The Value of the 8.5 Grade--One of My Largest Trades Ever

[Davalillo]

Whoops--I meant PSA 8 for the Terwilliger not PSA 6.

[benjulmag]

Do you ever get bumped down? If not (and I suspect not -- PSA, to generate the much-needed extra revenue from these re-submissions, has assured re-submitters that all grade changes will be in one direction only (hint-it points to heaven, not hell)), then the tradeoff will be that 8's in time will be regarded by the market place as rejected 8.5's. My prediction for the consequences -- 8's will lose value, the rationale being they were not undergraded as 8's, and possibly overgraded.

[oldjudge]

Corey is exactly right. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. If all the 8s had a certain aggregate value before, the fact that some were upgraded and gained in value means that the ones that weren't upgraded fell in value, so that the total value of the population was unchanged. This whole concept was a revenue grab by PSA, nothing more. PSA may leave the values of 8s unchanged in their SMR, but anyone with half a brain would realize that the new system devalues 8s.

[novakjr]

How many times do you think PSA has probably received the same card a few times for upgrade? It's actually in their best interest to not upgrade. Because every card that remains with a whole grade, still remains possible for re-submission. And I think we all know why they don't do the 9.5's. It's because they wanted to save something new for the future.

I could be wrong about the first part. Does anyone know if PSA adds whether or not a card has been submitted for upgrade to their database? Basically, if you were thinking about buying a card, and looked up the serial number on their website, would it tell you if it's failed the upgrade yet?

[Davalillo]

PSA 8s are not cards that were between 7.5 and an 8, they are cards that are an 8.00 to an 8.99. Thus why would they go down.

I think 8s are down on average in value but it is due to the general decline in sportscard values--not the advent of half point grades.

[celoknob]

Originally Posted by Davalillo

PSA 8s are not cards that were between 7.5 and an 8, they are cards that are an 8.00 to an 8.99. Thus why would they go down.

I think 8s are down on average in value but it is due to the general decline in sportscard values--not the advent of half point grades.

It seems to me that a card originally graded 8 would be between 7.5 and 8.5. If it was 8-8.99 wouldn't the grade be NM-MT+ to begin with?
That is the only way it makes sense to me; thus, there should be the option of downgrade but isn't done for obvious reasons (ie. $$$$$$$$$).

[Davalillo]

I agree they did it for money and to compete with the SGC 92 grade but I believe Joe has said in the past that a psa 8 is 8.00-8.00. Now a psa 8 is 8.00-8.49 and an 8.5 is 8.50 to 8.99

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Davalillo

PSA 8s are not cards that were between 7.5 and an 8, they are cards that are an 8.00 to an 8.99. Thus why would they go down.

Answer -- Because they were never 8.0's to start with. How can this be? Well maybe PSA missed a hairline crease, or didn't notice that the card was trimmed. Your question assumes PSA got it right in the first place. Clearly the market does not feel that way because why else would PSA need to give the assurance they will never bump down? If the market was so confident no mistakes were made when the card was originally graded, assurances of no bump downs (which by the way garned PSA a lot of negative publicity) would be unnecessary.

[barrysloate]

To finish Corey's thought: if this resubmission were done fairly, with cards getting higher or lower grades based on merit, only a small fraction would be sent in. But with nothing to lose except the grading fee, the number of submissions increased dramatically.

Here's my beef with the whole thing: if a grader were reassessing a card and he felt it was a tad overgraded, closer to a 7.5, and was still forced to put it back in an 8 holder, I'm okay with that. Grading is subjective enough that a 7.5 is about the same as a weak 8. But invariably the grader is going to find cards that were altered, the alteration having been missed the first time around. To recirculate such a card back into an 8 holder is plain unethical. But according to the rules, that is what he has to do.

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with Jim's question, Did I make a good trade? But sometimes I like to vent.

[shimozukawa]

.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Do you ever get bumped down? If not (and I suspect not -- PSA, to generate the much-needed extra revenue from these re-submissions, has assured re-submitters that all grade changes will be in one direction only (hint-it points to heaven, not hell)), then the tradeoff will be that 8's in time will be regarded by the market place as rejected 8.5's. My prediction for the consequences -- 8's will lose value, the rationale being they were not undergraded as 8's, and possibly overgraded.

PSA has stated for reviews that they would only upgrade and never downgrade a card. Otherwise, no one would submit cards for review for fear of downgrade.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by glchen

PSA has stated for reviews that they would only upgrade and never downgrade a card. Otherwise, no one would submit cards for review for fear of downgrade.

The funny thing about this is........downgrading a card that they've graded would be admiting they got it wrong the first time around..........but in a way, bumping it up a half a grade is just about saying the same thing so much for standing by their grades.

Clayton