PSA/SGC Waiting Lines At 2019 National

[oldjudge]

It's a thinly traded stock and I believe the recent run up from 18 to 22 is a short squeeze. Everything sold off in the fourth quarter and has recovered since. At the start of last year the stock was over $30/sh.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

It's a thinly traded stock and I believe the recent run up from 18 to 22 is a short squeeze. Everything sold off in the fourth quarter and has recovered since. At the start of last year the stock was over $30/sh.

Their coin business which accounts for more than cards got hammered last year, no?

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

It's a thinly traded stock and I believe the recent run up from 18 to 22 is a short squeeze. Everything sold off in the fourth quarter and has recovered since. At the start of last year the stock was over $30/sh.

The stock got added to the Russell 2000 today. Every fund that tracks that index will want to own it so their returns can be as close to mimicking the index as possible. I think there is barely any stock short so not sure a short squeeze is even a potential issue. It is very thinly traded until the last few days as the index news was getting out. Just reading this board would make me not want to own the stock.

[BobC]

Since you guys have gotten into the financial well being of PSA's publicly traded parent company, I thought I'd take a look at the their most recent annual report and financials for 2018 myself. Interesting!!!! The red colored sections are taken right out of the Annual Report documents.

Grading Warranty Costs. We offer a limited warranty covering the coins and trading cards that we authenticate and grade.
Under the warranty, if such a collectible that was previously authenticated and graded by us is later submitted to us for re-grading
and either (i) receives a lower grade upon re-submittal or (ii) is determined not to have been authentic, we will offer to purchase the
collectible for a price equal to the value of collectible at its original grade, or, at the customer’s option, pay the difference between
the value of the collectible at its original grade as compared with the value at its lower grade. However, this warranty is voided if
the collectible, upon re-submittal to us, is not in the same tamper-resistant holder in which it was placed at the time we last graded
the item or if we otherwise determine that the collectible had been altered after we had authenticated and graded it. If we purchase
an item under a warranty claim, we recognize the difference in the value of the item at its original grade and its re-graded estimated
value as a reduction in our warranty reserve. We include the purchased item in our inventory at the estimated value of the regraded collectible,
which will be lower than the price we paid to purchase the item. We accrue for estimated warranty costs based
on historical trends and related experience, and we monitor the adequacy of our warranty reserve on an ongoing basis. There also
are a number of factors that can cause the estimated values of the collectibles purchased under our warranty program to change over
time and, as a result, we review the market values of those collectibles on a quarterly basis (see Inventory Valuation Reserves above).
However, once we have classified such items as inventory and they have been held in inventory beyond the end of the fiscal quarter
in which we purchased them, we classify any further losses in the estimated fair value of the items or the subsequent disposal of such
items, as part of the gain or loss on product sales on a quarterly basis.

Due to the higher level of warranty payment in fiscal 2018, warranty expense recognized was $764,000 in fiscal 2018 as
compared to $302,000, and ($145,000) in fiscals, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Our warranty reserves were $862,000 and $834,000
at June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

This section refers to the reserves set up to cover Warranty Costs to be paid to buy back collectibles that were originally over graded or later found to not be authentic. Based on this declared policy it would look like any items improperly graded by PSA should be subject to them buying them back. Notice how over the past several years these reserves have been increasing dramatically. With all the new issues coming to light I would think that PSA and not PWCC should be the ones handing out refunds and buying back altered/doctored cards. Of course, at this point all the info provided by the Blowout card guys and others is still only speculative and despite the seemingly overwhelming and incriminating evidence so far presented, no formal or authoritative group or person has definitively been able to prove or declare that in fact a specific card has actually been doctored or altered, just the presentation of overwhelming and unbelievable volumes of evidence to show that numerous items most likely were doctored/altered and then resubmitted to PSA (and other TPGs) where they were given higher, undeserving grades when they should have been deemed no better than just authentic because of the doctoring/alterations taking place.

I wonder, has anyone (or do you know anyone) who has purchased one of those PSA graded cards that were being shown via the before and after scans to most likely have been altered/doctored, taken their card and the online evidence available and gone to PSA and demanded they buy the card back because it was altered/doctored? If so, how were they received and treated by PSA, and most importantly, were they paid? And think about this, because PSA is part of a publicly traded company that is required to report about such things in their financials that can effect their business, the bigger this issue becomes the more detrimental the impact it can have on their business and public perception going forward. And apparently the company has a June 30 year end so, their auditors are working on their year end audit and financials right now. Part of that job is to assess the adequacy of reserves for things like the warranty costs, and to note potential legal issues and subsequent events that could impact the business, whether positively or negatively now and going forward. The auditors name can be easily found in the annual report and financials. http://investors.collectors.com/stat...3-6a45441cf111

I can see and understand PWCC paying some of these refunds back to try and help maintain their reputation and business, but in the end, I believe the true liability should actually start (and stop) with PSA as they were the ones who were actually paid to review, evaluate and grade these cards, and apparently missed all the alterations and doctoring. The fact that they may have been duped by a card doctor does not relieve them of their own prescribed policy and liability, at least not if they don't want to completely trash their reputation and business with the collecting community. Of course now PSA (and the other TPGs also involved) should have perfectly good reasons and cases to then go back after the card doctorers or others involved in submitting these altered/doctored cards to them, and sue for damages and to get back what they had to pay out to their customers under their warranty policies. The fact that PWCC instead is the one apparently starting to pay money out to people, plus the question raised by others in this thread as to whether or not PSA may be reimbursing them or contributing to them doing so, raises the question if both parties realize they are somehow in this together and trying to figure out how to appease people and not have the financial and economic consequences blow back on a publicly traded company like PSA.

This next excerpt from PSA's Annual Report really has me thinking about exactly what it is that they do. It states that PSA had 22 experts employed as of 6/30/2018 to grade cards, and I believe it noted/stated elsewhere in their Annual Report that PSA claimed to have evaluated and graded over 2 million submissions in 2018 as well. So, doing some rather simple math, 5 days a week times 52 weeks is 260 days, knock off say 10 days for vacations, another 5 days for sick/other down time, and say another 7 days for holidays and you're down to 238 working days per expert. Well, 2 million submissions divided by 22 experts is 90,909 evaluations/gradings performed by each expert in 2018. Those 90,909 gradings divided by 238 working days comes to 382 cards graded/evaluated each day. With 480 minutes in an 8 hour work day, that comes out to roughly 1.25 minutes (only 75 seconds) spent evaluating/grading each and every card graded and evaluated by PSA last year. And that includes all the time spent to write up and document any notes or issues, do any measuring, testing, reviewing required, handle and pass on the items, and I did't take into consideration going to the bathroom or getting cup of coffee during the day. Quite frankly, even without spending any additional time to properly assess the nuances and differences that occur in the higher end cards to do things like document and prove whether a card should rate as an 8.0 or an 8.5, I find that kind of production physically impossible for that few number of so called "experts" to be able to perform. And there is no way someone would or could be spending any significant time to really look at and determine sophisticated alterations and doctoring of cards and still be putting out that kind of production per year, let alone 22 different people all churning out work at that speed and level. Is it any wonder they are missing so many doctoring/alteration issues if those reported figures and volume of business are accurately stated in their own reports then? And to prove it, just take a watch and time yourself to see exactly how long 75 seconds is and how much you can actually get done in looking at a card and figuring the proper size, grade, condition, etc. And then figure out how to keep that pace up for an entire day. Ain't happening!!!

PSA Trading Card Authentication and Grading Services. Leveraging the credibility and using the methodologies that we
had established with PCGS in the coin market, in 1991 we launched Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), which instituted
a similar authentication and grading system for trading cards. We are now the leading authenticator and grader of trading cards.
Our independent trading card experts certify the authenticity of and assign quality grades to trading cards using a numeric system
with a scale from 1-to-10 that we developed, together with an adjectival system to describe their condition. At June 30, 2018, we
employed 22 experts who have an average of 14 years of service with the Company. We believe that our authentication and grading
services have removed barriers that were created by the historical seller-biased grading process and, thereby, have improved the
overall marketability of and facilitated commerce in trading cards, including over the Internet and at telephonic sports memorabilia
auctions.


In this last excerpt from their Annual Report I found it intriguing that PSA states that their fees are generally NOT based on the value of the collectible, except for special coin services requested by customers. I've never submitted anything to PSA for grading, but was kind of under the understanding that if I submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and a 1952 Topps common card for grading that I'd end up paying a whole lot more to get the Mantle card graded. And if so, how is that not a value based fee that goes completely against what they stated?

The amounts of our authentication and grading revenues are affected by (i) the volume and mix of authentication and
grading submissions among coins and trading cards, (ii) in the case of coins and trading cards, the “turnaround” times requested by
our customers, because we charge higher fees for faster service times; and (iii) the mix of authentication and grading submissions
between vintage or “classic” coins and trading cards, on the one hand, and modern coins and trading cards, on the other hand,
because, as vintage or classic collectibles are of significantly higher value they justify a higher average service fee. Our fees are
generally not based on the value of the collectible, except for special coin services requested by customers, for which we charge
supplemental fees that are based on the value of the coin. In fiscal 2018, U.S. vintage coin revenues decreased by $2.0 million
or 13% due to a general slowness in the coin market, although in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018, vintage coin revenues were
consistent with the level generated in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017.

And for those of you talking about and looking into where a company's cash is going, always be sure to check out the Cash Flow statement in the financials (page 52 in the Annual Report) and look at the different categories. Pay attention to increases and decreases to debt, acquisitions of fixed/capital assets, and anything else that may look unusual. The decrease in the dividend definitely shows up in the Cash Flow statement and the explanation and most probable reasoning behind that dividend cut is the combination of expansion into the China/Asian markets and the recent year's downturn in revenue from the coin side of the business, possibly coupled with the fact they are aware of the need to bump up their warranty reserves which may (or may not) be even more radically impacted and reflected for their 6/30/19 year-end with all the recent findings and discoveries involving altered/doctored cards in their holders. In the Company's own commentary to the financials they allude to the reasoning for the dividend reduction has to do with sustainability of cash flows in light of recent activities and expected/projected trends. Of course that was for the 6/30/18 year-end, from a year ago. Will be interesting to see what, if any effect, these recent allegations may have on their financial future, and how they decide to report it, that is for sure. If nothing else, I can assure you that if knowledge of these potential issues does get to PSA's auditors ears, PSA/Collector's Universe will try to sway and convince their auditors that any potential impact to the business would be immaterial and not worth mentioning. Last year's Annual Report for them came out in early September it seems. Too bad it wouldn't make it out before this year's National. Will definitely keep my eyes out for it when it does hit to see how they address and handle this. Should be interesting to say the least!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bob the site probably isn't conducive to easy searches and the discussion has evolved somewhat chaotically but there has been lots of discussion of these provisions and their relation to the scandal over the past couple of months.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bob the site probably isn't conducive to easy searches and the discussion has evolved somewhat chaotically but there has been lots of discussion of these provisions and their relation to the scandal over the past couple of months.

My bad, so many different threads out there, and I haven't tried reading them all. Sorry then, was just sticking to this one thread and saw the comments about financials. The biggest point I was hoping to get across to people is that it will be interesting to see what, if anything, gets into the financials for this 6/30/19 year end. With everything going on, I hope the PSA auditors are made aware of these events and that it is reflected in their Annual Report to some extent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

My bad, so many different threads out there, and I haven't tried reading them all. Sorry then, was just sticking to this one thread and saw the comments about financials. The biggest point I was hoping to get across to people is that it will be interesting to see what, if anything, gets into the financials for this 6/30/19 year end. With everything going on, I hope the PSA auditors are made aware of these events and that it is reflected in their Annual Report to some extent.

Yeah the way it's evolved it's somewhat chaotic on the Board but the events keep unfolding. But certainly the warranty is a big pressure point on Collectors Universe and obviously they have to review the adequacy of the reserve as do the auditors. Of course, since they control the ultimate decisions (short of litigation) as to whether to reimburse, that may play into their calculation. And they clearly, see Sloan's statement several weeks ago, are hoping to foist this onto the sellers.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah the way it's evolved it's somewhat chaotic on the Board but the events keep unfolding. But certainly the warranty is a big pressure point on Collectors Universe and obviously they have to review the adequacy of the reserve as do the auditors. Of course, since they control the ultimate decisions (short of litigation) as to whether to reimburse, that may play into their calculation. And they clearly, see Sloan's statement several weeks ago, are hoping to foist this onto the sellers.

Peter, agree completely. I know you're an attorney, but I'm a CPA and perform and issue audited statements and know what is involved and goes into the reporting and financials of these companies, and what the auditors are required and supposed to be doing. I wasn't merely trying to re-hash what had already been talked about and explained in numerous other threads, I was also trying to show and highlight issues as they specifically would be looked at and dealt with by an actual auditor. Apologies for not being so clear on that. That was why I was mentioning about how Collector's Universe's year-end is June 30, so the audited financials and Annual Report are going to be coming out pretty soon in the next few months. I am going to be extremely interested in seeing what, if anything, is reported or shown in their financials and Annual Report in regards to all these recent events. And those excerpts from CU's Annual Report I was posting were to highlight what was being said by the company itself, not someone else, and how they are supposed to be factual and accurate as part of their financials and Annual Report. And to whoever their auditor is, they would have to sign off and basically guarantee in writing to them that all their statements and everything they had been telling them as part of the audit and including in the Annual Report and all were factual and true, to the best of their knowledge, or they wouldn't be getting a clean and unqualified audit opinion from me if I was their auditor.

And if I were their auditor, I would be required to review their reserves for things such as warranty costs, and assess if they appear to have adequately reserved for it. If in my assessment they did not, I would discuss and suggest to them that they should change the reserve to what would appear to be a more appropriate number. And that assessment would stem from and be based on the warranty policy as stated by them that I had posted. And if they did not agree to change their reserve to what I felt was more appropriate, and the difference was egregious enough and material to the financial statements, I would be obligated to at least make mention of the difference in our report or footnotes, or even to issue an exception and a qualified opinion of the overall financial statements. And CU being a publicly traded company, exceptions and qualified opinions would likely not go over well with the investing community. And also being a publicly traded company, CU must conform and operate under the rules and requirements of the SEC, who look at financial statements and reporting in an extremely serious manner. An auditor of a publicly traded company would not want to sweep something under the rug that could later come out and get them blasted by the SEC and the public.

That warranty policy as stated by PSA/CU doesn't mention anything about them having to be taken to court and have litigation to force them to pay such warranty claim costs. It merely states that PSA is liable if a card previously graded by them is re-submitted to them, still in its original PSA holder, and is subsequently found and proven that it had been over graded incorrectly, or ended up not being authentic, that they would either offer to buy back the card from the current owner/customer at the value based on the incorrect grade, or AT THE CUSTOMER'S OPTION, not buy back the incorrectly graded card and instead pay the owner/customer the difference in value between the incorrect grade and what the card really should have been graded at. And I assume that means that if a card doctor had picked up say a PSA 4 version of a card and then altered and submitted it so that it now came back as a PSA 6, which was then later proven to have been altered/doctored when a subsequent owner resubmitted it to PSA looking for a grade bump, the true grade of that former PSA 4 card would/should now and forever after be no better than an "A", correct? And in that case, under their warranty policy, PSA would be liable to pay the owner/customer the difference in value between a PSA 6 version of that card and one that was just an "A" (authentic) version, and the customer/owner still keeps the card apparently, if the custoner/owner chooses that option. So if I was their auditor, I would have to use those parameters in looking at their warranty reserve calculation and determine if I felt it was adequate and reasonable given the known facts and circumstances.

Quite frankly, if I was PSA/CU's auditor, and knowing what I know about the whole thing, I would look at the warranty reserve calculation PSA did as of 6/30/19, along with their facts and calculations in how they came up with it, and start with the questions from there. Again, because of my knowledge of cards and the industry, I would be extremely critical of whatever reserve figure they came up with and be very demanding in knowing how they came up with and then justified it. Quite clearly to me, because the number of questionable cards in PSA holders already purported to be out there are being considered as maybe only the tip of the iceberg, there is no possible way to really and truly come up with an anywhere near complete list of what potential cards may be subject to the warranty. And couple that with the added difficulty of then having to decide what the potential values of those incorrectly graded cards are that PSA could be on the hook for, and there is no possible way currently to really come up with a good, reasonable and defensible figure as to that the reserve should be, at least not in my opinion. So as their auditor, I would probably end up telling them that I was going to at least explain how we arrived at whatever number we ended up using as the warranty reserve, and then be sure to add footnote disclosure to further explain the issue and the inability to determine an accurate, reasonable potential reserve with what information was currently available. I would also further explain that the warranty reserve costs could be significantly higher than reported in the current and future years, and have a serious material, negative impact on the business andc its financial statements going forward.

And trust me, the idea/concept of materiality is not simply a vague, unknown term or amount when it comes to audits. There are set and prescribed calculations and formulas that all auditors are supposed to follow in calculating materiality. In the case of PSA/CU, based on their 6/30/18 financial statements and total sales reported for that fiscal year, the entire company's planning materiality amount/level for that year was $498,694, which would/could then be rounded up or down slightly at the auditor's discretion. What that then means is that in looking at the financial statements of PSA/CU for that year as their auditor, if I ended up finding that I disagreed with amounts the company was reporting, and those differences netted to more than this materiality amount/level, I would have to go back to PSA/CU and tell them that they would either have to make some adjustments to their financial statement figures that I would propose to them to remove the differences, or if they did not agree to do so, I would have to at least have them disclose those material differences in the footnotes to the financial statements. And if they refused to even allow the footnote disclosure of the the material differences, I would most likely only issue them a qualified opinion and have to explain the material differences in my report then, or depending on how egregious the differences actually were, I could even possibly back out and refuse to issue an opinion because I didn't think an accurate opinion could then be given. And if you think that if I did back out as their auditor, or if they fired me as their auditor because I wouldn't go along with what they want, that they could simply go out and find and hire another accounting firm to agree with them and perform their audit and make the problem go away, that won't work. Any subsequent auditor of theirs is required to inquire of prior auditors and them as to why the change and what the issues were. And since they are publicly traded, the SEC also requires even further reporting and the filing of Form 8-K to explain the dismissal and change in auditors, and all the reasons and issues for doing so. In other words, the company being audited can't just hide the issues or try to sweep them under the rug. So from what I'm seeing, I expect there should be some interesting reporting on their upcoming financials.

And since the warranty guarantee appears to be triggered only when a PSA card is re-submitted to them in the same, original PSA holder it was in when originally misgraded, it more or less means that PSA gets to be the one, and only one, to decide if they actually misgraded the card to begin with. So has anyone already tried to re-submit one of these suspect cards in a PSA holder back to them yet? First off, with their ridiculous turn-around times (so I've heard) how long will it take someone to even get a response back. I imagine someone with a suspect card(s) could go to their offices along with scans and emails and all the documentation and evidence that has come forward and present it and the card(s) to them and say pay me. I'd love to be in the room to hear the response to that from a PSA official. And even with all the supposed evidence and scans you could present, what happens if they say they stand behind the grade and the card(s) presented is fine as graded and you are owed nothing by them, what recourse would you have then? Sue them in court to prove they are wrong, even though they are considered by many as the top card authentication and grading firm in the country? Most individuals wouldn't have the time nor resources to be able to go after them that way. And then think how that could impact the guilt and potential liability of the card doctor(s) or others involved in the sales of the altered/doctored cards. If someone went after a suspected card doctor(s) in court and the defense can pull in someone from PSA to say they back the grade they gave on cards the defendant supposedly doctored (remembering PSA is considered by many as the top, expert card grading firm in the country, if not the world), how would that possibly end up in court for the card doctor(s)? The problem is that even if there isn't true collusion and cooperation among the TPGS, dealers and card doctors in this whole thing, they all do share potential financial liability because of it. So it behooves them all to shut up and not admit to or say anything, and for the TPGs to continue saying the grades they gave certain cards are correct and they are not altered/doctored, which helps to maintain and preserve their reputation and keep them from being hit with financial liability under their own warranty guarantees. And that in turn provides protection for the dealers selling the bulk of these supposedly altered/doctored cards who can then just say that they didn't grade them and since the TPGs are standing behind the grades, that they didn;t do anything wrong either. And as for the card doctors, if the TPGs and dealers continue to keep saying the cards are good and the grades accurate, how can you accuse/convict them of anything if the recognized hobby industry experts keep saying the cards are good after all?

Now I've heard and read that PWCC has actually gone ahead and started to pay off/buy back/reimburse some people for alleged altered/doctored cards that they had sold them. But with all the allegations and finger point that has come out of this, they can easily argue they are doing so to maintain their reputation and business, without formally saying or proving that they knowingly sold cards that were altered/doctored and incorrectly graded by TPGs. In other words, they can assert it is merely a very lenient return policy they have on sales by them for unhappy customers. For PSA to start doing such payouts though, that would likely be considered by many in the hobby community as an admission by them that they had inaccurately graded and missed so many doctored/altered cards. So I can fully understand why they aren't out there offering to make payments to people for their alleged grading errors. And as for any of the card doctors themselves, good luck on getting anything should someone try knocking on one of their doors asking for a return of money!

Here's a thought on how to possibly make some money from all this then. Reach out to the people who currently own some of these alleged altered/doctored PSA graded cards and see if they would be willing to sell them to you, at a discount of course because of the taint their card now has. Then take the cards and go to PSA and resubmit and ask them to pay you for their erroneous grading. Depending on how much of a discount you may have gotten the card for originally, you could potentially make some decent money, if you can get PSA to actually admit they blew the original grading and slapped an improper grade on an altered/doctored card.

[barrysloate]

If it's true they only average 75 seconds per card, and that may not be the exact amount of time, then that simply isn't sufficient to do the job properly. If they have any interest in improving their track record, they will need to spend much more time per card and will have to charge more money to do so.

Would collectors be willing to spend more in exchange for better quality work? I would think so. If $50 gets it wrong, but $100 gets it right, don't you think most collectors would be willing to pay higher fees?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If it's true they only average 75 seconds per card, and that may not be the exact amount of time, then that simply isn't sufficient to do the job properly. If they have any interest in improving their track record, they will need to spend much more time per card and will have to charge more money to do so.

Would collectors be willing to spend more in exchange for better quality work? I would think so. If $50 gets it wrong, but $100 gets it right, don't you think most collectors would be willing to pay higher fees?

And how much does it cost to get a high-grade mantle Rookie graded? I have a hard time with these prices as it is granted I am not their main target demographic for what I collect but I trust my own judgment better than any grading company. The only only only reason I would ever Pay to grade a card is to sell it!

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

And how much does it cost to get a high-grade mantle Rookie graded? I have a hard time with these prices as it is granted I am not their main target demographic for what I collect but I trust my own judgment better than any grading company. You only only only reason I would ever agree to Curtis to sell it!

I know Pete. The $5000 they charge should entitle you to at least an hour of their time. But somewhere with regard to cost vs. time spent, something needs to change. They need to figure it out.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If it's true they only average 75 seconds per card, and that may not be the exact amount of time, then that simply isn't sufficient to do the job properly. If they have any interest in improving their track record, they will need to spend much more time per card and will have to charge more money to do so.

Would collectors be willing to spend more in exchange for better quality work? I would think so. If $50 gets it wrong, but $100 gets it right, don't you think most collectors would be willing to pay higher fees?

Barry,

I concur with you and honestly don't believe that it is physically possible for them to be grading that many cards that quickly given the number of grading "experts" they supposedly have. I was merely pointing out the facts and figures they themselves are putting into their annual reports and financials and doing the simple math. My guess is that the so called "experts" on their staff that do the grading are not the only people actually doing and involved in the grading process and that they may have others who do basic, preliminary work, and then have the "experts" get involved in the more higher-end, higher-valued cards at the back end, or in certain cases as needed. So if that is the true case, you may not always have an "expert" you thought you were paying for doing the work in looking at all your submitted cards and grading them for you.

I am guessing that the expectation of most collectors submitting a card for grading is that a single, expert grader takes that card and looks it over and reviews it against a predetermined standard set of measures and tests; mechanical, visual, touch and otherwise, including review with a black light, to completely examine and determine the authenticity of that card, as well as if it then qualifies for an actual grade, and if so, what that grade should be, again based upon a set of pre-described standards and measures that are applied across the board to all cards they are looking at, without regard to a card's age, the actual set it is in, its value, or otherwise. Heck, it just took me over 75 seconds to type all that out, let alone do all that actual work.

I can see that if a grader clearly finds right away some issue that lets them know that a card isn't legit that they wouldn't have to bother going through all the other tests and reviews to determine grade and such, but otherwise, every card should be graded the exact same way and undergo the same exacting procedures and tests and have the same exact standards applied in determining its authenticity and grade, whether it is a '33 Goudey Ruth or a '75 Topps common. And I would hope that most collectors agree this is how it should be.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by BobC

Barry,

I concur with you and honestly don't believe that it is physically possible for them to be grading that many cards that quickly given the number of grading "experts" they supposedly have. I was merely pointing out the facts and figures they themselves are putting into their annual reports and financials and doing the simple math. My guess is that the so called "experts" on their staff that do the grading are not the only people actually doing and involved in the grading process and that they may have others who do basic, preliminary work, and then have the "experts" get involved in the more higher-end, higher-valued cards at the back end, or in certain cases as needed. So if that is the true case, you may not always have an "expert" you thought you were paying for doing the work in looking at all your submitted cards and grading them for you.

I am guessing that the expectation of most collectors submitting a card for grading is that a single, expert grader takes that card and looks it over and reviews it against a predetermined standard set of measures and tests; mechanical, visual, touch and otherwise, including review with a black light, to completely examine and determine the authenticity of that card, as well as if it then qualifies for an actual grade, and if so, what that grade should be, again based upon a set of pre-described standards and measures that are applied across the board to all cards they are looking at, without regard to a card's age, the actual set it is in, its value, or otherwise. Heck, it just took me over 75 seconds to type all that out, let alone do all that actual work.

I can see that if a grader clearly finds right away some issue that lets them know that a card isn't legit that they wouldn't have to bother going through all the other tests and reviews to determine grade and such, but otherwise, every card should be graded the exact same way and undergo the same exacting procedures and tests and have the same exact standards applied in determining its authenticity and grade, whether it is a '33 Goudey Ruth or a '75 Topps common. And I would hope that most collectors agree this is how it should be.

Personally, I do not agree. It doesn't take a minute to grade a 1980's common. For ~80% of PSA grades, it shouldn't take more than 20 seconds or so to authenticate and grade.