Post-War PSA Grading

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yes, certainly. I think this goes to the "how the sausage is made" at PSA that we don't know. If they are pop controlling and a red light goes off when someone puts a "10" in the system for a certain handful of vintage cards, maybe it does go to a senior grading overlord or something. I would be interested to know how this works. But not super hopeful that I will soon, or ever - find out...

Speaks to another huge problem with TPG grading, no transparency. Maybe that is another possible reason for the disparity in grades. If the TPGs were fully transparent in their grading guidelines, and then totally consistent in following and applying them (which they should and are supposed to be for both), it wouldn't take long for many collectors to be able to review their cards and accurately predetermine what grade they'll get if submitted. So it would be possible in that case that fewer people would submit cards on the off chance they'll snag one of those elusive uber-high grades.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Now this I'm on board with.

Ha. Thanks for sticking with me to get there. This very much reeks of a TPG mind F.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Speaks to another huge problem with TPG grading, no transparency.

Nobody cares. The masses just care that their high dollar collections in PSA slabs remain high dollar. N54 and our vintage concerns over right v wrong here are but a small drop in the bucket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClementeFanOh]

Hey Jason! (Kutcher)- always happy to see your comments. Just wanted
to add my 2 cents' to your comment #47. PSA already IS a laughingstock
I'm here all weekend, tip your waiters and waitresses! Trent King

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Nobody cares. The masses just care that their high dollar collections in PSA slabs remain high dollar. N54 and our vintage concerns over right v wrong here are but a small drop in the bucket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more, been saying the same for a long time how we are really such a small part of the hobby. And as you said, how the owners of those already high dollar value collections/inventories don't want anything to rock the boat and cause their cards go down in value as a result. Huge reason I think why all the suspected connections and alleged complicity between some TPGs and card doctors never goes anywhere. If people in the hobby did start truly believing all the info and conjecture, it could lead to destroying a TPG's place and reputation in the market, and along with it the value of all cards in that TPG's holders.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Here's another link to the Henderson video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTMS1dmddc&t=216s

If it doesn't work and you care to review the video, simply go to Youtube and search "Vintage Card Curator Henderson." The video is approximately 14 minutes long. He goes through several different analysis to show the statistical improbability of 9s to 10s of the Henderson card (and 10s in general) relative to the rest of the set. At the time the video was made there were over 1,900 PSA 9 Hendersons and only 24 PSA 10s. The ratio of 9s to 10s is 81 to 1! For the rest of the set, the ratio of 9s to 10s is 2.4 to 1. If you understand statistics and probability, you can understand that this is difficult to reconcile logically without some behind-the-scenes wrangling involving the Henderson (and other high-profile cards). Some of the explanations are intriguing but ultimately fail to explain the above anomaly.

As for this suggestion that PSA is hurt financially by not rewarding more 10s, it's not entirely without merit, but if they gave all those 9s 10s, they would be a laughingstock and their brand would suffer, so the mathematics used there are faulty to say the least. I couldn't really follow the rest of the argument. But let's just say you'd make a fine defense lawyer for PSA.

Ok, that link works.
It's an interesting video, and I can see why it's convincing.
He does eliminate sheet position centering issues, which are common for Topps. And some other procuction stuff indirectly.

I do wish PSA would offer an explanation of exactly what would make one card a 10 and another a 9. There are a few things I can think of that might affect it, and a couple of them his numbers would eliminate, like a flaw related to the anti static stuff used in the press, which should affect the entire row, or very slight damage from the packing machines, which should affect every card from the same position. These usually aren't particularly small defects, and the only way to miss them on the commons is if they aren't looking which I don't think is happening.

The rest of it, he does miss a bit. I know some can't see the manual nature of the production process as being responsible, but if they aren't restricting the grades, it's a possible explanation.
To me the manufacturing process and grading as it is now are absolutely linked. If they didn't include registration/centering etc and only focused on how well the cardboard is preserved That wouldn't be the case.

Unfortunately, While I could prove/disprove that pretty quickly with an uncut sheet and maybe a few 9s and 10's to compare that just isn't within my budget.


The difference to me between a 9 and 10 is very slight.
The places the manual setup could affect a cards future grade -bearing in mind that the differences will be very small.
If the entire card is slightly misplaced on either the original art. Or on the mask (the large sheet sized negative used to make the plate. ) A perfectly cut card will be off center. I can probably round up some numbers later for a couple Topps sets, I'm not sure I have anything uncut from 1980.

Similarly, if one of the colors is slightly misplaced on the mask, every card on that position on a perfectly registered sheet will be out of register. Only a sheet happily printed out of register just so will make a perfectly registered card in the defective position.

If anyone has an uncut sheet with the Henderson and is willing to make some accurate measurements, that would settle that.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The argument presented re: math / ratios in the videos referenced are about the subjective awarding of 9's v. 10's to truly mint cards, not the manufacturing process, or cards that don’t get 9's or 10's because they aren't truly mint anymore and thus did not deserve them. You can certainly choose not to believe that PSA is doing anything intentionally with the rest of it, but right now it seems we are still trying to compare apples to oranges. The argument is that PSA is being biased between the (two) mint grades based on the very subjective bump of cards that are already 9's to 10's - not that sorry, just not that many cards deservedly get to true mint grades on their own, and thus they are "controlling" by somehow seeing flaws that aren't really there. Does this makes sense?

If they are pop controlling only the 10’s as alleged, then yes, your point that they are leaving a lot of money on the table in doing that would in theory be correct. Does anyone know how PSA handles this in reality if someone gets a 10 on a huge card and is unprepared to pay the hefty fee bump? Would they get the option maybe of taking the 9 and paying less? Surely not...

See my other answer.
Basically, the manufacturing process is absolutely part of a cards grade as grading is done now, as it considers defects in production as part of the grade.

Or to try to put it simply, if a card is produced in a way that makes nearly every one produced so that it could never qualify as being higher than a 9 there will be a very low percentage of 10's.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Again, I don't think you are quite understanding the benefits to PSA for having low pops on gem mint iconic cards. It's more than just "maybe more people will send cards to us." It literally has to do with their being the premier grader in the industry. Having people fight over the set registry for the top spot when so few PSA 10 examples exist is significant. Having absurdly high sales on iconic cards is more advertising than they could ever possibly spend money on. Having so few examples that every time one pops up it is newsworthy is huge. This is no small thing. It's literally everything to the reputation of a company like PSA. And in a business where that reputation is what controls market share, it's priceless. If they balance out the 9 and 10 pop counts to normal ratios, those massive sales that drive the market wouldn't exist. It would literally change the playing field.

With advertising being valued on views, I just don't see there being even 5 million worth of benefit to PSA. How many collectors actively send in cards? Lets be generous and call it a million. They already have something like 90%market share. Getting the advertising out in front of existing customers isn't worth much, and even things like news articles won't bring in many new customers.
They already claim to be the premiere grading company and in many ways they're right. (As much as I dislike writing that!) So I'm not seeing the benefit there either.

And why that card to play games with? It's not like it was already some iconic thing before.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

See my other answer.
Basically, the manufacturing process is absolutely part of a cards grade as grading is done now, as it considers defects in production as part of the grade.

Or to try to put it simply, if a card is produced in a way that makes nearly every one produced so that it could never qualify as being higher than a 9 there will be a very low percentage of 10's.

Steve, my perspective is that the difference between a 9 and a 10 has absolutely nothing, zilch - to do with the manufacturing process. Both grades are already "Mint" cards. Unless maybe you are talking about a sliver worth of centering one way or another. A 10 is simply supposed to be a 9 with extra eye appeal. What that means in reality is of course widely open to interpretation. Anything that would be resultant from the manufacturing process that would render the card "not a 10" I would think means it's also not going to be a 9. That is how I have understood PSA to grade for years now.

I suppose if your argument is that slight discrepancies in the process produce noticeable 10's over 9's, then that is fair - but to your earlier point - the discrepancy there making a card centered 58/42 instead of 50/50 was not something that would have remotely been considered a defect for vintage cards when they were made. So my argument is that human construct has more to do with PSA 10's there than any significant manufacturing process difference.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Steve, the difference between a 9 and a 10 has absolutely nothing, zilch - to do with the manufacturing process. Both grades are already "Mint" cards. Unless maybe you are talking about a sliver worth of centering one way or another. A 10 is simply a 9 with "extra eye appeal". Anything that would be resultant from the manufacturing process that would render the card "not a 10" would mean it's also not going to be a 9. That is how I have understood PSA to grade for years now; if you know something I don't in terms of that please enlighten me.

I think I agree with you, although it seems like the manufacturing process still might have something to come into play when it comes to the cut of the edges, plus the centering that you mention.

I also wonder whether the registration might be an issue in terms of whether it's 100% clear v. 97% clear, and that could cause a shift between a 9 and a 10.

Arguably all of those factors that affect eye appeal, plus potentially a few more that might vary depending on the manufacturing process, seem like they could come into play here.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by raulus

I think I agree with you, although it seems like the manufacturing process still might have something to come into play when it comes to the cut of the edges, plus the centering that you mention.

I also wonder whether the registration might be an issue in terms of whether it's 100% clear v. 97% clear, and that could cause a shift between a 9 and a 10.

Arguably all of those factors that affect eye appeal, plus potentially a few more that might vary depending on the manufacturing process, seem like they could come into play here.

I am sure there are subtle things that in reality influence such decisions. What I am saying is that per the PSA standard, there shouldn't be a difference between a 9 and a 10 directly tied to the manufacturing process. As to why some mint cards are 9's and some (in some cases way less than what is expected) are 10's - that as a judgement of eye appeal of an "already mint" card should not have anything to do with the manufacturing process. An improvement upon "mint" (the 10) is a subjective, qualitative, 21st century eyeball judgment. The manufacturing process from the 1960's or earlier can't get to that. It can just get to mint. PSA's marketing / magic wand waving is responsible for anything further.

I will concede thusly: IF there is an aspect from manufacturing that leads a card to receive a 10 over a 9 (centered 3-5% better, registration 3% better, whatever) then ok, but that still does not explain the discrepancy as to why there are only twenty-five '80 Rickey Hendersons in a 10 vs. commons from the same set where the percentage of 10's is in the pop is easily higher.

I guess my overall argument is that I believe in a majority of cases - that a 10 Gem Mint is a fallacy. Take all the PSA 9's, pick whatever percentage of cards of the whole, and give them 10's. I bet that 99% of the people wouldn't be able to objectively point out the difference, or why this card is a 9 and that one is a 10.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I am sure there are subtle things that in reality influence such decisions. What I am saying is that per the PSA standard, there shouldn't be a difference between a 9 and a 10 directly tied to the manufacturing process. As to why some mint cards are 9's and some (in some cases way less than what is expected) are 10's - that as a judgement of eye appeal of an "already mint" card should not have anything to do with the manufacturing process. An improvement upon "mint" (the 10) is a subjective, qualitative, 21st century eyeball judgment. The manufacturing process from the 1960's or earlier can't get to that. It can just get to mint. PSA's marketing / magic wand waving is responsible for anything further.

I feel like we are saying basically the same thing, although our willingness to ascribe statistical anomalies to TPG monkeyshines may vary.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I am sure there are subtle things that in reality influence such decisions. What I am saying is that per the PSA standard, there shouldn't be a difference between a 9 and a 10 directly tied to the manufacturing process. As to why some mint cards are 9's and some (in some cases way less than what is expected) are 10's - that as a judgement of eye appeal of an "already mint" card should not have anything to do with the manufacturing process. An improvement upon "mint" (the 10) is a subjective, qualitative, 21st century eyeball judgment. The manufacturing process from the 1960's or earlier can't get to that. It can just get to mint. PSA's marketing / magic wand waving is responsible for anything further.

I will concede thusly: IF there is an aspect from manufacturing that leads a card to receive a 10 over a 9 (centered 3-5% better, registration 3% better, whatever) then ok, but that still does not explain the discrepancy as to why there are only twenty-five '80 Rickey Hendersons in a 10 vs. commons from the same set where the percentage of 10's is in the pop is easily higher.

I guess my overall argument is that I believe in a majority of cases - that a 10 Gem Mint is a fallacy. Take all the PSA 9's, pick whatever percentage of cards of the whole, and give them 10's. I bet that 99% of the people wouldn't be able to objectively point out the difference, or why this card is a 9 and that one is a 10.

I can agree with many of those points.

I could explain more precisely why those small differences would only apply to one card on one sheet, but it would be a long boring thing. If you want it I'll write it, but I suspect not. hardly anyone likes long boring stuff.
The printing done in 1980 was not much different from that done in 1960. I doubt Topps got more modern tech until probably 1992. (And the tech would be incredibly similar to printing in the early 1930's some stuff just didn't change much. )

Thinking about the pretty crazy ratio, I went and checked the SGC pop report. They have about a 24:1 ratio. Which almost convinces me, since I looked at the other star cards on SGC, and the 9:10 ratios are almost universally worse. They really don't seem to like giving a 10 to anything. But with the much smaller sample size, it's hard to really compare.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

I can agree with many of those points.

I could explain more precisely why those small differences would only apply to one card on one sheet, but it would be a long boring thing. If you want it I'll write it, but I suspect not. hardly anyone likes long boring stuff.
The printing done in 1980 was not much different from that done in 1960. I doubt Topps got more modern tech until probably 1992. (And the tech would be incredibly similar to printing in the early 1930's some stuff just didn't change much. )

Thinking about the pretty crazy ratio, I went and checked the SGC pop report. They have about a 24:1 ratio. Which almost convinces me, since I looked at the other star cards on SGC, and the 9:10 ratios are almost universally worse. They really don't seem to like giving a 10 to anything. But with the much smaller sample size, it's hard to really compare.

Thanks Steve, and from your side of it I can see some other points I was not considering. I really just think the "10" (for all grading companies, but especially PSA) is a marketing device only. You are right, they don't like giving them out much at all.