless of which speculative outcome is more accurate.

PSA used to hand out bumps like candy at shows. I know people who would travel to the shows to get the bumps. I know dealers who would personally take cards into the grading booth to argue their case. It was common knowledge. But as long as the grade was still within reason (and there is lots of subjectivity for tweeners), it caused no shockwaves. It doesn't work that way now, but I am sure that being human organizations, at TPGs some submitters are more equal than others.

Lots can happen short of blatant corruption. You don't need people handing graders bags of cash.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

...at TPGs some submitters are more equal than others.

Understatement of the year, at least at PSA.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PSA used to hand out bumps like candy at shows. I know people who would travel to the shows to get the bumps. I know dealers who would personally take cards into the grading booth to argue their case. It was common knowledge. But as long as the grade was still within reason (and there is lots of subjectivity for tweeners), it caused no shockwaves. It doesn't work that way now, but I am sure that being human organizations, at TPGs some submitters are more equal than others.

Lots can happen short of blatant corruption. You don't need people handing graders bags of cash.

I don't really attend many shows, nor do I know most of the dealers, but I don't disbelieve you. This is such garbage if it really happened like this.

I'm less engaged in the "what could lead to the downfall?" argument, though I do still think a smoking gun scandal, if they're caught red handed could potentially hurt them irreparably. I am still more focused on the fact a few people, making relatively little have control over millions and millions of dollars in perceived product market value.

I don't necessarily envision the secret garbage bags of cash to bump grades, as much as I do a couple employees (applicable to any TPG) devising a system to keep a card or cards marked upon submission, and through grading and slabbing. Maybe it's 2, 3, 4 guys working together, however few could actually achieve overcoming company safeguards, but they would not need to bump more than a few cards (maybe 1 per 10,000) to make some crazy cash. They would never really need to do it on famous, high visibility cards either. Think Gem Mint Art Schell.. or maybe '79 Ozzie, or a '67 Yaz.. but given the price difference on a single point at those highest (8-10) levels is nuts.

If it is ever doable within the TPG's grading SOP, a person or people making mid 5 figures, could supplement that with 5-6 figures by bumping or over grading a just handful of cards per month/quarter/year. If done well, perhaps all messages are verbal (or via secure apps), it seems it could be really tough to detect. If done really well, I doubt most collectors would even notice the cards once slabbed, because I think most agree many 8s could be 9s, many 9s could be 10... and given there will always be a few blatant mistakes (a 10 with a print mark, etc), these cards could stay relatively under the radar.

[Peter_Spaeth]

My best guess/information is that a lot of the mega dollar 10s you see started life as 9s. As you say, huge money for the lucky winner. And I firmly believe some people are better positioned to get these than the man on the street. Human nature.

[drcy]

Grading cannot be considered objective (and we're not even talking about accuracy here) when collectors submit their cards for regrading with the condition that a change can only be upwards-- and the grading companies agree to this.

As an 'objective exercise' grading is corrupted in many ways (including by the collectors and dealers), but, in reality, grading is this strange grading/insurance/marketing conglomeration. There's nothing wrong with this I suppose, so long as you take it for what it is. Just as there is nothing wrong with something having a margin of error (as in grading and everything else), so long as you realize and take into account that there is a margin of error. That cards are resubmitted and get different grades establishes that there is a margin of error, and/or subjectivity (I'd pick 'and'), in grading.

There's nothing wrong or errant with there being a margin of error. The foolishness is when collectors valuate things as if there is no margin of error ('Buying the label instead of the card.')

The best checks and balances (or, one could say, overall grading) is when collectors consider both the professional grade and look at the card itself-- which, of course, is what many collectors do. And collectors have different tastes in what grading details/qualities are more important than others-- some are OCD about centering, some forgive off centering when the image is sharp, some forgive writing on the back of an Old Judge but don't want a technically Near Mint N172 if the image is underdeveloped, etc. This says that a single grading equation itself is subjective and arbitrary, and why interpretation of it involves subjectivity. Or, with a N172 that is technically Near Mint according to the grading equation but with an image that is less than clear, grading is only part of the story. And that's why a collector looks at the card itself too.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My best guess/information is that a lot of the mega dollar 10s you see started life as 9s. As you say, huge money for the lucky winner. And I firmly believe some people are better positioned to get these than the man on the street. Human nature.

IMO without a doubt there are some who are better positioned. Just the nature of the grading and authentication businesses is a breeding ground for corruption.

[ALR-bishop]

I am my top grader and I get social security.

[Yoda]

Despite all the published safeguards in place, I still wonder if the grader can sometimes, by whatever means, find out who the submitter is. Devious minds in search of wealth are powerful tools to corrupt.