Post-War PSA Grading

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by raulus

My point is simply mathematical, that if there had happened to be 1 or 2 more of the PSA 9s that instead came out as 10s, then the results would be wildly different.

Your point on the small sample size with the Ryan is valid. I'm just saying, you have to know when a really nice card like that walks in - and some grader or team of graders is saying this is a 9, is it possibly higher? Like how many people get called in on that decision do you think? I would love to be a fly on the wall.

In this regard, the '80 Henderson is a better example of them pop controlling. There are currently 25 PSA 10's, and 2,115 PSA 9's. So about 1.18% of all "mint" Rickey rookies get 10's. VCC Keith's point is simply that that is waaaay out of whack compared to everything else in the 1980 Topps set. Much the same with the '68 Ryan, the '71 Topps Ryan...and lots of other vintage cards here and there if you are paying attention.

This is all kind of tongue-in-cheek amusing to me. I usually consider a PSA 6 a "really nice" vintage card. Most of those are going to have sharp corners, a nice surface with no creases, and maybe a mild (to me, anyway) centering problem. My own Ryan RC is a nicely centered raw example in the EX range, and I'm guessing my '80 Rickey Henderson might be a PSA 7 on a good day. Cards are my hobby and diversion. I will never pay on the level of what my house is currently worth just to say I own a PSA 10 of something.

[steve B]

What you're all forgetting in all this math is that the cards production was largely manual, and almost entirely manual at a few points during production.

Having a card set up slightly crooked, or slightly off center on the sheet, or even one color being slightly off making most of the print run be poorly registered for one card but not others is common.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

What you're all forgetting in all this math is that the cards production was largely manual, and almost entirely manual at a few points during production.

Having a card set up slightly crooked, or slightly off center on the sheet, or even one color being slightly off making most of the print run be poorly registered for one card but not others is common.

Not sure how that plays into the discussion about the 9/10 ratio in the VCC video. Cards that were diamond cut, or printed with slight tilt or registration problems aren't going to be eligible for PSA 9 or higher anyway. Those all get weeded out at nice midgrade - maybe PSA 6/7 at best. The cards that they most notoriously control like the '80 Henderson and the '68 Ryan don't have sheet positioning or registration problems; I'm not sure about others.

[GasHouseGang]

I don't have access to all the PSA population numbers, but a good basketball card example that I feel is being manipulated is the Skybox E-X2000 #30 of Kobe from 1996-1997. When I was trying to buy one, there were 23 PSA10's and 682 PSA 9's. This card should not be that rare in high grade. And the difference in price between a 10 and a 9 is now astronomical. VCP lists the PSA 9 current average sales price as $1134 while the PSA 10 is $22,625. This is due primarily to the low population and desirability of that card in a 10.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I don't have access to all the PSA population numbers, but a good basketball card example that I feel is being manipulated is the Skybox E-X2000 #30 of Kobe from 1996-1997. When I was trying to buy one, there were 23 PSA10's and 682 PSA 9's. This card should not be that rare in high grade. And the difference in price between a 10 and a 9 is now astronomical. VCP lists the PSA 9 current average sales price as $1134 while the PSA 10 is $22,625. This is due primarily to the low population and desirability of that card in a 10.

Exactly. Even with modern, above a 9 for sure and there is a strong argument you are more about the flip than you are the card. The desire for the pop and slab you want are equal if nothing else with the desire of the eye appeal of the card.

[Kutcher55]

Yes agree on the difference between a 9 and 10. Still can’t see how anyone in their right mind would pay market on a PSA 10 Henderson rookie. It’s just not a condition sensitive card the way, say a 79 Ozzie Smith RC is. That card is next to impossible to find without a left leaning tilt, not to mention low top-to-bottom centering.

jcollins does a good job covering the most compelling elements of VCC’s analysis, particularly the ratio of gem mint grades in high profile examples, the Henderson being particularly compelling as compared to all the other cards in the set combined. VCC also has a good video on 71s and how Ryan and other star cards are very lean on the % of 9s and 10s compared to the rest of the set. His recent video on the 10/10 PSA DNA 89 Griffey UD rookie fiasco is also very compelling. It just seems like certain big customers got handed some sweetheart deals on a card that was once selling for an absurd $50k before the population suddenly went up 10x or something like that and dropped the market price to a less-absurd-but-still-absurd $7k. It’s some great muckracking on his part and while his math is not always on point, he lands a lot of uppercuts in his videos for sure.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Not sure how that plays into the discussion about the 9/10 ratio in the VCC video. Cards that were diamond cut, or printed with slight tilt or registration problems aren't going to be eligible for PSA 9 or higher anyway. Those all get weeded out at nice midgrade - maybe PSA 6/7 at best. The cards that they most notoriously control like the '80 Henderson and the '68 Ryan don't have sheet positioning or registration problems; I'm not sure about others.

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

It's not just sheet position, it's how the card is positioned on the sheet, or on the camera ready art. Topps wouldn't notice a small difference in spacing between cards, like if it was half a mm off to one side or another. But once cut, that small difference will make centering less than perfect on every example of that card unless it's miscut just right.

The cutting and packing processes have a lot of their own hazards. Henderson can be on top of a cello, and there's one spot it can get tweaked just enough to put it out of being a 10.

I'm not seeing any real benefit to PSA to control grades. And even with some benefit, like more being sent in, there are still a lot of reason to think they don't do that.
Like... every grader would have to know not to grade certain cards higher than an 8 or 9. If that was really the case..
The graders who can't spot alterations would have to have a list of don't grade high cards memorized -Not likely.
In close to 30 years, none of those graders, even disgruntled fired ones have ever said anything, not even by accident. Nobody has that level of silence anymore. Not without serious legal backup or the threat of violence. And even then... People talk.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but most are about as legit as bat boy hanging out on the UFO with Elvis.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

The argument on pop control and reference to Keith's video is only about 9's and 10's, and the fact that with certain cards (like the '80 Henderson) - there are a disproportionate amount of 9's among the total population of mint cards. Nobody is arguing that they are pop controlling by not properly grading non-mint cards.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

It's not just sheet position, it's how the card is positioned on the sheet, or on the camera ready art. Topps wouldn't notice a small difference in spacing between cards, like if it was half a mm off to one side or another. But once cut, that small difference will make centering less than perfect on every example of that card unless it's miscut just right.

The cutting and packing processes have a lot of their own hazards. Henderson can be on top of a cello, and there's one spot it can get tweaked just enough to put it out of being a 10.

I'm not seeing any real benefit to PSA to control grades. And even with some benefit, like more being sent in, there are still a lot of reason to think they don't do that.
Like... every grader would have to know not to grade certain cards higher than an 8 or 9. If that was really the case..
The graders who can't spot alterations would have to have a list of don't grade high cards memorized -Not likely.
In close to 30 years, none of those graders, even disgruntled fired ones have ever said anything, not even by accident. Nobody has that level of silence anymore. Not without serious legal backup or the threat of violence. And even then... People talk.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but most are about as legit as bat boy hanging out on the UFO with Elvis.

It’s becomes more than just a conspiracy theory when backed by mathematical fact. Anyone who understands math and probability would understand that it’s hard to argue otherwise. VCC has presented overwhelming evidence. And this comes from somebody (me) who generally abhors conspiracy theory and is quite convinced that Oswald acted alone.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

It’s becomes more than just a conspiracy theory when backed by mathematical fact. Anyone who understands math and probability would understand that it’s hard to argue otherwise. VCC has presented overwhelming evidence. And this comes from somebody (me) who generally abhors conspiracy theory and is quite convinced that Oswald acted alone.

Probability has little to do with manufacturing processes. The processes are designed to make identical objects, and when those processes fail they make identical objects that don't meet specs. Especially specs developed later that they were never intended to meet.

The video link above only went to a video saying something like you tube doesn't work on this machine. A nice prank, but not a card video.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

Probability has little to do with manufacturing processes. The processes are designed to make identical objects, and when those processes fail they make identical objects that don't meet specs. Especially specs developed later that they were never intended to meet.

The video link above only went to a video saying something like you tube doesn't work on this machine. A nice prank, but not a card video.

The argument presented re: math / ratios in the videos referenced are about the subjective awarding of 9's v. 10's to truly mint cards, not the manufacturing process, or cards that don’t get 9's or 10's because they aren't truly mint anymore and thus did not deserve them. You can certainly choose not to believe that PSA is doing anything intentionally with the rest of it, but right now it seems we are still trying to compare apples to oranges. The argument is that PSA is being biased between the (two) mint grades based on the very subjective bump of cards that are already 9's to 10's - not that sorry, just not that many cards deservedly get to true mint grades on their own, and thus they are "controlling" by somehow seeing flaws that aren't really there. Does this makes sense?

If they are pop controlling only the 10’s as alleged, then yes, your point that they are leaving a lot of money on the table in doing that would in theory be correct. Does anyone know how PSA handles this in reality if someone gets a 10 on a huge card and is unprepared to pay the hefty fee bump? Would they get the option maybe of taking the 9 and paying less? Surely not...

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's exactly the point. A card prone to some small defect won't grade 9 or 10.
And with the production process there are at least two places where a card can get slightly messed up for all or most of the run.

It's not just sheet position, it's how the card is positioned on the sheet, or on the camera ready art. Topps wouldn't notice a small difference in spacing between cards, like if it was half a mm off to one side or another. But once cut, that small difference will make centering less than perfect on every example of that card unless it's miscut just right.

The cutting and packing processes have a lot of their own hazards. Henderson can be on top of a cello, and there's one spot it can get tweaked just enough to put it out of being a 10.

I'm not seeing any real benefit to PSA to control grades. And even with some benefit, like more being sent in, there are still a lot of reason to think they don't do that.
Like... every grader would have to know not to grade certain cards higher than an 8 or 9. If that was really the case..
The graders who can't spot alterations would have to have a list of don't grade high cards memorized -Not likely.
In close to 30 years, none of those graders, even disgruntled fired ones have ever said anything, not even by accident. Nobody has that level of silence anymore. Not without serious legal backup or the threat of violence. And even then... People talk.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but most are about as legit as bat boy hanging out on the UFO with Elvis.

I feel like you might be under-appreciating PSA's interest in keeping low population counts in popular cards. And also over-appreciating what is necessary to keep those pops low. It's not something extremely nefarious they need to put in place. Just have management tell graders to scrutinize big vintage cards because 10s should be very rare, and/or require them to get approval by senior graders/managers before handing out 10s to major cards. I'm sure some type of oversight like that exists.

[BobC]

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson? And since not many really cared much about all of the Joe Nobody common cards they'd also gotten, those were likely to get stuck in a box or drawer and quickly forgotten. Thus, more likely to stay in pristine and perfect condition due to not being handled much at all.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson. And since not many really cared much about all of the Joe Nobody common cards they'd also gotten, those were likely to get stuck in a box or drawer and quickly forgotten. Thus, more likely to stay in pristine and perfect condition due to not being handled much at all.

Not enough conspiracy in this explanation for me.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Understand the discussion and concern, but did any of you guys ever think of the very possible and logical explanation for why there are fewer 10s may be because back then as kids were opening cards, they would be much more likely to handle, trade, walk around showing off, the cards of the stars of the day from back then, like a Henderson?

This is beside the point. Yes, star cards like Mantles in the 60's and Reggies in the 70's, and Rickey's in the 80's were handled more, and thus more likely to survive today with signs of wear than some of the Joe Schlabotnik's and other commons that were put in a box the same day and remain pack fresh, NM-MT or higher.

The arguments for PSA pop control that have been put forward are based on cards that are already in Mint condition. Nobody is saying that PSA is giving cards that should be "Mint" only 7's or 8's. They are simply pointing out that if a card is "Mint" (a 9 or 10) already, in some very suspicious cases there are waaaaaaay less 10's for say, the Rickey Hendersons or Nolan Ryans of the world than there are other common cards in the set. So a card that was handled, traded, walked around showing off isn't going to be a 10, no. But it's not going to be a 9 either, and probably not even a 7. Acknowledged that for the vast, vast majority of vintage cards - getting a 9 is a pretty rare thing anyway.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I feel like you might be under-appreciating PSA's interest in keeping low population counts in popular cards. And also over-appreciating what is necessary to keep those pops low. It's not something extremely nefarious they need to put in place. Just have management tell graders to scrutinize big vintage cards because 10s should be very rare, and/or require them to get approval by senior graders/managers before handing out 10s to major cards. I'm sure some type of oversight like that exists.

Really well said. As far as the “star cards are handled more than commons” theory, it has merit but it fails to address the ratio of 10s to 9s conundrum. Since both 9s and 10s are all pack fresh by definition then how is the ratio of 10s to 9s so much higher for star cards in so many cases? It’s basically a statistical impossibility without manipulation taking place. At least it is for those of us who understand statistics and probability. Now excuse me while I go put on my tin hat for the day.