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

[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.

[ullmandds]

Jay...I figured so much...but...it still doesn't make sense to me...personally I'd rather have a # grade on any card I own as compared to an A...which to me implies the card is altered in some way.

To me...SGC/PSA are getting worse...they are unacceptably inconsistent...and make mistakes way too often.

[Robextend]

Wow that 1910 Orange Borders example shows some brutal inconsistency.

Edited to add: I wonder if you showed them both cards, which one they would have to change? I guess you would run the risk of having the Chase knocked down to an "A".

[calvindog]

Honestly, what's the difference between a 10 and an A on a handcut card? There are certain issues of which the grades make no difference to me when I buy the card. Beyond the Orange Borders, the W555 usually makes no difference to me gradewise:





Same goes with S-74s for the most part as the grades are handed out with no rhyme or reason:

[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

[Ease]

Originally Posted by jmk59

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

What alternative do they have that would make ya more comfortable?

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Ease

What alternative do they have that would make ya more comfortable?

Be the experts they profess to be, have the knowledge superior to mine that they are charging me to have, and make a determination yes or no. That shouldn't be too hard. Expert opinions are, after all, their business.

Does that help ya at all?

J

[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.

[barrysloate]

It's safer for a grading company to assign a slightly smaller card an Authentic grade, because if they give it a numerical one and it turns out to be trimmed, they would have to reimburse the buyer. That's assuming they honor the buyback.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

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.

I suppose the natural result of your point would be for the companies to add a label for "Minimum Size" (MS?) to differentiate cases of where they found evidence of alteration from cards that simply don't meet the size requirements.

[calvindog]

There's no rhyme or reason when the grading companies hand out A as a grade -- they are simply not consistent even when grading within a specific issue. For example, the 1910 Orange Borders set (along with many other hand-cut issues) are sometimes numerically graded and sometimes simply assigned an "A" grade. And if you have a jagged looking hand-cut card which received a grade of a 10, can't you just trim it yourself to get it to 80? After all, it was initially trimmed when it was hand-cut in the first place. The "A" grade should be used solely for altered cards and another designated grade given solely to hand-cut cards. If a card is too short but not deemed to be altered, then give it a grade with a qualifier, or, in SGC's case, at least some notation on the flip.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Matt

I suppose the natural result of your point would be for the companies to add a label for "Minimum Size" (MS?) to differentiate cases of where they found evidence of alteration from cards that simply don't meet the size requirements.

This too would be a vastly improved process. ETA: It would be like another qualifier - this is actually a really good idea.

See? Lots of good alternatives.

J