Nat Turner is for a combined set registry

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

He says it right at the beginning of this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KTVQHFnpOI

It really irks me every time I hear Nat Turner respond to questions about whether or not PSA has gotten more strict with respect to vintage grading. He always responds with this same "well some people think we've actually gotten more lenient, it just depends who you ask" nonsense. Then he just sorta laughs it off like we're all a bunch of idiots that don't know how to grade cards. That level of hubris is wild. Nobody that grades cards today thinks they've gotten softer on vintage grading. NOBODY. The only people that I've ever seen try to claim that are dinosaurs with a bunch of old cert cards who never grade today, and are disingenuously trying to protect their investments.

I could crack out and resubmit 100 random PSA 6s with cert numbers starting with a 0 or 1 and I'd be lucky to get even one 6 back in return.

Nat, if you're reading this, let's place a little wager if you're so confident that grading standards haven't changed for vintage. I'll crack out and pay for 50 random old cert vintage cards to get regraded across 4 separate orders. If they come back lower with statistical significance, then you have to donate $10k to a charity of my choosing. If they come back more than a full grade lower, then you owe $25k to the charity and have to retrain your vintage grading team to align with PSA's historical standards. But if they come back higher, by even just +0.1 avg or more, I'll donate $30k to the charity of your choice. It's a win win. What do you say?

[Republicaninmass]

I see old.psa 4s with hairline creases and 3 soft corners. They'd be a 2 today!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I see old.psa 4s with hairline creases and 3 soft corners. They'd be a 2 today!

Ya, I encounter those often as well. The moving of the goal posts is perhaps most evident in the mid grade range. Nearly every single recently graded 4 I encounter now without creases or wrinkles would have graded as a 5, 6, or even 7 in the past. Every single one of them.

My collection is mostly full of these sorts of cards. I just laugh when they arrive. Then I crack them out and either send them to SGC or resubmit them to PSA if the value difference is high enough to make up for the longshot odds of getting an accurate-ish grader at PSA (which seems to happen about 30% of the time for bulk vintage). By "accurate-ish grader" I mean that they are only 0.5 to 1 grade tighter than old cert cards rather than the majority of bulk vintage graders which are more like 1.5 to 2 grades lower. That said, if you submit cards at the Express level or higher, you'll usually get a fair or at least "accurate-ish" grader. My higher level submissions with PSA are at least somewhat consistent and predictable anyhow. It's primarily the bulk vintage stuff that gets really hammered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It really irks me every time I hear Nat Turner respond to questions about whether or not PSA has gotten more strict with respect to vintage grading. He always responds with this same "well some people think we've actually gotten more lenient, it just depends who you ask" nonsense. Then he just sorta laughs it off like we're all a bunch of idiots that don't know how to grade cards. That level of hubris is wild. Nobody that grades cards today thinks they've gotten softer on vintage grading. NOBODY. The only people that I've ever seen try to claim that are dinosaurs with a bunch of old cert cards who never grade today, and are disingenuously trying to protect their investments.

I could crack out and resubmit 100 random PSA 6s with cert numbers starting with a 0 or 1 and I'd be lucky to get even one 6 back in return.

Nat, if you're reading this, let's place a little wager if you're so confident that grading standards haven't changed for vintage. I'll crack out and pay for 50 random old cert vintage cards to get regraded across 4 separate orders. If they come back lower with statistical significance, then you have to donate $10k to a charity of my choosing. If they come back more than a full grade lower, then you owe $25k to the charity and have to retrain your vintage grading team to align with PSA's historical standards. But if they come back higher, by even just +0.1 avg or more, I'll donate $30k to the charity of your choice. It's a win win. What do you say?

As I like to say, 6 is the new 8. There were a couple of period in the past where they were RELATIVELY strict (0900 certs come to mind for some reason), but no chance has grading become more lenient.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It really irks me every time I hear Nat Turner respond to questions about whether or not PSA has gotten more strict with respect to vintage grading. He always responds with this same "well some people think we've actually gotten more lenient, it just depends who you ask" nonsense. Then he just sorta laughs it off like we're all a bunch of idiots that don't know how to grade cards. That level of hubris is wild. Nobody that grades cards today thinks they've gotten softer on vintage grading. NOBODY. The only people that I've ever seen try to claim that are dinosaurs with a bunch of old cert cards who never grade today, and are disingenuously trying to protect their investments.

I could crack out and resubmit 100 random PSA 6s with cert numbers starting with a 0 or 1 and I'd be lucky to get even one 6 back in return.

Nat, if you're reading this, let's place a little wager if you're so confident that grading standards haven't changed for vintage. I'll crack out and pay for 50 random old cert vintage cards to get regraded across 4 separate orders. If they come back lower with statistical significance, then you have to donate $10k to a charity of my choosing. If they come back more than a full grade lower, then you owe $25k to the charity and have to retrain your vintage grading team to align with PSA's historical standards. But if they come back higher, by even just +0.1 avg or more, I'll donate $30k to the charity of your choice. It's a win win. What do you say?

100% correct. And he is not going to admit they have gotten tighter. It would discourage people from grading AND would be an admission they are controlling the grade distribution which implies cards are not being graded strictly on their merit, which they should be. That should be the only factor for determining the final grade. Who submits it and what PSA artificially designates the grade should not be factors.

Let's face it. Their business model is such that they get rewarded for not getting the grade right the first time. It leads to cards being submitted again. Why get paid once for something if you can get paid 2 or 3 times for the same card?

[BillyC_KY]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It really irks me every time I hear Nat Turner respond to questions about whether or not PSA has gotten more strict with respect to vintage grading. He always responds with this same "well some people think we've actually gotten more lenient, it just depends who you ask" nonsense. Then he just sorta laughs it off like we're all a bunch of idiots that don't know how to grade cards. That level of hubris is wild. Nobody that grades cards today thinks they've gotten softer on vintage grading. NOBODY. The only people that I've ever seen try to claim that are dinosaurs with a bunch of old cert cards who never grade today, and are disingenuously trying to protect their investments.

I could crack out and resubmit 100 random PSA 6s with cert numbers starting with a 0 or 1 and I'd be lucky to get even one 6 back in return.

Nat, if you're reading this, let's place a little wager if you're so confident that grading standards haven't changed for vintage. I'll crack out and pay for 50 random old cert vintage cards to get regraded across 4 separate orders. If they come back lower with statistical significance, then you have to donate $10k to a charity of my choosing. If they come back more than a full grade lower, then you owe $25k to the charity and have to retrain your vintage grading team to align with PSA's historical standards. But if they come back higher, by even just +0.1 avg or more, I'll donate $30k to the charity of your choice. It's a win win. What do you say?

Travis you are spot on with your observation. I put the 1952 set together 8 years ago and had a grade average of 6.5. I am now putting the set together again and the difference in grades is shocking. PSA has tightened up the standards by about 1.5-2.0 on most cards. That is why I am putting this set together using only recently graded cards. My average grade for this set will be around 5.5 but it will be a far superior set to my first one. Is it just me or is the bulk of the grades now a 4??

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BillyC_KY

Travis you are spot on with your observation. I put the 1952 set together 8 years ago and had a grade average of 6.5. I am now putting the set together again and the difference in grades is shocking. PSA has tightened up the standards by about 1.5-2.0 on most cards. That is why I am putting this set together using only recently graded cards. My average grade for this set will be around 5.5 but it will be a far superior set to my first one. Is it just me or is the bulk of the grades now a 4??

It's not just you. I think 4 likely is the mode of the distribution now for recently graded 1952 Topps cards. And yes, I agree. Cards are very often 2 full grades off now. The average delta is certainly greater than one full grade and likely less than two grades if resubmitted. Although you could certainly find no shortage of cards that would regrade 3 or more grades lower today.