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

[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

[Leon]

First of all I have always felt that ALL W cards which are true strip cards should all get the "handcut" notation. That right there would satisfy most of the issue (for me) with grading them. That being said I have been told that it is the amount of border on strip cards that will warrant an AUT vs a numerical grade. The Chase Orange Borders above should not have been given a numerical grade imo. The W555's have enough border to be given their grades (again, to me they should all still have the "handcut" qualifier) regards

[Ease]

Originally Posted by jmk59

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

I wouldn't be against this qualifier, say graded 'A'-MS. It would be nice to get a little more info on the flip.