Catch 22 of card grading - is it worth the gamble?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

Bob, I understand what you're saying and in a way agree, but companies like SGC and PSA have terms and conditions that outline what they offer. They both have your example of grading standards today versus 10-20 years ago covered. Below are two quotes taken from their websites:

SGC
"Customer acknowledges and agrees the grading and/or authentication of items requires the exercise of individual judgment and professional opinion, which is subjective in nature, and can change from time to time. Therefore, SGC makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to Customer for the grade or determination of authenticity assigned by SGC to any item."

PSA
"Customer acknowledges that such grading involves individual judgments that are subjective and require the exercise of professional opinions, which can change from time to time. Therefore, except as provided below, Customer agrees that PSA shall have no liability to Customer or any other third party for the grade assigned by PSA to any card."

Some common terms:
Customer acknowledges
Individual judgment
Professional opinion
Subjective
Can change from time to time
No liability

That is grading in a nutshell. Each company gives you two sentences that include the same ideas from the list above. Professional opinions might be partially formed by existing grading standards. However, an opinion, by definition, is "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." There might be a loose set of grading guidelines, but there is no checklist or proof required. Nowhere in the terms and conditions does it say that a card with a 1/2" crease can't grade higher than a certain grade, while a card with a 1" crease must be graded lower.

Someone that sends in cards for grading is asking for subjective individual judgments and professional opinions that can change from time to time. That is what they get.

Whether grading companies should offer more quantifiable data can be debated, but people don't even seem all that interested in simple sub-grades, let alone a list of data that can be derived from artificial intelligence. For an extra 50 bucks a card, would most people want a 20 point artificial intelligence inspection report that is available online that helps to justify the overall grade? I doubt it.

How many people complain about owning overgraded cards? For many sellers, the large majority of their graded cards are undergraded and none are overgraded. The cards that had to be graded four times are the only accurately graded ones. Only auction houses have overgraded cards. (some degree of sarcasm in the last few sentences)

Trey,

You are absolutely right, but then to my knowledge, no one has really taken on a TPG in court over their terms and conditions, have they? Ask the attorneys on here if terms and conditions on many different types of agreements and contracts always prevail when finally challenged in court.

Both statements you quoted are typical CYA commentary to dissuade anyone from even thinking of ever coming after them for a bad job. But in both of those they refer to the "individual" grader whose opinion is the one that is subjective and can change over time? It almost sounds as if the TPG companies are coming out and saying they only hire these individual experts and that it is these so-called grading experts who make the decisions and not them, so therefore they, the TPGs, have no liability for what these graders do because everything is just these graders' opinions.

First off, if that is true, the TPGs are literally saying they don't really have to stand behind anything they grade because it is all just an opinion. So, if that is the case, why do some TPGs have clauses and conditions where they claim they'll end up buying a card back or pay someone the difference in perceived value because of a supposed error or whatever? Based on what you posted, they shouldn't have to make up or agree to pay for anything, it is all just based on opinions for which they have no liability, right? And yet they do.

But then, who is it that actually trains these expert graders? I'm not aware of any college or vocational institution that provides courses, training, certifications, and so on to create them, are you? Could it possibly be the TPGs who find, hire, and train these grading experts then, and if so, how do they train them on what they're supposed to do to come up with their grades for cards? Could it be that a TPG has a set of fixed, documented standards they use to train their so-called grading experts? But wait a second, I thought these grading experts were just giving THEIR opinions on card grades, not what they're maybe being taught by the TPGs they work for. So, are those grades based on opinions or set standards after all?

And those statements you posted said the individual graders' opinions can change over time, but they said nothing about any standards the TPGs may be using to train them with possibly being changed over time. And opinions and documented standards are two very decidedly different things.

If these TPGs are in fact training these graders, I'm not so sure they can just set the grading standards and then absolve themselves of any and all liability by blindly claiming it is all just an individual grader's opinion. Attorneys can, and do, use very specific words and language to supposedly get across a precise meaning and intent in contracts and agreements, yet we have lawsuits about such things all the time.

I always look back at Clinton's testimony saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" as the epitome of lawyer-speak and logic. Now go back and re-read those TPG statements you quoted, and really think about exactly what they are actually saying. But in the end, you are correct in that it seems most all the people in our hobby only care about a card's grade, and otherwise just let the TPGs get away with doing what they want. But just because it isn't likely to be changing anytime soon, it doesn't mean it wouldn't possibly be better for the hobby if it did change.

[GasHouseGang]

I was wondering about the resubmission of cards. I remember reading on another thread that PSA now keeps detailed digital scans of cards they have graded before, and they will know if it is a resubmission. Is this true? I don't know how they could tell for sure if a card was a resubmission. If they can tell, it wouldn't do any good to resubmit a card for regrading, right?

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I was wondering about the resubmission of cards. I remember reading on another thread that PSA now keeps detailed digital scans of cards they have graded before, and they will know if it is a resubmission. Is this true? I don't know how they could tell for sure if a card was a resubmission. If they can tell, it wouldn't do any good to resubmit a card for regrading, right?

Supposedly, though they haven't commented on this endeavor.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I was wondering about the resubmission of cards. I remember reading on another thread that PSA now keeps detailed digital scans of cards they have graded before, and they will know if it is a resubmission. Is this true? I don't know how they could tell for sure if a card was a resubmission. If they can tell, it wouldn't do any good to resubmit a card for regrading, right?

Well, they promote that on cards since a few months after they bought Genamint, is when they started scanning those cards and "fingerprinting" the fibers/damage on cards. Now is that every service level from $10 bulk all the way up? Or is it more likely only on cards that are Regular ($100 fee) or higher? And again, only on a year's worth of cards at whatever those levels are. So if you have current lighthouse labels with cert numbers below 40,000,000 or so, I'd be fairly confident that those cards do not fall under the window of high-res scans used for fingerprinting.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by BobC

You are absolutely right, but then to my knowledge, no one has really taken on a TPG in court over their terms and conditions, have they?

There was a guy two years ago who sued Beckett for $500K or so when a BGS number-graded card he bought was identified as altered.
You could look through auburn35's posts on Blowout to see if you can find it. I don't recall seeing an update on it. But yes, choosing the nuclear option of suing a grading company basically cuts you out of ever using that company again.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by swarmee

There was a guy two years ago who sued Beckett for $500K or so when a BGS number-graded card he bought was identified as altered.
You could look through auburn35's posts on Blowout to see if you can find it. I don't recall seeing an update on it. But yes, choosing the nuclear option of suing a grading company basically cuts you out of ever using that company again.

Good luck with that auburn35, lol. Sounds like someone has some money to burn.

[G1911]

From the outside looking in, I hear much about undergraded cards but mostly see overgraded cards. I find a majority of my crack outs are overgraded (since these are the cards I can best examine, a scan doesn’t show everything but a card broke free in hand does), some of them grossly so.

[Dandor]

Originally Posted by G1911

From the outside looking in, I hear much about undergraded cards but mostly see overgraded cards. I find a majority of my crack outs are overgraded (since these are the cards I can best examine, a scan doesn’t show everything but a card broke free in hand does), some of them grossly so.

The majority of my "under graded" cards are in my PC and will never leave. If I get an "over graded" card it is going to COMC for me to sell. I think that is how a lot of collectors are. Over graded cards hit the marketplace much more often.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Dandor

The majority of my "under graded" cards are in my PC and will never leave. If I get an "over graded" card it is going to COMC for me to sell. I think that is how a lot of collectors are. Over graded cards hit the marketplace much more often.

This is probably true, which is what it makes it so difficult to get any kind of a valid dataset or batch to look at.