Video: Examining PSA's Grading Practices

[hcv123]

As if there weren't enough problems with PSA already - ad another big one to the list - REALLY curious to see where the hanging question leads - WHO GETS THE 10'S!?

I have received 2 - 10's from a few hundred submissions (both 1975 OPC - A Brett rookie and a common and both many years ago)

[irv]

Yep, nothing but a scam. It's the same as them charging way more money for a high dollar card than a common card.

It has been argued it is for insurance purposes due to shipping, etc, but why are the fees the same if you drop the card off and pick it up yourself?

[seanofjapan]

That was a really great video, I enjoyed the way you laid out the evidence, its quite convincing.

One question I have though is with the conclusion you reach that the evidence indicates that PSA grades key cards too harshly. It seems to me that the evidence you present is actually consistent with not one but two potential conclusions:

1) PSA grades key Mint cards way too harshly; or
2) PSA grades common Mint cards too lightly

This is a key difference. If it is #1, then it obviously raises serious ethical issues that you allude to at the end of the video, particularly that PSA is basically rigging the market, may be using grading to favor certain customers or to entice resubmission of 9s, etc.

If it is #2, then the problem is that they are just being lazy with common cards and not subjecting them to the same level of scrutiny that they do with higher cards. This is obviously also problematic since it indicates poor quality control, but the ethical implications are also a bit more benign than if #1 is the case.

Its also of course possible that the data is a reflection of a bit of both of these going on at the same time. It seems to me that its likely a combination of the two. There are obvious incentives for PSA to do #1, while at the same time human nature and the temptation to be a lot more generous when the stakes are lower probably also contributes to #2. I guess one would need inside information to understand the relative importance of each.

Either way its quite interesting and certainly shows the stupidity of the hobby putting so much financial importance on what is essentially a totally subjective and arbitrary decision over the difference between a 9 and a 10.

[SOX75]

Thanks for the responses guys.

Sean, I agree with what you said and it's something that my buddy Vince mentioned to me...that these 10 commons could be a giveback to collectors since the stakes are much lower.

A number of commenters on the video believe that the common grading is skewed because collectors are only going to send those in if they believe they are nearly guaranteed a 10. I think this is overstating it because no one can predict what PSA is going to do with any submission.

Ultimately I don't know how to test if PSA is being too easy on commons. What's been helpful to me is comparing the key cards to a 3rd group: the other HOF cards in that set. They share more features with the key cards in that they have higher submission rates and they are submitted as borderline 8/9's vs borderline 9/10's as commons might be.

And you can see in the data than in nearly every case these key cards still have higher 9:10 ratios than the HOF'ers too.

In terms of resolving if PSA is too easy on the commons, perhaps the only way would be to do a content analysis and look at these 10's and see if they really are 10's. There just aren't enough photos/sales of these cards out there to really even do that. It's a mystery at this point.

Thanks for the comments!

[Baseballcrazy62]

I have always thought tha PSA grades the player and not the card. FWIW.

[SAllen2556]

Great Work! And yet....

PSA and PSA/DNA business set another quarterly revenue record at $8.1 million for October-December 2019, surpassing last year’s Q2 revenue by approximately $2.1 million.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...trading-cards/

[Republicaninmass]

Where are all those people shorting the company stock? I think its doubled since.