Another PSA mess up? major card - AA to 5

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

No proof was shown that the card was altered. Indeed, BODA states there are no apparent alterations from the AA to the 5. The issue is with PSA and their terribly inconsistent grading. How can the self-proclaimed experts call the same card, of such significant value and caliber, both a 5 and AA (and apparently a 4)? This is a PSA issue.

I don’t see why Heritage should pull this. It sits in a PSA 5 flip and nobody has provided proof it’s altered. Perhaps they should disclose that it used to sit in an AA flip, but other than proper disclosure/description, I don’t see Heritage having any other obligation (including pulling it)

I agree — but the disclosure needs to be made. And since the card is already bid up without the disclosure they’d need to check with the current bidders if they’re ok with continuing to bid on a card that PSA has graded A at one point (and a lower numeric grade another). Really bad look for PSA but it happens to all grading companies.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I know many instances of people who have submitted the same card multiple times, getting many different grades including altered, before finally getting it into what they considered the right holder. We just saw it on a Nagurski -- the first submitter received an altered, the guy who cracked it out got a 5.5. If anyone ever funded a serious experiment to test consistency of grading, I am sure the results would be disastrous.

Is anyone confident the "altered" here was in fact the correct grade? Is it obvious?

While I don't think grading history generally needs to be disclosed (although of course if asked one should not lie), here it does seem material and so should be disclosed. I would be surprised if it affected the outcome much if at all.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I know many instances of people who have submitted the same card multiple times, getting many different grades including altered, before finally getting it into what they considered the right holder. ...
If anyone ever funded a serious experiment to test consistency of grading, I am sure the results would be disastrous.

I have a fairly large database of grading results for cracked and resubmitted cards that would make most people's jaws drop. I'm not talking about a half point grade difference here or there. I'm talking about mind-blowing incompetence on the level of graders actually throwing darts at a grade board.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

While I don't think grading history generally needs to be disclosed (although of course if asked one should not lie), here it does seem material and so should be disclosed. I would be surprised if it affected the outcome much if at all.

How could it possibly be a material fact that one random guy, who probably had never even seen a vintage card before, under graded a baseball card once upon a time?

In one breath you seem to dial in on the fact that these graders have no clue what they're doing yet in the very next breath you seem to cling to the idea that one random grader's opinion on a Tuesday afternoon in 1997 ought to be remembered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I have a fairly large database of grading results for cracked and resubmitted cards that would make most people's jaws drop. I'm not talking about a half point grade difference here or there. I'm talking about mind-blowing incompetence on the level of graders actually throwing darts at a grade board.




How could it possibly be a material fact that one random guy, who probably had never even seen a vintage card before, under graded a baseball card once upon a time?

In one breath you seem to dial in on the fact that these graders have no clue what they're doing yet in the very next breath you seem to cling to the idea that one random grader's opinion on a Tuesday afternoon in 1997 ought to be remembered.

If it's unimportant in fact, the market will disregard it. But on a card this significant, the market should be given the information in my opinion. I'd much rather err on the side of disclosure and transparency. Maybe the screw up was the guy who deemed it a 5, not the guy who rejected it. Who knows? People can judge the value of the information. What's the downside?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I agree — but the disclosure needs to be made. And since the card is already bid up without the disclosure they’d need to check with the current bidders if they’re ok with continuing to bid on a card that PSA has graded A at one point (and a lower numeric grade another). Really bad look for PSA but it happens to all grading companies.

Lol. What is there to disclose? The fact that PSA is incompetent?

[Bigdaddy]

In a previous life, I would always look for results that were accurate, reproducible and defensible. How does PSA (or any grader) stack up?

Accurate - Well, we don't have any widely accepted standard on how cards are assigned grades, and even the standards each company has change with time.
So, there is no 'truth' to measure accuracy against.

Reproducible - Many cards get resubbed, some over and over, looking for a bump in grade. If their grades were reproducible, then there would be no desire to resubmit for a better grade.

Defensible - Ever wonder why a certain card received a certain grade? Want to see the grader's notes? Mostly out of luck here.

As some folks said above, this is a PSA problem. However, it becomes a hobby problem when blind trust is placed on a result that is not accurate, cannot be reproduced and is not defensible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

In a previous life, I would always look for results that were accurate, reproducible and defensible. How does PSA (or any grader) stack up?

Accurate - Well, we don't have any widely accepted standard on how cards are assigned grades, and even the standards each company has change with time.
So, there is no 'truth' to measure accuracy against.

Reproducible - Many cards get resubbed, some over and over, looking for a bump in grade. If their grades were reproducible, then there would be no desire to resubmit for a better grade.

Defensible - Ever wonder why a certain card received a certain grade? Want to see the grader's notes? Mostly out of luck here.

As some folks said above, this is a PSA problem. However, it becomes a hobby problem when blind trust is placed on a result that is not accurate, cannot be reproduced and is not defensible.

And yet...

[Carter08]

My view is that any t206 sitting in a psa 4 or better should be viewed as potentially altered at some point, particularly if it doesn’t appear to fill the slab all that much.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Lol. What is there to disclose? The fact that PSA is incompetent?

I am with you on this one. I have personally had a card go from PSA Authentic Altered do not slab to getting a PSA 8. I have many others but this one was fairly recent.

If you want a real dose of reality go buy 10-20 PSA 10's. Crack them out and resubmit them and see what grades you get.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am with you on this one. I have personally had a card go from PSA Authentic Altered do not slab to getting a PSA 8. I have many others but this one was fairly recent.

If you want a real dose of reality go buy 10-20 PSA 10's. Crack them out and resubmit them and see what grades you get.

I'm sure at least a few would come back higher

[JohnP0621]

How can anyone expect a Major Auction House like Heritage , REA Etc. to inspect or look up the back history of all of the cards that they auction.
They receive the cards already graded and thats how they list it . How are they to know that the card went from a 4-AA-5 and which grade is correct. Its in the eye of the Grader.. I dont feel that its their responsibility to investigate each card. This crack and submit game happens all of the time Where a one grade bump could lead to thousands of dollars for both the consignor and auction house. I know that this game is played a lot with the New Shiny Stuff , Submit, crack ,Submit, Crack etc until one receives a Grade 10 and sent to auction house for big bucks. Everyone seems to be making $$$. I Guess that Its a Win, Win for all involved .(Or is it?)

John P

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JohnP0621

How can anyone expect a Major Auction House like Heritage , REA Etc. to inspect or look up the back history of all of the cards that they auction.
They receive the cards already graded and thats how they list it . How are they to know that the card went from a 4-AA-5 and which grade is correct. Its in the eye of the Grader.. I dont feel that its their reasonability to investigate each card. This crack and submit game happens all of the time Where a one grade bump could lead to thousands of dollars for both the consignor and auction house. I know that this game is played a lot with the New Shiny Stuff , Submit, crack ,Submit, Crack etc until one receives a Grade 10 and sent to auction house for big bucks. Everyone seems to be making $$$. I Guess that Its a Win, Win for all involved .(Or is it?)

John P

I think for the most part the issue is what should they do once they're on notice of something. But more generally, they certainly know who is consigning cards to them, and the reputations of some of those people, so the protestations of complete innocence ring a bit hollow to me.

[dabbuu]

What happened to the crease on the top right corner of the PSA 4, just curious?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think for the most part the issue is what should they do once they're on notice of something. But more generally, they certainly know who is consigning cards to them, and the reputations of some of those people, so the protestations of complete innocence ring a bit hollow to me.

You're still presupposing that what the auction house is now "on notice of" is something meaningful.

PSA graders are completely incompetent. They are throwing darts. How could it possibly matter which square a previous dart landed on?