Omnious sign in market?

[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.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

You should listen again. I would link it if I recalled which interview I was thinking of but it was pretty soon after the acquisition of Genamint. Nat made it very clear that he wanted to maintain grade integrity. He may have even called it grade integrity. He then went on to explain that if we break out a card and resubmit it the software is designed to identify the prior submission history and the card is going right back into the same holder.

Anyway, your earlier discussion on explaining AI limitations in grading were fascinating and very informative. I appreciated the time you took to explain it to us all.

As far as their use of Genamint, it has been mentioned to me that they are not even using the technology but not sure how the person who told me would have any knowledge of that but I know we all know someone who knows someone.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

You should listen again. I would link it if I recalled which interview I was thinking of but it was pretty soon after the acquisition of Genamint. Nat made it very clear that he wanted to maintain grade integrity. He may have even called it grade integrity. He then went on to explain that if we break out a card and resubmit it the software is designed to identify the prior submission history and the card is going right back into the same holder.

Anyway, your earlier discussion on explaining AI limitations in grading were fascinating and very informative. I appreciated the time you took to explain it to us all.

As far as their use of Genamint, it has been mentioned to me that they are not even using the technology but not sure how the person who told me would have any knowledge of that but I know we all know someone who knows someone.

Ya, I recall him saying that as well, but I also seem to recall him saying something along the lines of that just being his personal preference but that for reasons outside of his control, it can't really be that way. And that others he respected felt differently.

Also, this simply wouldn't even be possible with ultra-modern cards unless they were serial numbered or had an auto on them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ya, I recall him saying that as well, but I also seem to recall him saying something along the lines of that just being his personal preference but that for reasons outside of his control, it can't really be that way. And that others he respected felt differently.

Also, this simply wouldn't even be possible with ultra-modern cards unless they were serial numbered or had an auto on them.

No way to invisibly mark a card that would be identifiable later?

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No way to invisibly mark a card that would be identifiable later?

Peter I brought this up a few years earlier. I think this is what's done on PSA/DNA Authenticated items. I think it's called an invisible daub. IDK

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No way to invisibly mark a card that would be identifiable later?

Is there a way to do this? Of course there is. Imagine the uproar from vintage card collectors, though.

"...so, you're certifying my card as authentic and unaltered. Then, you go and alter it with your supposedly invisible..."

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No way to invisibly mark a card that would be identifiable later?

Sure, they could mark the cards. But I'd bet it would be the end of PSA as the market leader if that was the hill they chose to die on. They would be receiving zero of my cards, that's for sure.