Interesting email I have not seen

[Empty77]

But anyone yet noticed the possibly unfair dual criticism?: that on the one hand we complain that PSA gets so many wrong because they don't spend enough time/effort examining an individual item, and now here also complaining about a process where they are asked to take a more definitive look to get it "right".

granted not in the ideal or apparently equal manner, but it should not be disregarded that more careful attention needed when grading is a piece of the puzzle...

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Empty77

But anyone yet noticed the possibly unfair dual criticism?: that on the one hand we complain that PSA gets so many wrong because they don't spend enough time/effort examining an individual item, and now here also complaining about a process where they are asked to take a more definitive look to get it "right".

granted not in the ideal or apparently equal manner, but it should not be disregarded that more careful attention needed when grading is a piece of the puzzle...

When a big spending submitter gets a private meeting with a grader, is it really just a cordial "Say, maybe you can spend another half minute triple-checking those corners" kind of thing?

Or is it more like "Look, we're spending $10,000 this month alone; we need this 5 to become a 6?

I don't know the answer (I don't get the special private sessions with graders) but I have to wonder why the in-person session is even necessary, after a card has already been submitted and then re-submitted.

[Empty77]

I know what you mean and concerned for the same reason.

But trying to work through it logically, the big dealer/AH is going to spend the $10k anyway, since in practice PSA is the "only" game in town, and both sides know it...so since they know it, it doesn't seem like from a business perspective that PSA should be vulnerable to that sort of pressure, since they have nothing to gain (going to get and keep getting the $10k's no matter what) and can only lose longerm in the event that buyers were to catch on if their stuff seemed to tend to be overgraded.

Of course all this is just theorizing what motivates people and how they think, but the above seems right to me. If the hypothetical 5 doesn't bump and stays a 5, then what's the pusher going to do? Take the stack of $10k fees to a competitor and give them the wink-wink? Let's say that one gives the 6. We already know an SGC or BGS 6 will sell less than the PSA 5 anyway, so it doesn't increase their margin, which is why they don't go elsewhere and PSA has months long turn-around-times, and that's why it *seems* like PSA shouldn't be at that sort of friendly-overgrading risk.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Empty77

I know what you mean and concerned for the same reason.

But trying to work through it logically, the big dealer/AH is going to spend the $10k anyway, since in practice PSA is the "only" game in town, and both sides know it...so since they know it, it doesn't seem like from a business perspective that PSA should be vulnerable to that sort of pressure, since they have nothing to gain (going to get and keep getting the $10k's no matter what) and can only lose longerm in the event that buyers were to catch on if their stuff seemed to tend to be overgraded.

Of course all this is just theorizing what motivates people and how they think, but the above seems right to me. If the hypothetical 5 doesn't bump and stays a 5, then what's the pusher going to do? Take the stack of $10k fees to a competitor and give them the wink-wink? Let's say that one gives the 6. We already know an SGC or BGS 6 will sell less than the PSA 5 anyway, so it doesn't increase their margin, which is why they don't go elsewhere and PSA has months long turn-around-times, and that's why it *seems* like PSA shouldn't be at that sort of friendly-overgrading risk.

These are good points - You're saying that PSA has no need or desire to please any submitter, high-roller or not, with favorable grades. What you say makes sense.

I'm thinking, generally speaking, that it's usually a good idea for any company to keep its major accounts happy, and it costs PSA basically nothing when they bump the grade of an asset.

But my point is that the only difference I see between submitting and re-submitting hoping for grade increases, vs. an in-person meeting with a grader, would be to influence that grader (and, psychologically, there are many tactics that can be employed to get someone to see things "your way" that don't overtly use the scenario I suggested above.)

[steve B]

Riiighttt….. as long as they still sell for more there's no problem...

The deflection and denial I've seen the last few months is more discouraging than a grading company basically letting people buy grades, or looking the other way on alterations.
I can at least understand greed, actively being an apologist for it going off the rails I can't understand.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

Riiighttt….. as long as they still sell for more there's no problem...

The deflection and denial I've seen the last few months is more discouraging than a grading company basically letting people buy grades, or looking the other way on alterations.
I can at least understand greed, actively being an apologist for it going off the rails I can't understand.

If you are referring to my post above you COMPLETELY misunderstood me.

I will simplify: When submitters get to meet graders personally, coercion (a very bad, unethical, unfair thing) is likely to occur.

[Huck]

Wow. Surprised but not shocked. It is rather audacious for the AH spelling it out on the website. I guess that is the new transparency.

PSA touts 76 million collectibles certified! How much time is spent grading any given card? One would think PSA would want to maintain the highest standards and integrity. I don't swim at that deep end ($$$$$) of the card pool, but I do buy graded cards. I don't think TPGs are going away. When dropping major coin on a card, I would be willing to bet that the majority on this site are buying slabbed cards.

It puzzles me as to why a company would continue to test the trust of their customer base. Perhaps the card market is in a bubble, because during a bubble, people, companies, tend to lose their collective minds.

I was at show once, looking to buy a 1954 Red Heart PSA 7 Mantle. A major dealer had 3-4 of them in one of their 20-30 cases. All cards had different prices. I asked why one 7 was grossly higher priced than the other 7's.
Because, "if the card was regraded it would comeback a 7.5." Oh, really? Then walk your arse over to the psa booth and have the card regraded. Did not purchase from the major dealer and will not purchase from that dealer. Now I guess the dealer can take the card to Vegas and get the bump.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by Mark17

But my point is that the only difference I see between submitting and re-submitting hoping for grade increases, vs. an in-person meeting with a grader, would be to influence that grader (and, psychologically, there are many tactics that can be employed to get someone to see things "your way" that don't overtly use the scenario I suggested above.)

Agree. I guess one key issue is how, in practice, does it all actually take place. So we know PSA goes to the big shows and sets up shop to do same day turn around without people having to put their precious items in the post. But does it happen as plainly as the email stated, that they "meet with graders", or was that an inarticulate and imprecise way to explain what seems more likely to me (granted just guessing and I've never been to see it): that the actual graders are behind the scenes (and chained to their chair given the quotas they are presumably forced to maintain), with the special tables, lights and magnifiers setups that are required, and it's just the front-facing staff that are receiving the submissions and making notes about whatever concerns/suggestions the submitter has.

I don't exactly like the above either, but that would not be as bad as the other visual, which is the VIP submitter actually standing over the grader while squinting through the same magnifier, with a hand on their shoulder...

[Leon]

Sometimes when ya' sit back and think about it, resubmitting in a holder shouldn't be allowed. If you want to resubmit you have to crack it and send it in. And all submissions would truly be anonymous to the graders. Whatever it gets it gets. That would seem more arms length than submitting in a holder and not being able to go down in grade or arguing, especially in person, for a better one (admittedly I have done that and rarely succeeded . )
.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Leon

Sometimes when ya' sit back and think about it, resubmitting in a holder shouldn't be allowed. If you want to resubmit you have to crack it and send it in. And all submissions would truly be anonymous to the graders. Whatever it gets it gets. That would seem more arms length than submitting in a holder and not being able to go down in grade or arguing, especially in person, for a better one (admittedly I have done that and rarely succeeded . )
.

Yes. I've commented before that this not being able to go down flies in face of objective grading.

Sumbit the card for a new grading and get a new grading, up, down or the same.

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Leon

Sometimes when ya' sit back and think about it, resubmitting in a holder shouldn't be allowed. If you want to resubmit you have to crack it and send it in. And all submissions would truly be anonymous to the graders. Whatever it gets it gets. That would seem more arms length than submitting in a holder and not being able to go down in grade or arguing, especially in person, for a better one (admittedly I have done that and rarely succeeded . )
.

I don't disagree with your point that resubmitting in a holder should not be allowed, but it seems to me that (going forward) it should not be possible to resubmit a previously-graded card (after cracking it out) without the TPG "knowing" it. The TPG has to create and retain a data base (and a system for recording and/or inserting tell-tale markers) of previously-graded cards that allows it to determine whether a newly-submitted card was previously graded. If so, the TPG should check it for alteration against the previous image. If it has been freshly altered, it should be graded A. If not, it should be graded anew, with the possibility of receiving a slightly higher or lower grade. It may not be possible to determine that a never-graded card was altered, but it should be possible (again, going forward) to determine that a newly-submitted, but previously-graded card has been altered to improve its appearance after it was previously graded. The TPG has to replace Blowout as the detective that prevents the card doctors from surreptitiously buying graded-cards, busting them out, altering them, and resubmitting them at higher grades.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Empty77

Agree. I guess one key issue is how, in practice, does it all actually take place. So we know PSA goes to the big shows and sets up shop to do same day turn around without people having to put their precious items in the post. But does it happen as plainly as the email stated, that they "meet with graders", or was that an inarticulate and imprecise way to explain what seems more likely to me (granted just guessing and I've never been to see it): that the actual graders are behind the scenes (and chained to their chair given the quotas they are presumably forced to maintain), with the special tables, lights and magnifiers setups that are required, and it's just the front-facing staff that are receiving the submissions and making notes about whatever concerns/suggestions the submitter has.

I don't exactly like the above either, but that would not be as bad as the other visual, which is the VIP submitter actually standing over the grader while squinting through the same magnifier, with a hand on their shoulder...

Where are these shows with same day grading? I know they do the national and offer by the end of show grading three times a year in Long Beach but where else does this occur in 2019? Now I agree this was standard in 1999 but nowadays not so much.