Crossover grading

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

If you are considering trying this case give your money to a good charity or something because otherwise all you are doing is lighting it on fire.

David, I have no plans to try this case. I have no horse in this race other than my concern about the hobby and my desire to initiate discussion about things I see going on that I don't think are kosher.

This issue is merely a subset of a myriad of other issues discussed on this Board. As someone who goes back to the 1960's and sees what it going on with blatantly altered cards receiving grades, ridiculous price differentials between half grades for differences that exist only because some 30-year old grader with little hobby experience says exists, and even if it does is based on some totally subjective determination of grading, I feel the need to speak out and try to stimulate provocative discussion that could be an impetus for change.

I respect the views of all people who in a civil manner disagree with what I say, and in a number of instances upon further reflection I have shifted my views. That is what I like about this Board. But I have real concerns much of what we are seeing is a house of cards (pun intended) ready to fall, and I think it is constructive to raise awareness of these issues.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess the question you have to ask is, why are people willing to pay those price differentials for an arbitrary half grade difference? In some cases I think the answer is almost circular -- because the market says they're worth more. Sort of like in the old days, cards were worth what Beckett said they were worth, despite its claim that it was merely reflecting prices not determining them. Purely from a collecting standpoint, I'm not sure.

And adding to the element of arbitrariness are all the crackouts, bumps, etc. etc. So many cards go through different grades before landing in their current holder.

Plus, and I couldn't prove it, or it would cost me a lot to do so, but I have a strong suspicion all submitters are not equal -- or some are more equal than others. (I've always been tempted to buy say 250 random 10s from a certain seller and resubmit them myself and post the results.)

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess the question you have to ask is, why are people willing to pay those price differentials for an arbitrary half grade difference? In some cases I think the answer is almost circular -- because the market says they're worth more. Sort of like in the old days, cards were worth what Beckett said they were worth, despite its claim that it was merely reflecting prices not determining them. Purely from a collecting standpoint, I'm not sure.

I agree to some extent (regarding the guide 'setting' prices as much as, or more so than, 'reflecting' prices). But if you consider it more in terms of 'cycle time', the Beckett may well have reflected changes, but over a longer cycle than today's shorter cycle 'guides' like a VCP. At some point those cards would not 'move' at Beckett 'guide' prices and in theory the Beckett prices would be adjusted. Personally, I always marveled (suspiciously so) at how many monthly price changes had an up indicator and so few had a down one.

Now consider even further the shorter cycle times. The shorter the cycle, the more the 'card' becomes a 'commodity', which may be even worse than considering it an 'asset'.

And as an aside, does PWCC attempt to see the future or create the future?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tschock

I agree to some extent (regarding the guide 'setting' prices as much as, or more so than, 'reflecting' prices). But if you consider it more in terms of 'cycle time', the Beckett may well have reflected changes, but over a longer cycle than today's shorter cycle 'guides' like a VCP. At some point those cards would not 'move' at Beckett 'guide' prices and in theory the Beckett prices would be adjusted. Personally, I always marveled (suspiciously so) at how many monthly price changes had an up indicator and so few had a down one.

Now consider even further the shorter cycle times. The shorter the cycle, the more the 'card' becomes a 'commodity', which may be even worse than considering it an 'asset'.

And as an aside, does PWCC attempt to see the future or create the future?

With the thousands of cards listed, IMO Beckett could not possibly have had sufficient data in those pre-internet days to assess what cards were selling for at hundreds of venues if not more across the nation. The reality was, most dealers just quoted the Beckett price except maybe for super hot current players, and typically if you bought enough or were a regular customer you could get a discount from that.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

With the thousands of cards listed, IMO Beckett could not possibly have had sufficient data in those pre-internet days to assess what cards were selling for at hundreds of venues if not more across the nation. The reality was, most dealers just quoted the Beckett price except maybe for super hot current players, and typically if you bought enough or were a regular customer you could get a discount from that.

Agreed. And most buyers used it to determine what to pay. A self-fulfilling cycle. Not a guide as much as a sales catalog, with the salesmen being the individual dealers.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

With the thousands of cards listed, IMO Beckett could not possibly have had sufficient data in those pre-internet days to assess what cards were selling for at hundreds of venues if not more across the nation. The reality was, most dealers just quoted the Beckett price except maybe for super hot current players, and typically if you bought enough or were a regular customer you could get a discount from that.

I'd have to look as some old Becketts, but I think they used to list the dealers they got pricing from. Pretty much all the biggest from whatever year it was, plus supposedly a few others who would report sales. (who ever had that much time? )

One show I was at the talk among some dealers when they didn't think anyone was listening was about how they had expected the initial prices in Beckett to be higher, and held off on selling the cards until the prices came out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'd have to look as some old Becketts, but I think they used to list the dealers they got pricing from. Pretty much all the biggest from whatever year it was, plus supposedly a few others who would report sales. (who ever had that much time? )

One show I was at the talk among some dealers when they didn't think anyone was listening was about how they had expected the initial prices in Beckett to be higher, and held off on selling the cards until the prices came out.

I definitely ran into that with new issues. I mean you could always get the just-released Shaq rookie or whatever it was that year if you threw a crazy number at someone, but quite often they would tell you they were waiting to see what "the Beckett" said. The same guys who were always telling you that some wax product or other was "drying up." I imagine shows everywhere in the early to mid 90s were pretty much the same, but there were some real prizes among the Boston area show guys.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I definitely ran into that with new issues. I mean you could always get the just-released Shaq rookie or whatever it was that year if you threw a crazy number at someone, but quite often they would tell you they were waiting to see what "the Beckett" said. The same guys who were always telling you that some wax product or other was "drying up." I imagine shows everywhere in the early to mid 90s were pretty much the same, but there were some real prizes among the Boston area show guys.

In the mid 80's when I lived in CT I went to a local flea market a lot. One guy always had new stuff, small time dealer, and kinda pushy. My stock answer for him on stuff I didn't want was "nah, I already have some". One day were talking in general, and I mentioned I might get up early someday soon to sell some of my extra stuff. He motioned me around to the back of the van, handed me a couple boxes of new product (Probably something interesting but junk like the mini cards) and said "those are for you, don't sell here next weekend" I tried to pass, but he got a bit insistent...

One of the few "bad" things broke college me did was occasionally mention to him that I was going to set up next week. Not often, maybe 5 times over the summer.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

David, I have no plans to try this case. I have no horse in this race other than my concern about the hobby and my desire to initiate discussion about things I see going on that I don't think are kosher.

This issue is merely a subset of a myriad of other issues discussed on this Board. As someone who goes back to the 1960's and sees what it going on with blatantly altered cards receiving grades, ridiculous price differentials between half grades for differences that exist only because some 30-year old grader with little hobby experience says exists, and even if it does is based on some totally subjective determination of grading, I feel the need to speak out and try to stimulate provocative discussion that could be an impetus for change.

I respect the views of all people who in a civil manner disagree with what I say, and in a number of instances upon further reflection I have shifted my views. That is what I like about this Board. But I have real concerns much of what we are seeing is a house of cards (pun intended) ready to fall, and I think it is constructive to raise awareness of these issues.

There may be some bias on PSA's part but proving it using cross over data will be impossible. I understand your concern but when the discussion moves to anti trust lawsuits is where it goes from productive to something other than that.

I think what you are missing is that many cards that are submitted to third party grading firms change grades on a second or third trip so this same argument can be used to defend against your thesis.

In 2011 I got a real eye opener when it came to grading. There was a mid 50's Topps card that was a PSA 8 in a Rick Probstein auction that went for $40 something dollars. A month or two later the same exact card showed back up in a Rick Probstein auction and was now a PSA 10 and went for $4,000+. I was honestly outraged. How could this happen? I emailed Joe Orlando with my concern thinking he would be shocked too and really want to know and he wrote back asking if I would like to talk about it. We spoke the next day and he smartened me up real quick and explained that there were lots of players in the market that buy what they think are under graded cards and send them in for review, crack and resub, and also that the graders aren't perfect and are only human and that one may see something another doesn't or value it differently when rendering a grade. It became very clear to me then that third party grading isn't a perfect science.

A lot of cards that are in PSA 10 holders were once in a PSA 9 holder. Two of the cards I have spent the most on were bumped from a 9 to a 10. Once more showing that within the same company they have graders that might not agree on the grade. If they can't agree within a company, on how earth can one determine what the exact grade of the cross over should be? Just because SGC says it is X doesn't mean it is X in the eyes of another grader.

One of these cards was submitted and received a PSA 9. It was cracked and once more received a PSA 9. The consignor auctioned it off through PWCC and won their card back via the snipe shill bid that I discuss on other forums as the preferred method of shilling. It was then sent back to PSA for review and was finally awarded the 10 and then I paid the person nearly five times as much for it. When things like this happen you can argue against third party grading as a whole but proving in court in any capacity that PSA has set out to damage it's competition by not crossing over cards all of the time at equal grades is impossible.

The market share differences are so large that they legitimately do not see either SGC or BGS as a real threat. There is no doubt that the spread in prices has caused PSA to gain more submissions but this is a kind of like a chicken or the egg argument. Which came first? The reality is the market share divergence started in the mid 2000's and saw BGS lose 30%+ of the market to PSA. The battle was won over ten years ago so the market we see today is just a reflection of that. There are more collectors who want a PSA graded card and so lots of cards that have been graded prior attempt to get moved to PSA.

I think a better question to ask is why are these people trying to cross over cards? The answer in most cases is money. In my case early on it was uniformity but at this point it would honestly be about the economics of it. If there were more examples of cards being cracked out and submitted raw and receiving either equal or higher grades you would see an increase in the demand for SGC graded cards but this isn't happening. If it was this would perhaps validate some of your concerns but there just isn't the evidence.

A comment just in the past hour showed a cross over submission. A few equal grades but mostly lower. Had the submitter asked for straight cross overs many would have been returned in card savers and PSA would have kept his money but instead he was realistic and they came back in holders.