VERY VERY disgusted with PSA--you won't believe it!!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

....blah blah blah And I needed to trust that he wasn't going to be just the tiniest bit liberal blah blah blah

-Al

Al hates liberals. Never thought I'd see the day.

[barrysloate]

Al, here's my take on your assessment: I would agree the numerical grades were extremely important if they really did signify some objective standard. But grading is so subjective that it is silly to pretend that a number represents something specific. The example I like to use is if someone submits a poem to a creative writing class and gets it back with a grade of say 92. What does that mean? How can you give a specific number to a poem? You can discuss its meaning, comment on the imagery, discuss its social implications- but you can't give it a number grade. That might work with a math or chemistry test, but it is meaningless with a poem.

That's why calling a card a 5, or a 6.5 (do we need the half grades, or do the grading companies need it?) signifies little to me. Al, I could tell you I liked you yesterday but I only like you 88% as much today. What does that mean?

Someone just told me a story that he sent a Topps card into PSA that he expected to get a 9. When it came back an 8 he decided to crack it out and resubmit. This time it came back a 7. He got angry, and sent it back again. This time it came back a 6! What does that tell you about the numbers? They hold very little meaning. There are loose standards within the company, and different standards between them.

If you feel that the number on the label helps you make a purchase, that's fine. But understand it doesn't tell you much specific about the card. It just gives you a ballpark idea. Sure, a 7 will always be better than a 3. But there are plenty of 5's that are better than some 5.5's. Grading doesn't let you get any more specific than that.

So I say if you like graded cards, and the number means something to you, let's put it in perspective. Let's just say the number gives you a general idea of what the card may look like, and that's all. Besides, if you resubmitted it there's a pretty good chance you will get a different number anyway.

And I never tell anyone it's wrong to collect slabbed cards. I'm just asking them to look at grading in a little different light. It's unfortunately not as accurate as it pretends to be.

[Al C.risafulli]

Barry, I wasn't referring to you in the last sentence in my post.

I probably have the most ridiculous example of crack-and-resubmit that there is in the hobby. And yes, we've all heard the stories. That's the problem - we don't hear about the 200-card submission where everything was pretty much right on the nose, we hear about the one card that seemed overgraded.

To me, if you tell me that you have a '38 Goudey Jimmy Foxx in SGC 84, I have a pretty good idea of what you have. I still want to see at least a scan of the card before I buy it, but I can be reasonably sure that it's not going to have any back damage or bad corners. That's what I'm looking for - a THIRD PARTY assessment of the card. I don't want YOU to tell me you've got a near mint '38 Foxx; I want someone else - someone who reviews cards all day long - to say it.

My first job was in customer service. I took complaints all day. After working at that company for a year, I really thought it must be the worst company on earth, because everyone complained, all day. It took someone else to explain to me that the company was fine, we had millions of customers, and a tiny fraction complained - but I never took calls from people who were just calling to compliment the service. That wasn't my job.

These boards are similar. Nobody posts scans and says "Hey, I just submitted this card for grading and it's properly graded." All you see is the card with the bad label, the one that's overgraded, the person complaining that they didn't agree with the grading company. It's easy to start to feel like they never get anything right. It's easy to forget that there are literally millions of cards out there in PSA and SGC holders where the card is graded to their published standards.

-Al

[barrysloate]

Well that's something I do agree with- only the complaints get posted, and seldom the good news stories. Let me try to state my position a different way:

I'm going to start my own grading service called BGC (Barry's Grading Company) and I'm going to do things a little differently. Instead of assigning numerical grades, I'm just going to use NR MT, EX, VG-EX, VG, GD, FR, and PR as my grades. My belief is the numbers are not precise, they can be easily changed, so my assessments are really no less accurate than anyone else's. How do you think my company would do?

I can tell you right now: I'd be out of business before I got off the ground. That's because the hobby obsesses over these numbers, even if they are not as accurate as they hope to be. If I come up to the plate ten times and get three hits, I'm batting .300. No matter how many times you review it it will never be .290 and it will never be .310. That's a fact, and batting average is an objective science.

Grading is not. It's way too subjective to pretend that a specific number tells anything more than a ballpark story about what the card really looks like. My descriptive grades probably tell the same story. But the market would reject me from day one.

That's my point. I'm not against having a third party with some level of expertise examine a card and give a professional opinion, I'm just fed up with the silliness of these numbers. One guy has a set that averages 6.52, and the other guy has a 6.48. Can you tell me who has the better set? I wouldn't have a clue. Maybe the guy with the 6.48 really has the better set, and the other guy's is overgraded. Nobody knows for sure, as the numbers are meaningless.

What the numbers really do is keep the graders in business, and keep the resubmissions coming in at a brisk pace. The hobby would be alive and well without them.

[benjulmag]

I agree that third party grading provides a useful service in giving a prospective purchaser more assurance both as to the authenticity of the card and its overall condtiion. The problem is that many collectors put too much stock in what the grading company says. To me a graded card means there is less likelihood the card is altered than if it was raw, and that the card's true condition does not materially differ from the grade on the slab. But there is still always the chance the grading company got it wrong, and that a subsequent resubmission could result in a different outcome. So I guess it's a matter of perception. I choose to look at third party grading as an overall improvement over relying exclusively on the seller's assessment of the condition. But it is and always will be far from perfect and riddled with subjectivity, and any grading company, if presented a card anew, is very apt the second time to give it a different grade. I wonder if the day will come when the market recognizes this and stops putting such disparate values on essentially identically-looking cards but with different grades. And, collectors should understand that in regard to issues of authenticity/alteration, third party grading can never be a complete substitute for the card's provenance.

[Leon]

I wonder if us collectors that collect lower grade, but still presentable cards, stress over the "number" as much as collectors that collect higher grade cards? I can't remember thinking to myself "man, I sure wish this would have gotten a 3, instead of a 2." I like looking at high grade stuff (not so much into paying the price to own it) but with much of the cards I collect it's not an option. When SGC told me this card would get a 20 instead of a 30 my comment was "great, who cares?" I am just darn happy to have a speciman!! And I understand not all cards are like this but still....a 1, 2, 3......4,5,6 etc.....just doesn't matter to me that much. Please don't think I am knocking the "collecting by number" game as I am not. ALL collecting is wonderful. best regards

[barrysloate]

Leon- no doubt there's greater stressing at the top. That's where the set registry comes into play, and where the numbers tell the whole story.

[jmk59]

The problem with grading is that, while it can be better than what we had before grading, it isn't perfect.

There are posts here every so often about a card that was misgraded by a 3PG. To Al's point, big misses happen so infrequently that some consider it thread-worthy. Can you imagine how many there would be if there were no 3PG's and threads were about "That Lousy ^$#! Dealer Told Me This Was Ex-Mt!!!!" It would be every day or every hour.

Grading generally aligns descriptions and conditions a lot more closely than having individual seller having his own way of making that scale. This is especially important because the internet allows for many, many more inexperienced sellers and buyers to participate in the hobby. From a buyer standpoint, 3PG gets you fairly close in terms of expectations. From a seller standpoint, it eliminates a lot of contention and possibly loss of reputation based on vocal and too-demanding buyers. This is especially important with today's instant broadcast capability by any individual - message boards, blogs, etc. So in that sense it's good to have grading available in the hobby.

But generally aligning expectations is not the same thing as hanging your hat (and wallet) on minute differences of fractional grades. The system is not that accurate. The fact that the hobby attached huge dollars to these small, subjective differences - leading to things like the crack and resubmit game - is what makes the imperfect part of the grading system just scream.

In the end, it should be a matter of using the grading system for what it is good at while not crossing over into the areas of instability. If everyone simply used grading as a commercial assist for card description, it would not be as controversial. But many people (including and maybe especially sellers) use it as a pinpoint tool to stratify significant differences in value, and crossing into that known imperfection of the grading system causes much of the problem.

And the poetry analogy is good but needs a tweak. The comparison as described by Barry only works if the card grading system was based only on "what do you think of it". If this were the case, examples of grades not matching eye appeal - like Wonka's examples - wouldn't exist.

If the poetry grading had some guidelines, it would be more like card grading. Like high grades for great imagery, effective choice of form, use of metaphor, whatever. And the lower grades would be reserved for things like misspellings, incomplete or the kinds of things that college kids come up with after too many beers. :-)!

There would still be some "wobble" among adjacent grades that would have some subjectivity, but the general range of grade would be significantly less subjective than the personal, individual opinion of the grader.

Which is about what we have now for cards!

J


ETA - from the "great minds think alike" category - Barry and I must have been typing at the same time!

[lharri3600]

the issue here is not RAW cards. the issue here are cards that have already been "GRADED". this subjective thing is a bunch of junk. i have a folder with scans and i ask how did that card grade this or that. i've submitted cards for cross over, asked for a certain grade, and guess what? nope. the excuse i got is this,"it's hard for graders to look at a card in a case to determine a grade". my question (unanswered by the way) was if that's the case, why offer that service?

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

Barry, I wasn't referring to you in the last sentence in my post.

I probably have the most ridiculous example of crack-and-resubmit that there is in the hobby. And yes, we've all heard the stories. That's the problem - we don't hear about the 200-card submission where everything was pretty much right on the nose, we hear about the one card that seemed overgraded.

To me, if you tell me that you have a '38 Goudey Jimmy Foxx in SGC 84, I have a pretty good idea of what you have. I still want to see at least a scan of the card before I buy it, but I can be reasonably sure that it's not going to have any back damage or bad corners. That's what I'm looking for - a THIRD PARTY assessment of the card. I don't want YOU to tell me you've got a near mint '38 Foxx; I want someone else - someone who reviews cards all day long - to say it.

My first job was in customer service. I took complaints all day. After working at that company for a year, I really thought it must be the worst company on earth, because everyone complained, all day. It took someone else to explain to me that the company was fine, we had millions of customers, and a tiny fraction complained - but I never took calls from people who were just calling to compliment the service. That wasn't my job.

These boards are similar. Nobody posts scans and says "Hey, I just submitted this card for grading and it's properly graded." All you see is the card with the bad label, the one that's overgraded, the person complaining that they didn't agree with the grading company. It's easy to start to feel like they never get anything right. It's easy to forget that there are literally millions of cards out there in PSA and SGC holders where the card is graded to their published standards.

-Al

[barrysloate]

Joann- do you think a grading system that used descriptive grades would be any less accurate than one that used numerical ones?

[Al C.risafulli]

Barry, I understand your point about the number system and the competition for higher grade point averages and such. But I'm not about to criticize those who choose to collect that way - everyone approaches the hobby in a different way, and for some, that's the way they like to collect. To me, it's no different than those who are willing to buy a tough card at a low price because it's been hacked in half and written on, just to fill a hole in their collection. Not the way I choose to collect, but no better or worse, either.

I do collect one graded set where condition is important to me - 1938 Goudey. I'm very particular about the cards, and I only look at certain grades. I'm really not interested in competing with anyone for the highest GPA, but that's just not my nature - I compete all day long in business, I compete for fun in sports, but not in collecting. It's just not enjoyable for me to collect that way. But in that set, I am very picky, which is why I've been working on it for 5 years and still need 6 easy cards for completion. I've bought cards I needed and re-sold them because I didn't like them - leaving a hole in my set.

But to me, trying to get an entire set complete in 8 is no different than trying to get a complete run of a certain player, or to complete a difficult type set. It's just one more way to collect in a hobby that has plenty of room for everyone. I don't consider it bad or good - it just is.

-Al

[Peter_Spaeth]

"One guy has a set that averages 6.52, and the other guy has a 6.48. Can you tell me who has the better set? I wouldn't have a clue. Maybe the guy with the 6.48 really has the better set, and the other guy's is overgraded. Nobody knows for sure, as the numbers are meaningless."

Actually you are right as a matter of statistics -- an average cannot have any more significant figures than the underlying data. An 8 really just means somewhere between 8.0 and 8.5; and 8.5 just means somewhere between 8.5 and 9.0. So strictly speaking an average out to the hundredths place is a false precision.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Joann- do you think a grading system that used descriptive grades would be any less accurate than one that used numerical ones?

I think the problem with the current system is the implied precision that comes from having 10 standard grades and now half grades, along with the fact that computerization and the hobby have attached financial values to each level.

Think about the old price guides. They usually only reported value for maybe three grades - a low, medium and high. Everything else in between was allowed to slide along a scale in between the values and conditions given. The points on the scale would be determined by buyer/seller negotiation. I doubt that the exact positions of condition and value along those continuums (between reported points) would exactly line up with each other every time.

Before 3PG, you would negotiate a price for a VG card based on what the buyer was willing to pay for a VG card and the seller willing to sell it for. The card may not have been exactly VG and the price may not have been exactly going rate for a VG card. The buyer and seller hit something reasonable to both.

The problem with internet and increased remote (not in person) sales was when the card was not close to VG. Example, take the buyer position. He might say "I am willing to pay $X for a VG T206 Mathewson". He negotiates to pay $X for a VG, gets the card and believes it to be a P/F at best (assume for this argument that he is correct). His position would then be "If I had known it was P/F, I would only have been willing to pay $Y, not $X."

Note that there isn't anything in that scenario that says there was some arbitrary independent number that got at exact value. That's probably why it worked fairly well - no one was trying to defend tiny little slivers of financial position based on fractional numeric grades. The whole concept of negotiation and mutual agreement worked fine as long as both parties were in the same ballpark on condition. They didn't have to be exact - just close enough. That's where the 3PG system was and could be very helpful - by making sure there was some reasonable basis for both parties to be "close enough".

Now instead of maybe 6 categories there are 10, and even 20 if you count the half-grades. And they have all been assigned specific values. That's just flat out crazy.

Even reading the grading definitions doesn't help. Cards almost always have some characteristics of two different grades and sometimes more. How can any grading company purport to be able to thread the needle and fit a card neatly into one of 20 available slots? Attaching money - sometimes significant money - on the 1/20 pick being exactly right is asking for trouble.

So to get back to Barry's question, I think that the descriptions could be better if it went back to being fewer of them because they would not have the implied precision. There would be more room for negotiated gray areas between grades. If there were 20 verbal descriptions or even 10, I don't think it would be any better - card grading is simply not that precise.

Finally, scanner technology has gone to the moon and back since 3PG was started. It's too bad that this doesn't help bridge the gap a little bit in terms of not being able to see the card in person. I understand that you might not want to buy a 5-digit card on a scan no matter how good the scanner. But with modern scanners, is there really any reason to be grading $35 commons?

Joann

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I think the problem with the current system is the implied precision that comes from having 10 standard grades and now half grades, along with the fact that computerization and the hobby have attached financial values to each level.

Think about the old price guides. They usually only reported value for maybe three grades - a low, medium and high. Everything else in between was allowed to slide along a scale in between the values and conditions given. The points on the scale would be determined by buyer/seller negotiation. I doubt that the exact positions of condition and value along those continuums (between reported points) would exactly line up with each other every time.

Before 3PG, you would negotiate a price for a VG card based on what the buyer was willing to pay for a VG card and the seller willing to sell it for. The card may not have been exactly VG and the price may not have been exactly going rate for a VG card. The buyer and seller hit something reasonable to both.

The problem with internet and increased remote (not in person) sales was when the card was not close to VG. Example, take the buyer position. He might say "I am willing to pay $X for a VG T206 Mathewson". He negotiates to pay $X for a VG, gets the card and believes it to be a P/F at best (assume for this argument that he is correct). His position would then be "If I had known it was P/F, I would only have been willing to pay $Y, not $X."

Note that there isn't anything in that scenario that says there was some arbitrary independent number that got at exact value. That's probably why it worked fairly well - no one was trying to defend tiny little slivers of financial position based on fractional numeric grades. The whole concept of negotiation and mutual agreement worked fine as long as both parties were in the same ballpark on condition. They didn't have to be exact - just close enough. That's where the 3PG system was and could be very helpful - by making sure there was some reasonable basis for both parties to be "close enough".

Now instead of maybe 6 categories there are 10, and even 20 if you count the half-grades. And they have all been assigned specific values. That's just flat out crazy.

Even reading the grading definitions doesn't help. Cards almost always have some characteristics of two different grades and sometimes more. How can any grading company purport to be able to thread the needle and fit a card neatly into one of 20 available slots? Attaching money - sometimes significant money - on the 1/20 pick being exactly right is asking for trouble.

So to get back to Barry's question, I think that the descriptions could be better if it went back to being fewer of them because they would not have the implied precision. There would be more room for negotiated gray areas between grades. If there were 20 verbal descriptions or even 10, I don't think it would be any better - card grading is simply not that precise.

Finally, scanner technology has gone to the moon and back since 3PG was started. It's too bad that this doesn't help bridge the gap a little bit in terms of not being able to see the card in person. I understand that you might not want to buy a 5-digit card on a scan no matter how good the scanner. But with modern scanners, is there really any reason to be grading $35 commons?

Joann

Best post in this thread.

Regarding scanners however, I still have yet to find a scanner that picks up those tiny little surface wrinkles that annoy most people, especially when they expect an EX or better condition card.

I applaud sellers that add to the description, something like "light crease or wrinkle visible in raked light not seen on scan", rather then just give a number on a slab.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by lharri3600

my question (unanswered by the way) was if that's the case, why offer that service?

MONEY. It is ALL about money. Grading did not start up because of the pervasiveness of card doctors--the first card PSA ever graded was not only doctored, it was it known to be doctored by at least one of the graders who looked at it for PSA--it started up because someone had an idea for making money on the fears of collectors and stoked that fire with a strong advertising campaign aimed at collectors. The half-grade did not arise from collectors clamoring for it--high-end examples of the card in a grade were long term gripes about PSA--it arose when PSA's management decided it could make MONEY on the resubmits. Why else would the rules not downgrade a card, only bump it? Not for accuracy, certainly. But as a marketing tool for the resubmission service what better campaign could you have than to guarantee that for a modest fee the card owner might make out like a bandit or would at worst end up precisely where he was before?

Look, it is all about perceptions. TPG doesn't change the cards themselves, it merely changes the perceptions of the buyers and sellers. It's BS, but the more ridiculous it gets the more the target audience buys into it, and the more they buy into it the more money the TPG service makes. And no matter how stinky the popourri the people who want to believe keep spending. Years ago I wrote an article for VCBC proving that the SMR was nothing more than a tout sheet for the service that simply made up prices on cards PSA had never graded and falsely showed them to be moving up when the PSA-graded cards didn't even exist. The collective response was "yes, but" because everyone who counted (dealers) loved the ability to make money marketing the idea that PSA cards were an investment that handed out great returns. They used the SMR to price cards and sell cards, and the fantasy became real over time as buyers fell for the conceit and deals were made on cards with the SMR's phoney-baloney pricing as an initial baseline. Now, after a decade, PSA can cite real examples of sales and the whole thing becomes a self-perpetuating thing, just like the initial insert card venture fed on itself and became the silly three-figure packs of today.

I'm no purist; I play all the games too. I buy raw cards and submit for high grades, cross over cards, crack and resend cards, and occasionally submit already graded cards for review. It is all about the Benjamins for me. I think the whole thing is stupid but just like stocks it doesn't really matter what I think of the true quality is as long as it can be sold to the next sucker down the line. How else besides TPG could I take a raw card that cost me five bucks and turn it into a $350 product?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I'm no purist; I play all the games too. I buy raw cards and submit for high grades, cross over cards, crack and resend cards, and occasionally submit already graded cards for review. It is all about the Benjamins for me. I think the whole thing is stupid but just like stocks it doesn't really matter what I think of the true quality is as long as it can be sold to the next sucker down the line. How else besides TPG could I take a raw card that cost me five bucks and turn it into a $350 product?

Sometimes I wish I was more on the ball like this. I remember years ago I used to pick up absolutely pristine Joe Louis and Bobby Jones cards from The London Cigarette Card Company for the price of common cards from the same set.

Eventually I'd flip them raw and be happy when I made a few bucks on them.

Had some great runs of Leaf Knockout cards I sold off raw. Red Cross boxers in great condition and some wonderful Old Judge boxers you're aware of that I think I did great on, but wonder how they might have done in slabs.

Just never had the ambition to play the game I guess. I even have a small box full of cards set aside marked "Someday" on them. Meaning someday I'll send them in for grading................someday.

[tedzan]

I've read thru every post in this thread and I'll cite the classic scenario of the July 8, 1958 Senate Anti-Trust hearings
where Casey Stengel held court for hours with his classic "Stengelese".

After which, Senator Kefauver thanked Casey Stengel. Then Kefauver addressed Mickey Mantle......
" do you have any observations with reference to the applicability of the antitrust laws to baseball ? "

Mickey Mantle responded......" My views are about the same as Casey's "

The majority of the people in the Hearing room broke out in a loud laughter.


Similarly, what ever Barry Sloate has said in his various posts here, I totally agree with. And, ESPECIALLY this one:

'What the numbers really do is keep the graders in business, and keep the resubmissions coming in at a brisk pace.
The hobby would be alive and well without them."

Hey guys, these Grading Company's have duped you....and the sad fact is that you have not realized this.

But, unlike that scenario 52 years ago......nobody is laughing !


T-Rex TED

[sportscardtheory]

This is why I buy already-graded cards and rarely submit my own. Let others go through the hassles.