Another PSA mess up? major card - AA to 5

[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?