Is there a difference between a PSA 1 and PSA "authentic"

[tbob]

Originally Posted by Robextend

The "A" is clearly much more presentable; however I am one of those weirdos that have an issue with altered cards. Unless the card was near impossible to obtain numerically, I would try and go for a "number" graded card.

Rob, you aren't a weirdo and you are definitely in the majority. I remember a thread or poll 4-5 years ago asking members if they preferred authentic and sharp looking albeit trimmed cards or hammered SGC 10s and PSA 1s and most favored the numbered examples. I remember posting that I felt that in the future the slightly trimmed but beautiful caramel and tobacco cards would exponentially increase in value and pull ahead of the 10s and 1s but hardly anyone agreed. I still think this is going to happen one day.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by tbob

Rob, you aren't a weirdo and you are definitely in the majority. I remember a thread or poll 4-5 years ago asking members if they preferred authentic and sharp looking albeit trimmed cards or hammered SGC 10s and PSA 1s and most favored the numbered examples. I remember posting that I felt that in the future the slightly trimmed but beautiful caramel and tobacco cards would exponentially increase in value and pull ahead of the 10s and 1s but hardly anyone agreed. I still think this is going to happen one day.

Do you think that would also hold true for re-constructed cards with the A, receiving higher values than hammered 1's? The big example here is the Plank that JP sold at REA.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tbob

Rob, you aren't a weirdo and you are definitely in the majority. I remember a thread or poll 4-5 years ago asking members if they preferred authentic and sharp looking albeit trimmed cards or hammered SGC 10s and PSA 1s and most favored the numbered examples. I remember posting that I felt that in the future the slightly trimmed but beautiful caramel and tobacco cards would exponentially increase in value and pull ahead of the 10s and 1s but hardly anyone agreed. I still think this is going to happen one day.

I wonder if this still holds true; I get a sense of the opposite - time for a new poll...

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by tbob

Rob, you aren't a weirdo and you are definitely in the majority. I remember a thread or poll 4-5 years ago asking members if they preferred authentic and sharp looking albeit trimmed cards or hammered SGC 10s and PSA 1s and most favored the numbered examples. I remember posting that I felt that in the future the slightly trimmed but beautiful caramel and tobacco cards would exponentially increase in value and pull ahead of the 10s and 1s but hardly anyone agreed. I still think this is going to happen one day.

Fair enough, but I'm still a weirdo for other reasons.

Thanks Matt for the poll...so far looks pretty even!!

[albrshbr]

I too submitted some cards to SGC for grading. Their submission form has a space where you mark if you want cards that are altered to be graded as "Authentic". I did not mark the box. When my submission arrived, 2 of the C56 hockey were noted as "evidence of trimming" and were returned. I also received a T205 that was slabbed as Authentic. When I contacted SGC, I was told that although the dimensions of the card were less than the standard, there was no evidence of trimming, hence the authentic grade.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by albrshbr

When I contacted SGC, I was told that although the dimensions of the card were less than the standard, there was no evidence of trimming, hence the authentic grade.

Granted, I don't get too caught up in all of the intricacies of professional grading (but I have submitted cards). Still, I find this really, really puzzling. No evidence of trimming -- and I'm assuming no evidence of other alterations -- but a card still isn't given a number? With so many issues known to have legitimate size variations when they left the factory, this line of reasoning makes little sense to me.

[Jay Wolt]

You can also request to have cards graded as "authentic" if the numerical grade isn't important.

[ullmandds]

Jay...I don't understand what the point of this is/would be?

[barrysloate]

That 1952 Topps Mantle doesn't look right. Somebody pried open the case and slipped a different card in. That would never receive a numerical grade.

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Jay...I don't understand what the point of this is/would be?

Peter, I believe Hunt's requested the Auth grade when they had them slabbed to add
these w/ the memorabilia in their White Ford auction.
Guess the grades would be insignificant, since the majority of value is that Whitey owned these cards.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Granted, I don't get too caught up in all of the intricacies of professional grading (but I have submitted cards). Still, I find this really, really puzzling. No evidence of trimming -- and I'm assuming no evidence of other alterations -- but a card still isn't given a number? With so many issues known to have legitimate size variations when they left the factory, this line of reasoning makes little sense to me.

They probably shouldn't say "no evidence of trimming" if they are going to A a card for being undersized. They clearly must consider the undersized condition to be some sign or evidence of trimming. What they are probably saying is that there is no other evidence of trimming - the usual signs of wavy borders, bats ears, non-factory edge bevels, etc.

Strange thing if they consider undersize to be enough, on its own, to suspect alteration and A the card. The first thing that suggests is that they believe that it's possible to trim a card and leave absolutely no trace if the card doesn't go under standard size. The only other possible outcome (if it doesn't mean that they believe trimming can be undetectable) is that they believe the card is unaltered but are going to A it anyways to save themselves any future hassles.

Either outcome should make a grading company (and us!) uncomfortable, in my opinion. Saying either that they can't detect all trims or that they will A a card they can't say is altered - no good outcomes here!

J

[Ease]

Originally Posted by jmk59

Either outcome should make a grading company (and us!) uncomfortable, in my opinion. Saying either that they can't detect all trims or that they will A a card they can't say is altered - no good outcomes here!

J

I think J and Rob D., yall are reading too deep into it. Of course they (SGC, PSA, etc) know that there were production variances that led to slightly different sized cards, but how are they going to determine if that's what happened? It's impossible unless you were there with a ruler when the card was cut! The best way to protect the card buyer is to deem these cards 'A' and let the buyer make his/her own decision. IMO there is no grey area, 'If the card don't fit, you must AUTH it.'

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Ease

I think J and Rob D., yall are reading too deep into it. Of course they (SGC, PSA, etc) know that there were production variances that led to slightly different sized cards, but how are they going to determine if that's what happened? It's impossible unless you were there with a ruler when the card was cut! The best way to protect the card buyer is to deem these cards 'A' and let the buyer make his/her own decision. IMO there is no grey area, 'If the card don't fit, you must AUTH it.'

Right. That's exactly one of the things I said. They will A a card even though they don't know it's altered, may suspect it is not altered, and can't describe how it might have been altered.

I'm not sure I think this is a good practice, and stick by my comment that this should be a bit uncomfortable.


Joann

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Ease

I think J and Rob D., yall are reading too deep into it. Of course they (SGC, PSA, etc) know that there were production variances that led to slightly different sized cards, but how are they going to determine if that's what happened? It's impossible unless you were there with a ruler when the card was cut! The best way to protect the card buyer is to deem these cards 'A' and let the buyer make his/her own decision. IMO there is no grey area, 'If the card don't fit, you must AUTH it.'

Maybe I'm in the minority, but when I see a card in an "A" holder, one of the first things that comes to mind is "altered," especially if the card is presentable and has no other obvious flaws (a chunk missing, for example, which could lead to an authentic grade). So if a grading company slaps an "A" on a card, for no other reason than the card isn't the standard size of the issue and there is no evidence of trimming, I see that as a flaw with the system.