Omnious sign in market?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Snowman

As far as the differences in hammer price between the SGC 5 Mantle that recently sold on REA for $306k and the one that sold on Goldin the other night for $146k, I think it's actually pretty straight-forward.

The $306k example looks like a true 5 condition-wise. It is in EX condition. And, most importantly, it is dead-centered left to right with no tilt. For centering-obsessed OCDers like me, that L/R centering is often far more important than top/bottom centering. Buyers will pay a significant premium for the centering on this Mantle.

Contrast that with the $146k Mantle, and you can clearly see an evil tilt to the image, most noticeable on the left edge. Image tilt is the spawn of Satan to centering OCD collectors. It's not enough for the image to be in or near the middle of the card. The lines need to be parallel and border widths equal. Sure, the one on the right I would still expect to outsell a comparably conditioned card with a more significant shift in centering, but this isn't a card that eye-appeal guys are going to be jumping up and down for, whereas the one on the left most definitely is.

However, there's one more factor that surely played into the hammer price here. That SGC "5" on the right from Goldin is NOT an EX card. Those bottom two corners would NEVER grade at a 5 today. Not from PSA or SGC. This card was graded back in 2014, when standards were quite a bit looser (whereas the one on the left was graded in 2019). High-end vintage buyers are getting smarter. They know the one on the left is EX and the one on the right is a VG-EX card wearing an SGC 5 tuxedo. They're bidding accordingly. It's the other side of the same coin for why I keep having to "overpay" when I find cards that are under-graded.

Here they are side-by-side. You can decide for yourselves whether or not the differences are worth an extra $160k, but the centering difference is worth a lot, and the fact that one is EX while the other is VG-EX is probably worth a lot more, in my opinion.

Wow those bottom corners on the card on the right (the one sold by Goldin) are BAD. Goes to show that just because you put it in a new slab does not mean people are going to pay (much) more money for it. You can't polish a turd.

Damn, that really shows you just how much grading has changed since 2014. Great side-by-side comparison.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Wow those bottom corners on the card from the right (the one sold by Goldin) are BAD. Just goes to show that just because you put it in a new slab does not mean people are going to pay (much) more money for it. You can't polish a turd.

Damn, that really shows you just how much grading has changed since 2014. Great side-by-side comparison.

Ya, they have moved the goalposts on us by quite a bit. It's a shame. The crazy thing is that there are even some graders at PSA today that would put that Mantle on the right in a PSA 3 holder (though I doubt they'd be the ones who actually get to grade it, surely that would be Reza). But they are definitely there, and I've gotten some cards recently that are nicer than this Mantle in PSA 3 holders (all of which I cracked out and got grade bumps from).

I'm not sure though which standard I prefer. I suppose it's somewhat arbitrary, but the lack of consistency is a major problem. Maybe the card on the right *should* be the 5 and the one on the left *should* be a 6? I don't know, but with today's standards, the one on the left is a 5 and the one on the right is a low-end 4 at best.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ya, they have moved the goalposts on us by quite a bit. It's a shame. The crazy thing is that there are even some graders at PSA today that would put that Mantle on the right in a PSA 3 holder (though I doubt they'd be the ones who actually get to grade it, surely that would be Reza). But they are definitely there, and I've gotten some cards recently that are nicer than this Mantle in PSA 3 holders (all of which I cracked out and got grade bumps from).

I'm not sure though which standard I prefer. I suppose it's somewhat arbitrary, but the lack of consistency is a major problem. Maybe the card on the right *should* be the 5 and the one on the left *should* be a 6? I don't know, but with today's standards, the one on the left is a 5 and the one on the right is a low-end 4 at best.

Yeah, goalposts keep moving. I agree that you could make the case the one on the left (sold by REA) should be a 6, even by today's standards. Would love to see any pics you have of cards you have cracked out of PSA slabs and gotten a bump from a different TPG. I think that could be its own thread.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yeah, goalposts keep moving. I agree that you could make the case the one on the left (sold by REA) should be a 6, even by today's standards. Would love to see any pics you have of cards you have cracked out of PSA slabs and gotten a bump from a different TPG. I think that could be its own thread.

I probably won't post them, unfortunately. The current landscape of social media and hobby heroes aiming to crucify people for the crime of "cracking a card out of it's holder" as if that were some sort of deceitful tactic or some such nonsense is just something I don't care to deal with. I could write a book on it though lol. Sometimes it's the same TPG in fact. I just depends on the card and what's "wrong" with it that determines who I decide to send it to (well, that and the cost). One thing I can tell you with 100% certainty though is that PSA is NOT using their Genamint "AI" tech to determine whether or not a card has been previously graded and to reassign that same grade when it shows up again. Or at least their computer vision algorithms are failing to detect them if so, because I've cracked out numerous under-graded cards and sent them in for grade bumps. Even cards that I submitted myself and resubmitted one month later using the same account. They are not consistent at all. I used to be able to predict my grades with a high degree of accuracy with each TPD, rarely being even 1 grade off. That's still true for me with SGC, but with PSA, I get cards back that are off by 2 full grades with at least some degree of regularity. In both directions even, though more often they are undergraded than they are overgraded (per their own standards that is).

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I probably won't post them, unfortunately. The current landscape of social media and hobby heroes aiming to crucify people for the crime of "cracking a card out of it's holder" as if that were some sort of deceitful tactic or some such nonsense is just something I don't care to deal with. I could write a book on it though lol. Sometimes it's the same TPG in fact. I just depends on the card and what's "wrong" with it that determines who I decide to send it to (well, that and the cost). One thing I can tell you with 100% certainty though is that PSA is NOT using their Genamint "AI" tech to determine whether or not a card has been previously graded and to reassign that same grade when it shows up again. Or at least their computer vision algorithms are failing to detect them if so, because I've cracked out numerous under-graded cards and sent them in for grade bumps. Even cards that I submitted myself and resubmitted one month later using the same account. They are not consistent at all. I used to be able to predict my grades with a high degree of accuracy with each TPD, rarely being even 1 grade off. That's still true for me with SGC, but with PSA, I get cards back that are off by 2 full grades with at least some degree of regularity. In both directions even, though more often they are undergraded than they are overgraded (per their own standards that is).

That's interesting that their Genamint "AI" doesn't seem to work at detecting if a card has been previously graded. I thought that Kevin Lenane, PSA's current President founded/developed Genamint, and its "success" was one reason why he was elevated to President. Perhaps Genamint is being used in other ways besides determining if cards had been graded previously?

There was so much buzz around AI being used for grading for a while. And now again with the Brian Lee/ Derek Jeter sports card grading venture that is supposed to utilize blockchain/AI it is back in the news.

Has any company actually successfully utilized AI for grading yet?

I personally would not have a big problem with it if it could lead to more consistent grading.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

That's interesting that their Genamint "AI" doesn't seem to work at detecting if a card has been previously graded. I thought that Kevin Lenane, PSA's current President founded/developed Genamint, and its "success" was one reason why he was elevated to President. Perhaps Genamint is being used in other ways besides determining if cards had been graded previously?

There was so much buzz around AI being used for grading for a while. And now again with the Brian Lee/ Derek Jeter sports card grading venture that is supposed to utilize blockchain/AI it is back in the news.

Has any company actually successfully utilized AI for grading yet?

I personally would not have a big problem with it if it could lead to more consistent grading.

I'm a data scientist and I write very similar AI code for work, although my work was more geared toward detecting anomalies in images due to things like cancer or genetic abnormalities in imaging scans. However, at the core, it's a very similar problem to detecting flaws in card scans. Somewhere around here, I made a (very lengthy) post or three about the challenges that any TPG would face when trying to use"AI" to grade cards. Cliff notes are that while I believe some tasks can be automated, ultimately I believe it is a fool's errand to attempt to truly automate grading through AI.

...found it. Here's a link to the first of 3 posts where I explain some of the intricacies of AI/machine learning and how those can present challenges for grading cards:

https://net54baseball.com/showpost.p...5&postcount=17

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

That's interesting that their Genamint "AI" doesn't seem to work at detecting if a card has been previously graded. I thought that Kevin Lenane, PSA's current President founded/developed Genamint, and its "success" was one reason why he was elevated to President. Perhaps Genamint is being used in other ways besides determining if cards had been graded previously?

There was so much buzz around AI being used for grading for a while. And now again with the Brian Lee/ Derek Jeter sports card grading venture that is supposed to utilize blockchain/AI it is back in the news.

Has any company actually successfully utilized AI for grading yet?

I personally would not have a big problem with it if it could lead to more consistent grading.

Not sure if Kevin was made President of PSA due to the alleged success of Genamint but both he and Nat did multiple interviews to let everyone know that initially it would be used to maintain grade integrity which is Nat's pet peeve. Not altered cards but that if the card was once graded a 5 that each time it is sent back in it would be a 5 every time. He cautioned the public to challenge his grading team.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Not sure if Kevin was made President of PSA due to the alleged success of Genamint but both he and Nat did multiple interviews to let everyone know that initially it would be used to maintain grade integrity which is Nat's pet peeve. Not altered cards but that if the card was once graded a 5 that each time it is sent back in it would be a 5 every time. He cautioned the public to challenge his grading team.

I listened to those interviews, and while I wouldn't endorse your interpreation of what they said, I do agree with the overall sentiment. That said, I would love if sending a card to PSA multiple times resulted in it coming back in the same grade every time. But it has to be because the graders are better calibrated and more consistent, not because they don't want to admit the fact that they are human and therefore make mistakes. Nat seems to prefer the dictatorship approach by declaring/pretending that all PSA grades are accurate, and to question their authority by cracking a card out and resubmitting it is somehow tantamount to fraud or some such nonsense. This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. The problem is that they are REMARKABLY inconsistent. Not that submitters are evil. If they undergrade my cards, I'm cracking them out. I pay for their opinion because the market dictates that I should. However, if I get a garbage opinion, I have zero obligation to keep my card in that holder. It's also why most of my cards go to SGC these days.

I'll post one card for the sake of this conversation. I sent this Gretzky RC to PSA about 2 months ago. It came back under-graded in a PSA 3.5 holder. There are no creases or wrinkles on the card or any other hidden flaws. It belongs in a 4.5 holder (and could even land itself in a 5 holder every now and then - note, BVG gave it a 5). Had this been graded back in 2014, it most certainly would have gotten a PSA 5. Anyhow, I decided to crack it out and resubmit it a couple of weeks ago. It came back in a 4 holder this time.

If PSA wants to make some improvements, maybe they should focus on grading cards right the first time instead of trying to find ways to punish collectors by trapping EX cards in VG holders due to what can only be explained by sheer hubris. In any other industry, a company providing a similar service would apologize for making a mistake the first time and give you a refund for the grading fees. PSA prefers the middle finger approach.

As you can see by the first few digits in the serial numbers, this card was very recently graded both times. Obviously, the bump from 3.5 to 4 isn't very significant, but the point is that this is proof that at least as of last week, and with this card, they either failed to detect that it was resubmitted or ignored that fact as they did not automatically assign it the same grade.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Damn, that really shows you just how much grading has changed since 2014. Great side-by-side comparison.

If both were raw, side by side, I'd seriously consider the one on the right. Yes, the corners have more wear, but the light surface wear on the left one is more distracting to me than the right's bad corners.

Especially if you said the one on the right is 1/2 the price.