Psa no longer putting qualifiers on labels

[rdwyer]

"A" is now a Zero?

[JustinD]

I admit I love the idea of not seeing those godawful listings of sellers listing a 9oc for the price of a straight 8 or 9 and tossing in the obligatory “pop of 1 in this grade!” or even the other more lovely “Highest graded example!”.

[JollyElm]

Some people argue with regards to qualifiers, "What does it matter?"

So, here's an example which illustrates exactly why it's important to me personally.

These two cards (just screengrabs, BTW, not my cards) are very nearly identical. Side-to-side centering is very close to being exactly the same, and the top-to-bottom is slightly different, but neither card would be considered OC based on that sole factor.

One of these cards is a PSA 9OC, and the other is a straight PSA 7. Again, they are nearly identical, so the question must be asked: a) Did somebody check the 'no qualifiers' box on their submission, so it came back a straight 7 instead of a PSA 9OC...b) or is the straight PSA 7 a 7 because the centering fits the parameters for that specific grade and there were other factors which caused it to be 'lowered' to a PSA 7? In effect, the grade of 7 is an illusion, because we don't know whether it was 'a' or 'b.' However, with the PSA 9OC there is no illusion whatsoever. The card was graded a 9, meaning its features (corners, edges, focus, etc.) are virtually perfect, but the 'OC' qualifier was added because it is unsuitably off-centered. Very straightforward.

1972ryan595mockupb.jpg

I would prefer my card to be graded with the qualifier, because the information is complete, and if I sold the card, potential buyers wouldn't be in the dark. Again, the information is straightforward - a nearly perfect card that is off-centered.

But if I sent this card in today and it came back a 7, I would be pissed. Someone looking at said card wouldn't think it's really a 9 that's OC, so it was knocked down two number grades. No way. They would see it as a 7 that is waaaaaaaay off-centered (so in their mind it would actually 'look' more like a PSA 5, so to speak)...which would hurt any potential seller's ability to move the card at the 'correct' price.

PSA screwed the pooch on this one.

• Here are two cards I have in Bobby's group sub. The 1966 Choo Choo Coleman high number is a coveted card, and it's in sweet shape (Who am I kidding? Whatever grade I believe it should get will end up being way off). I would want it to be (God willing) around a PSA 8OC, because it would tell potential traders that it really is in nice shape, but is obviously off-centered. No grey area to speak of.

And the 1967 Hammerin' Hank Aaron, too, is really beautiful with incredible image clarity. Not really a diamond cut, but what I call a 'Rotato' - a rectangular card with an image that's twisted. I purposefully submitted this card to (hopefully) come back at a high grade with the requisite OC designation, not a much lower straight grade.

1967aaron1966choochoo.jpg

It's pathetic that they can just change the rules in the middle of the game without any regard for their customers' wishes and intentions. Absolutely ridiculous!!

[JustinD]

I can see your viewpoint.

Personally I would prefer just the straight grade as in my mind it is simply the exact same thing. They are both 7s.

The idea of removing the largest flaw and grading a card without it makes no logical sense in my mind accept to garner some feel good sentiment for the submitter. If you walked on the car lot and saw two of the exact same cars, one with overall general wear and tear, but one with a perfect interior but completely covered in rust is one actually superior because it has one better trait than the other with overall wear? Would you listen to a salesman tell you to just ignore the rust and be impressed by the interior?

It’s not a perfect analogy at all, but that’s basically how I picture a qualifier.

Grade a card on the “sum” of its parts, not “some” of its parts.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Grade a card on the “sum” of its parts, not “some” of its parts.

Justin, IMHO, you hit the nail on the head!

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Grade a card on the “sum” of its parts, not “some” of its parts.

I certainly agree with that sentiment, but the problem is PSA has been giving qualifiers since the beginning, so that's where the train goes off the tracks. If there never were any qualifiers given, then the 'sum' method would have been perfect, but unfortunately that's not the case. Now, like the 1972 Ryan example, there could be two realities. A highly off-centered card could be both a PSA 7 and a PSA 9OC at the same time, with the only difference being whether or not the submitter checks the 'no qualifiers' box on the form (I have no idea if that was actually the case here with regard to the graded Ryans, as I'm using it more of a general example). That's why this whole scenario is problematic for those of us who were fully expecting to get qualifiers on our cards.

Here are the 1972 Ryans with the grades exposed...

1972ryan595mockupa.jpg

[Johnny630]

Is Grading An Addiction ?

All these cards I’ve seen from you guys are great, regardless what PSA thinks.

[Rich Klein]

My point, and this is strictly from a BUSINESS point of view, is the removal of qualifiers is long overdue on PSA's part.

Why?

Even with all the people they have hired, they are still churning through their massive backlog and anything which slows the process, even by micro-seconds in typing, as putting a qualifier on cards is not worth the time at this point.

Plus, for the graders, again, even it saves micro seconds that time adds up.

So this is a decision, on the business level which is overdue. You had to think of this from the business point of view, NOT our collector point of view.

Rich