Post-War PSA Grading

[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...

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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...

See my other answer.
Basically, the manufacturing process is absolutely part of a cards grade as grading is done now, as it considers defects in production as part of the grade.

Or to try to put it simply, if a card is produced in a way that makes nearly every one produced so that it could never qualify as being higher than a 9 there will be a very low percentage of 10's.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

See my other answer.
Basically, the manufacturing process is absolutely part of a cards grade as grading is done now, as it considers defects in production as part of the grade.

Or to try to put it simply, if a card is produced in a way that makes nearly every one produced so that it could never qualify as being higher than a 9 there will be a very low percentage of 10's.

Steve, my perspective is that the difference between a 9 and a 10 has absolutely nothing, zilch - to do with the manufacturing process. Both grades are already "Mint" cards. Unless maybe you are talking about a sliver worth of centering one way or another. A 10 is simply supposed to be a 9 with extra eye appeal. What that means in reality is of course widely open to interpretation. Anything that would be resultant from the manufacturing process that would render the card "not a 10" I would think means it's also not going to be a 9. That is how I have understood PSA to grade for years now.

I suppose if your argument is that slight discrepancies in the process produce noticeable 10's over 9's, then that is fair - but to your earlier point - the discrepancy there making a card centered 58/42 instead of 50/50 was not something that would have remotely been considered a defect for vintage cards when they were made. So my argument is that human construct has more to do with PSA 10's there than any significant manufacturing process difference.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Steve, the difference between a 9 and a 10 has absolutely nothing, zilch - to do with the manufacturing process. Both grades are already "Mint" cards. Unless maybe you are talking about a sliver worth of centering one way or another. A 10 is simply a 9 with "extra eye appeal". Anything that would be resultant from the manufacturing process that would render the card "not a 10" would mean it's also not going to be a 9. That is how I have understood PSA to grade for years now; if you know something I don't in terms of that please enlighten me.

I think I agree with you, although it seems like the manufacturing process still might have something to come into play when it comes to the cut of the edges, plus the centering that you mention.

I also wonder whether the registration might be an issue in terms of whether it's 100% clear v. 97% clear, and that could cause a shift between a 9 and a 10.

Arguably all of those factors that affect eye appeal, plus potentially a few more that might vary depending on the manufacturing process, seem like they could come into play here.

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Not enough conspiracy in this explanation for me.

LOL

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the conspiracy theory entertainment. Carry on!

[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.

[steve B]

Another strange thing in all this is that the very high profile cards in prewar often get graded higher than a similarly damaged common would be graded.

I suppose they could have oversight on cards that the grader thinks are 10s, but it seems like a lot of fussing around for little benefit.
They have no direct benefit, unless you think they get kickbacks.
In fact, they have a direct loss on a Henderson that's a 9 instead of 10 because of the difference in grading fee.

Current grading fee on a 10 = 5000
Current grading fee on a 9 = 150

A bit over 33x as much.

The money left on the table if all 2119 9s were actually 10s.
$10,277,150.
even if it was half of them, that's a lot to spend on a "maybe people will send in more of a card they already send in a ton of"

5 Million would buy years worth of more effective advertising.
And considering that some cards would be down graded further into the 8 category it could be much more.

I'm just not seeing it from a business standpoint.

And that people will send in that card without really looking at it... just look at how many there are graded 2 and 3. Who the heck sends in a 1980 anything thats a 2? Apparently 129 people did. and even more, 398 threes.

The total number of 10s divided by the number of cards in the set is a bit over 24, a fairly close match with the 25 population of PSA10 Hendersons.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by steve B

Another strange thing in all this is that the very high profile cards in prewar often get graded higher than a similarly damaged common would be graded.

I suppose they could have oversight on cards that the grader thinks are 10s, but it seems like a lot of fussing around for little benefit.
They have no direct benefit, unless you think they get kickbacks.
In fact, they have a direct loss on a Henderson that's a 9 instead of 10 because of the difference in grading fee.

Current grading fee on a 10 = 5000
Current grading fee on a 9 = 150

A bit over 33x as much.

The money left on the table if all 2119 9s were actually 10s.
$10,277,150.
even if it was half of them, that's a lot to spend on a "maybe people will send in more of a card they already send in a ton of"

5 Million would buy years worth of more effective advertising.
And considering that some cards would be down graded further into the 8 category it could be much more.

I'm just not seeing it from a business standpoint.

And that people will send in that card without really looking at it... just look at how many there are graded 2 and 3. Who the heck sends in a 1980 anything thats a 2? Apparently 129 people did. and even more, 398 threes.

The total number of 10s divided by the number of cards in the set is a bit over 24, a fairly close match with the 25 population of PSA10 Hendersons.

Again, I don't think you are quite understanding the benefits to PSA for having low pops on gem mint iconic cards. It's more than just "maybe more people will send cards to us." It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

........It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

˄˄˄This person gets it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Again, I don't think you are quite understanding the benefits to PSA for having low pops on gem mint iconic cards. It's more than just "maybe more people will send cards to us." It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

With advertising being valued on views, I just don't see there being even 5 million worth of benefit to PSA. How many collectors actively send in cards? Lets be generous and call it a million. They already have something like 90%market share. Getting the advertising out in front of existing customers isn't worth much, and even things like news articles won't bring in many new customers.
They already claim to be the premiere grading company and in many ways they're right. (As much as I dislike writing that!) So I'm not seeing the benefit there either.

And why that card to play games with? It's not like it was already some iconic thing before.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

This is besides 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.

That is not what I'm suggesting at all regarding 7's and 8's. What I'm suggesting is there may be less 10's because they ended up with 9 grades due to extra handling. I don't get anything graded and still don't understand the differences between 9's and 10's. Are you saying the differences between 9's and 10's are onlyy for things that could never have anything to do with handling a card?

I may have overstepped in the way I stated about a star player card being traded, walked around, or shown off, to overly emphasize my point. But you know that someone who has a star card, versus an ordinary common player card, is much more likely over time to look at that star player card and end up handling it way more than any other cards in the set. And I'm not necessarily saying you guys are wrong, just wondering if this is a possible alternative reason for even a portion of the perceived grade disparity.

Or another thought, is it possible a TPG would funnel the potentially higher value star cards to only a select few, more experienced graders who have a finer, more discerning eye, in giving out 10's? Whereas the commons from the same sets go to the general grading population of the TPG, maybe not always as discerning as the in-house, experienced experts, and as a result maybe they give out few more 10's?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Are you saying the differences between 9's and 10's are onlyy for things that could never have anything to do with handling a card?

Yes. Bingo. This is exactly what I am saying. A "10" is the total fabrication / dream construct of professional grading. Both 9's and 10's are "Mint" cards. The bump from 9 to 10 is supposedly so that Mint cards with "extra eye appeal" or pop or whatever can be recognized for being extra special, (and so that TPG's can charge extra fees, and so that their slabs with 10's can garner additional ooh's and aah's.) The 10 was the original purple label sticker, or PWCC "E" designation. It means nothing other than an already Mint card is somehow "extra" minty. It is a total superlative if you will, that the TPG's pull out of thin air. In practice on their scale since PSA does not have a 9.5, the 10 is the ".5" to any other grade for the 9, and there is no super clear rhyme or reason other than perhaps centering as to how it is awarded.

So yes, the argument that they may legit be giving out 9's instead of as many 10's as with other cards in the rest of the sets in question is not based on the fact that maybe the 9's would show a microscopic bit more handling. If so, those cards wouldn't be 9's to start with. As simple as it gets, the argument here is "If they are both already Mint cards - why does Joe Blow get X percentage of 10's, and Rickey Henderson gets Y (much lower percentage)?

We could have a pile of 100 cards all Mint, and say fifty of them are 10's and fifty of them are 9's. Without the flips, could you tell which are the 10's? In classic Jolly Elm "guess the qualifier" style - of course not! Neither could the people who graded them an hour or a day later. It's a complete gimmick in the vast majority of cases where minute centering differences are not an obvious factor - and even then it's super arguable. And if you busted all the cards and sent them back to be graded again - you would likely end up with totally different results. So once again - the argument that they are from the gate being stingy with 10's v. 9's on marquee vintage cards suggests not that those cards don't meet specs for mint - but just that they don't want so many 10's. If people don't believe this is happening, fine. I just think that most people are not taking the time to understand the argument.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yes. Bingo. This is exactly what I am saying. A "10" is the total fabrication / dream construct of professional grading. Both 9's and 10's are "Mint" cards. The bump from 9 to 10 is supposedly so that Mint cards with "extra eye appeal" or pop or whatever can be recognized for being extra special, (and so that TPG's can charge extra fees, and so that their slabs with 10's can garner additional ooh's and aah's.) The 10 was the original purple label sticker, or PWCC "E" designation. It means nothing other than an already Mint card is somehow "extra" minty. It is a total superlative if you will, that the TPG's pull out of thin air. In practice on their scale since PSA does not have a 9.5, the 10 is the ".5" to any other grade for the 9, and there is no super clear rhyme or reason other than perhaps centering as to how it is awarded.

So yes, the argument that they may legit be giving out 9's instead of as many 10's as with other cards in the rest of the sets in question is not based on the fact that maybe the 9's would show a microscopic bit more handling. If so, those cards wouldn't be 9's to start with. As simple as it gets, the argument here is "If they are both already Mint cards - why does Joe Blow get X percentage of 10's, and Rickey Henderson gets Y (much lower percentage)?

We could have a pile of 100 cards all Mint, and say fifty of them are 10's and fifty of them are 9's. Without the flips, could you tell which are the 10's? In classic Jolly Elm "guess the qualifier" style - of course not! Neither could the people who graded them an hour or a day later. It's a complete gimmick in the vast majority of cases where minute centering differences are not an obvious factor - and even then it's super arguable. And if you busted all the cards and sent them back to be graded again - you would likely end up with totally different results. So once again - the argument that they are from the gate being stingy with 10's v. 9's on marquee vintage cards suggests not that those cards don't meet specs for mint - but just that they don't want so many 10's. If people don't believe this is happening, fine. I just think that most people are not taking the time to understand the argument.

Now this I'm on board with. I've always wondered how/why TPGs discern between a 9 and 10, or even worse if they do half points, add a third grade in there with 9.5's. Jolly Elm/Darren's other thread in this same forum, Certified, Qualified, and Glorified!!!, points out and shows how inane and inconsistent the high-end grading by TPGs can be. Meanwhile, look at the unbelievably vast differences in looks, condition, and appeal of cards graded at the lower end of the grading scale. Top end, the differences are so narrow (or non-existent) you can't see any light between them. At the bottom end some of the holes/gaps in condition between cards of supposedly the same grade are so big you could drive a Mack truck through them. I can see the potential for the possible manipulation of the grading system, what I don't get though is the why. TPGs artificially controlling the population of cards in certain grades doesn't directly benefit them over the long term, as far as I can tell. Are they doing this on behalf of certain collectors/dealers so they can take advantage of the market and get a big score, or is it more to preserve the value of cards already in the hands of certain collectors so that if more cards of similar high grade are suddenly found and graded it doesn't shrink the perceived value of those cards in the hands of those original collectors? I can understand the numbers and the perceived grading disparity, but without a why (motive) for the supposedly guilty parties (TPGs) doing this, it makes no real sense for the TPGs doing this without there being something in it for them. And anything suggested so far as a possible motive just doesn't seem that plausible for any TPG to go through the trouble of manipulating high-end grade pops of certain cards, at least not to me.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Or another thought, is it possible a TPG would funnel the potentially higher value star cards to only a select few, more experienced graders who have a finer, more discerning eye, in giving out 10's? Whereas the commons from the same sets go to the general grading population of the TPG, maybe not always as discerning as the in-house, experienced experts, and as a result maybe they give out few more 10's?

Yes, certainly. I think this goes to the "how the sausage is made" at PSA that we don't know. If they are pop controlling and a red light goes off when someone puts a "10" in the system for a certain handful of vintage cards, maybe it does go to a senior grading overlord or something. I would be interested to know how this works. But not super hopeful that I will soon, or ever - find out...

[Kutcher55]

Here's another link to the Henderson video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTMS1dmddc&t=216s

If it doesn't work and you care to review the video, simply go to Youtube and search "Vintage Card Curator Henderson." The video is approximately 14 minutes long. He goes through several different analysis to show the statistical improbability of 9s to 10s of the Henderson card (and 10s in general) relative to the rest of the set. At the time the video was made there were over 1,900 PSA 9 Hendersons and only 24 PSA 10s. The ratio of 9s to 10s is 81 to 1! For the rest of the set, the ratio of 9s to 10s is 2.4 to 1. If you understand statistics and probability, you can understand that this is difficult to reconcile logically without some behind-the-scenes wrangling involving the Henderson (and other high-profile cards). Some of the explanations are intriguing but ultimately fail to explain the above anomaly.

As for this suggestion that PSA is hurt financially by not rewarding more 10s, it's not entirely without merit, but if they gave all those 9s 10s, they would be a laughingstock and their brand would suffer, so the mathematics used there are faulty to say the least. I couldn't really follow the rest of the argument. But let's just say you'd make a fine defense lawyer for PSA.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yes, certainly. I think this goes to the "how the sausage is made" at PSA that we don't know. If they are pop controlling and a red light goes off when someone puts a "10" in the system for a certain handful of vintage cards, maybe it does go to a senior grading overlord or something. I would be interested to know how this works. But not super hopeful that I will soon, or ever - find out...

Speaks to another huge problem with TPG grading, no transparency. Maybe that is another possible reason for the disparity in grades. If the TPGs were fully transparent in their grading guidelines, and then totally consistent in following and applying them (which they should and are supposed to be for both), it wouldn't take long for many collectors to be able to review their cards and accurately predetermine what grade they'll get if submitted. So it would be possible in that case that fewer people would submit cards on the off chance they'll snag one of those elusive uber-high grades.

[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.