PSA 10's

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I don't think they're punishing small fry submitters with bad grades. Some people posit that they do it to encourage resubmissions, but those resubmissions would have to offset the defection of people who get sick of undergrades to other companies. Maybe I have the metrics of that equation wrong but I'd have to be damn sure of my plan if it included pissing off a large quantity of submitters.

I think this is true but also not quite on point.

I doubt that PSA ever deliberately punishes small fry. Like you say, they have no incentive to actively piss submitters off.

The real issue is whether they give gifts to big fish.

The biggest opportunity for them to give gifts to favored customers without pissing off less important ones lies entirely with the PSA 10 versus PSA 9 distinction for big value cards. The distinction between these two is so arbitrary that its almost impossible to dispute a call between them. Yet the difference can be worth thousands of dollars to someone who gets a 10 instead of a 9.

In order to maintain the value of that 10, they can't give away too many of them. So they've got a limited number of these gifts to give, and basically complete discretion in deciding when they are going to give them out. Its not hard to figure out how they'll dole them out based on the incentives they have.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I think this is true but also not quite on point.

I doubt that PSA ever deliberately punishes small fry. Like you say, they have no incentive to actively piss submitters off.

The real issue is whether they give gifts to big fish.

The biggest opportunity for them to give gifts to favored customers without pissing off less important ones lies entirely with the PSA 10 versus PSA 9 distinction for big value cards. The distinction between these two is so arbitrary that its almost impossible to dispute a call between them. Yet the difference can be worth thousands of dollars to someone who gets a 10 instead of a 9.

In order to maintain the value of that 10, they can't give away too many of them. So they've got a limited number of these gifts to give, and basically complete discretion in deciding when they are going to give them out. Its not hard to figure out how they'll dole them out based on the incentives they have.

I don't disagree with you, but I was specifically responding to someone who was saying that small submitters don't get 10's. Do they get them at the same rate as whales? Probably not, but I got 10's on my first submission and have gotten them on cards as old as 1968 and I am no whale, never been to a PSA invitational etc.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

The distinction between these two is so arbitrary that its almost impossible to dispute a call between them. Yet the difference can be worth thousands of dollars to someone who gets a 10 instead of a 9.

And this distinction, in prices realized between a 9 and a 10, despite almost undetectable differences, is what drives much of this bad behavior. The thing is that we, the collecting community, ultimately have complete control of the prices.

Say there is really no perceptible difference between a 9 and a 10, at least not one that can be consistently defended. By giving 10s out at a much lower rate than 9s, PSA manipulates the supply of 10s and and we fall right in the trap of believing that a 10 is worth XX times more than a 9, based on the supply - though there is little/no difference. However, with all the money and egos in the hobby, the precious 10 carries with it the swagger that "I have the best" and people are willing to spend crazy amounts of money for that.

[55koufax]

So in 2009 or 2010 I sat down with Joe O. and had a discussion about why it was seemingly so impossible to get 10's? Specifically from the hundreds (now well over a thousand) of '55 Topps AA's fresh out of cello packs I had graded. (Mind you I had already spent $150 per pack to get several packs graded - I actually paid for PSA to obtain a new mold to fit them). 48 of the 57 PSA 10's in the pop report are from my submissions, and I firmly believe 3 others that have somewhat recently popped are from my cards that I sold, and then they were subsequently trimmed to ascertain 10's (sad but true). Anyway, he offered this:

"PSA wants to maintain a certain aura or mystique surrounding the grade of 10".

They had just started with .5 point grades and I then asked him why they skipped the 9.5 grade His response?

"PSA wants to maintain a certain aura or mystique surrounding the grade of 10".

Now I ask all of you, does this make sense?

Looks like PSA feels a 9.5 grade would detract from those "mystical" 10's ??? Not only that, how can you say you are objective when the boss admits in so many words they are not - when it comes to 10's.

I could show you MINT 9's of the same card next to GEM 10's of same, and even with the all the tools of the trade, you would never discern the difference. Not only that, I have had 4 Otto Graham 9's that I compared to the only 10 in existence (from pre 2009 which was one of only six tens in the entire pop report at the time) that belonged to Nate Sanders at the time, and it is a joke. That antiquated 10 is noticeably inferior to all 4 9's...

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

Not only that, I have had 4 Otto Graham 9's that I compared to the only 10 in existence (from pre 2009 which was one of only six tens in the entire pop report at the time) that belonged to Nate Sanders at the time, and it is a joke. That antiquated 10 is noticeably inferior to all 4 9's...

I would suggest that you get Dmitri Young to resubmit them for you...

[55koufax]

Haha....Where be'ez Da Meat Hook these days? No longer at all in da world of cards?

[55koufax]

So in 2009 or 2010 I sat down with Joe O. and had a discussion about why it was seemingly so impossible to get 10's? Specifically from the hundreds (now well over a thousand) of '55 Topps AA's fresh out of cello packs I had graded. (Mind you I had already spent $150 per pack to get several packs graded - I actually paid for PSA to obtain a new mold to fit them). 48 of the 57 PSA 10's in the pop report are from my submissions, and I firmly believe 3 others that have somewhat recently popped are from my cards that I sold, and then they were subsequently trimmed to ascertain 10's (sad but true). Anyway, he offered this:

"PSA wants to maintain a certain aura or mystique surrounding the grade of 10".

They had just started with .5 point grades and I then asked him why they skipped the 9.5 grade His response?

"PSA wants to maintain a certain aura or mystique surrounding the grade of 10".

Now I ask all of you, does this make sense?

Looks like PSA feels a 9.5 grade would detract from those "mystical" 10's ??? Not only that, how can you say you are objective when the boss admits in so many words they are not - when it comes to 10's.

I could show you MINT 9's of the same card next to GEM 10's of same, and even with the all the tools of the trade, you would never discern the difference. Not only that, I have had 4 Otto Graham 9's that I compared to the only 10 in existence (from pre 2009 which was one of only six tens in the entire pop report at the time) that belonged to Nate Sanders at the time, and it is a joke. That antiquated 10 is noticeably inferior to all 4 9's...

[brian1961]

I for one am very happy PSA didn't install a 9.5 grade. That would create such a wretched mess and mass of hysteria for collectors wondering if they should send in their prized PSA 9s back to PSA, hoping for an upgrade.

PSA 10s are the favored few; we all get that. However, my fellow humanoids are infamous for splitting hairs until something is totally out of control, complicated, no longer enjoyable, and nauseating.

I completely agree with you over the matter that some PSA 9s look just as good as PSA 10s, and even as you described look better than a called 10!

Where many of our fellow collectors fall short in their minds is knowing when a PSA 5, 6, 7, or 8 is either ultra-high for a certain issue or the finest known specimen. Some idiots think it's gotta be a 10, or nothing, to achieve renown significance. I know of a few issues where a PSA MINT 9 is the ultimate and virtually unimaginable at the MINT 9 level for that issue, whereby to think in terms of a GEM MINT card from a profound condition rarity is reckless, ignorant, irresponsible, and dare I say flat-out stupid!

The premiums some collectors will pay for the 10 / DIME/ Double Digit is a world I cannot enter, but let's face it, sure makes interesting reading. It must be recognized, however, that the sky-high price points for some PSA 10s were achieved because of a knocked down auction fight between at least two deep-pocket collectors who both wanted the card at all costs. A decade later, when the winner decides to part with the ultra-expensive card, it may not fetch the money it took to originally win it. Such a shock may also occur if the card falls out of favor for any of several plausible reasons.

Have a swell day. Keep enjoying those beautiful Topps A-As!!!

--- Brian Powell

[Leon]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I think this is true but also not quite on point.

I doubt that PSA ever deliberately punishes small fry. Like you say, they have no incentive to actively piss submitters off.

The real issue is whether they give gifts to big fish.

The biggest opportunity for them to give gifts to favored customers without pissing off less important ones lies entirely with the PSA 10 versus PSA 9 distinction for big value cards. The distinction between these two is so arbitrary that its almost impossible to dispute a call between them. Yet the difference can be worth thousands of dollars to someone who gets a 10 instead of a 9.

In order to maintain the value of that 10, they can't give away too many of them. So they've got a limited number of these gifts to give, and basically complete discretion in deciding when they are going to give them out. Its not hard to figure out how they'll dole them out based on the incentives they have.

Yeap. Probably aren't dinging smaller submitters intentionally BUT if they give lenient grades to volume submitters, in effect, it does hurt the others.