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

[ichieh]

anyone care to explain?

[E93]

In most cases "authentic" cards have been altered in some way. PSA 1s are simply in poor condition. I think there are times when the condition is so bad, such as when a significant percentage of the card is missing, that they will also grade it "authentic" even though it has not technically been altered.
JimB

[ichieh]

Then if a card was graded "authentic", how do i know whether it was altered or simply in such a poor shape that it was not good enough to be PSA 1?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by ichieh

Then if a card was graded "authentic", how do i know whether it was altered or simply in such a poor shape that it was not good enough to be PSA 1?

If it's a nice looking card, and the grade is authentic, it's altered. If it's a horrible looking card, then it could be both altered and extremely poor or "just" poor. I think PSA also puts the ALTERED qualifier for PSA Authentic.

[ichieh]

i don't try to be a smart ass here, but if a card is authentic, but condition is worst than PSA 1 "Poor", why not give the card "0.5" grade instead of authentic, and leave the grade "authentic" for altered cards only.

[philliesphan]

From a condition perspective, it is not possible for a card to be so mangled that it cannot grade at a 1.0 level. There are times when a card is too fragile to be encapsulated -- but a card would never get an authentic grade because it did not meet the standards of a 1.

Sometimes, a collector wants their card authenticated, without a grade assigned, and it is possible to get a card authenticated as such. This is most often seen with autographed cards, hand cut cards, etc. Beckett and SGC also offer this service. But typically an Authentic grade is reserved for cards that have been altered in a meaningful way.

[JP]

Easy answer:

PSA 1 is the original status as it was in the pack, PSA AUTH has been changed somehow

[ichieh]

i wonder if you take this card out of the PSA authentic holder, and resubmit 10X, how many time would it come back 1 or higher. From the scan, i can't see why it's an altered card.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=170482733874

[jb217676]

The top of that Mantle card is trimmed. If it was full size (top to bottom) it would touch the top bar inside the holder. You'll waste your money 10x.

[HRBAKER]

I would hope that it would NEVER come back higher than a 1. It may come back a 1 a few times. Heck the submitter may have requested an Authentic label as opposed to a 1. It looks as though it was one of those cards that was folded up and carried in a wallet or something.

Of course you could always send it to BCCG and get at least a "5."

[Dan Carson]

Save your money, they don't know either!

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by jb217676

The top of that Mantle card is trimmed. If it was full size (top to bottom) it would touch the top bar inside the holder. You'll waste your money 10x.

Jeff's absolutely right - that card is 100% trimmed on the top. And possibly on the right border too. Complete hatchet job.

Cheers,
Blair

[benjulmag]

As I understand it, a PSA Authentic doesn't necessarily mean the card has been altered in some way. What it means is that it exhibits physical characteristics which raises a question whether the card is altered, and therefore PSA is not comfortable giving the card a numerical grade. A good example would be Obaks or T210s. There have been threads opining that the irregular cuts of some of these cards were how they were originally issued, either due to hand-cutting or an otherwise irregular cutting process. Yet PSA will give them Authentic grades, even though to many hobby experts the cards are unaltered.

[tbob]

[QUOTE=philliesphan;807149]From a condition perspective, it is not possible for a card to be so mangled that it cannot grade at a 1.0 level. There are times when a card is too fragile to be encapsulated -- but a card would never get an authentic grade because it did not meet the standards of a 1.
QUOTE]

Marc- I have to disagree, I've seen cards in slabs marked authentic which have not been altered but merely worn or abused. Here's an example:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...STRK:MEBIDX:IT

[ullmandds]

Much to my chagrin...this card recently was graded at sgc and came back A...it has heavily worn corners...but is unaltered.

[glchen]

[QUOTE=tbob;807229]

Originally Posted by philliesphan

From a condition perspective, it is not possible for a card to be so mangled that it cannot grade at a 1.0 level. There are times when a card is too fragile to be encapsulated -- but a card would never get an authentic grade because it did not meet the standards of a 1.
QUOTE]

Marc- I have to disagree, I've seen cards in slabs marked authentic which have not been altered but merely worn or abused. Here's an example:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...STRK:MEBIDX:IT

Another example of a mangled card at Authentic:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=380225260533

[glchen]

Originally Posted by ichieh

i don't try to be a smart ass here, but if a card is authentic, but condition is worst than PSA 1 "Poor", why not give the card "0.5" grade instead of authentic, and leave the grade "authentic" for altered cards only.

I think the reason is that the card is in such horrible condition, it could have been trimmed or altered at some point. However, the card is in such bad condition, it's impossible to tell. For example, corners that are very rounded. Maybe one of the owners used scissors to round those corners, or maybe it was just horrible abuse. But those corners are in real bad shape.

[GoldenAge50s]

My recent submission of 15 T206 cards to SGC had 3 come back as "A". All were close to 1/8" short T-B and were NOT altered by anyone--just factory -cut a bit shorter than allowed by SGC standard tolerance.

In fairness to SGC, I knew these 3 were short when I submitted and to their credit they caught them all.

In my 136 card purchase of original one-owner T206's back in Dec there were 6 cards that were cut short straight from the factory--about 4%.

I wouldn't doubt that 4% might be a standard miscut rate for original T206's.

Would anyone care to confirm or deny that figure?

[Exhibitman]

I've had cards that SGC would not grade numerically even though they are fine because they had too much damage. I've acquiesced to the "scarlet letter" just to get the cards into slabs to protect and display them.

[drc]

In my opinion, a card that has been altered is a grade of Poor. The grading companies have chosen to say an altered card can't receive a grade (other than Authentic). I don't have a problem with that.

Collectors of autographed cards often don't ask for grade for the card itself, even when the card is fine. They are concerned about the autograph not the card grade. In these cases, it is possible for a Near Mint card not to have a grade-- just an Authentic for the autograph.

But, in general and for non-autographed cards, Authentic usually indicates the card is altered, has something majorly wrong with it (ala so worn and torn only 70 percent of the card is there) or the graders are unfamiliar with card. An example of the latter is a newly discovered card where no one is sure how it was cut by the factory-- maybe like a stamp or decal or felt or something. As the submitters have some say if the card gets the Authentic grade, it can also involve the taste of the card owner. For whatever reason, a card owner may prefer an obviously beat up and marked card receive receive an Auth rather than a Poor. Of course, no card owner is going to ask his Mint card receive an Auth rather than a 9. As already said, a Mint looking card in an Auth holder means it's altered.

[Jay Wolt]

PSA-1's & SGC-10's don't always go for higher $ then slabbed authentic cards.

Here's an example below, I assume most would pick the authentic version, I would even if priced a bit higher.

[Robextend]

The "A" is clearly much more presentable; however I am one of those weirdos that have an issue with altered cards. Unless the card was near impossible to obtain numerically, I would try and go for a "number" graded card.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by Robextend

The "A" is clearly much more presentable; however I am one of those weirdos that have an issue with altered cards. Unless the card was near impossible to obtain numerically, I would try and go for a "number" graded card.

Rob, you aren't a weirdo and you are definitely in the majority. I remember a thread or poll 4-5 years ago asking members if they preferred authentic and sharp looking albeit trimmed cards or hammered SGC 10s and PSA 1s and most favored the numbered examples. I remember posting that I felt that in the future the slightly trimmed but beautiful caramel and tobacco cards would exponentially increase in value and pull ahead of the 10s and 1s but hardly anyone agreed. I still think this is going to happen one day.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by tbob

Rob, you aren't a weirdo and you are definitely in the majority. I remember a thread or poll 4-5 years ago asking members if they preferred authentic and sharp looking albeit trimmed cards or hammered SGC 10s and PSA 1s and most favored the numbered examples. I remember posting that I felt that in the future the slightly trimmed but beautiful caramel and tobacco cards would exponentially increase in value and pull ahead of the 10s and 1s but hardly anyone agreed. I still think this is going to happen one day.

Do you think that would also hold true for re-constructed cards with the A, receiving higher values than hammered 1's? The big example here is the Plank that JP sold at REA.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tbob

Rob, you aren't a weirdo and you are definitely in the majority. I remember a thread or poll 4-5 years ago asking members if they preferred authentic and sharp looking albeit trimmed cards or hammered SGC 10s and PSA 1s and most favored the numbered examples. I remember posting that I felt that in the future the slightly trimmed but beautiful caramel and tobacco cards would exponentially increase in value and pull ahead of the 10s and 1s but hardly anyone agreed. I still think this is going to happen one day.

I wonder if this still holds true; I get a sense of the opposite - time for a new poll...

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by tbob

Rob, you aren't a weirdo and you are definitely in the majority. I remember a thread or poll 4-5 years ago asking members if they preferred authentic and sharp looking albeit trimmed cards or hammered SGC 10s and PSA 1s and most favored the numbered examples. I remember posting that I felt that in the future the slightly trimmed but beautiful caramel and tobacco cards would exponentially increase in value and pull ahead of the 10s and 1s but hardly anyone agreed. I still think this is going to happen one day.

Fair enough, but I'm still a weirdo for other reasons.

Thanks Matt for the poll...so far looks pretty even!!

[albrshbr]

I too submitted some cards to SGC for grading. Their submission form has a space where you mark if you want cards that are altered to be graded as "Authentic". I did not mark the box. When my submission arrived, 2 of the C56 hockey were noted as "evidence of trimming" and were returned. I also received a T205 that was slabbed as Authentic. When I contacted SGC, I was told that although the dimensions of the card were less than the standard, there was no evidence of trimming, hence the authentic grade.

[ichieh]

So why is this card a "1" instead of "authentic"?

[Matt]

That case has a bit too much frosting for my taste.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by albrshbr

When I contacted SGC, I was told that although the dimensions of the card were less than the standard, there was no evidence of trimming, hence the authentic grade.

Granted, I don't get too caught up in all of the intricacies of professional grading (but I have submitted cards). Still, I find this really, really puzzling. No evidence of trimming -- and I'm assuming no evidence of other alterations -- but a card still isn't given a number? With so many issues known to have legitimate size variations when they left the factory, this line of reasoning makes little sense to me.

[Jay Wolt]

You can also request to have cards graded as "authentic" if the numerical grade isn't important.

[ullmandds]

Jay...I don't understand what the point of this is/would be?

[barrysloate]

That 1952 Topps Mantle doesn't look right. Somebody pried open the case and slipped a different card in. That would never receive a numerical grade.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Granted, I don't get too caught up in all of the intricacies of professional grading (but I have submitted cards). Still, I find this really, really puzzling. No evidence of trimming -- and I'm assuming no evidence of other alterations -- but a card still isn't given a number? With so many issues known to have legitimate size variations when they left the factory, this line of reasoning makes little sense to me.

They probably shouldn't say "no evidence of trimming" if they are going to A a card for being undersized. They clearly must consider the undersized condition to be some sign or evidence of trimming. What they are probably saying is that there is no other evidence of trimming - the usual signs of wavy borders, bats ears, non-factory edge bevels, etc.

Strange thing if they consider undersize to be enough, on its own, to suspect alteration and A the card. The first thing that suggests is that they believe that it's possible to trim a card and leave absolutely no trace if the card doesn't go under standard size. The only other possible outcome (if it doesn't mean that they believe trimming can be undetectable) is that they believe the card is unaltered but are going to A it anyways to save themselves any future hassles.

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

[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?

[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.

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Jay...I don't understand what the point of this is/would be?

Peter, I believe Hunt's requested the Auth grade when they had them slabbed to add
these w/ the memorabilia in their White Ford auction.
Guess the grades would be insignificant, since the majority of value is that Whitey owned these cards.

[ullmandds]

Jay...I figured so much...but...it still doesn't make sense to me...personally I'd rather have a # grade on any card I own as compared to an A...which to me implies the card is altered in some way.

To me...SGC/PSA are getting worse...they are unacceptably inconsistent...and make mistakes way too often.

[Robextend]

Wow that 1910 Orange Borders example shows some brutal inconsistency.

Edited to add: I wonder if you showed them both cards, which one they would have to change? I guess you would run the risk of having the Chase knocked down to an "A".

[calvindog]

Honestly, what's the difference between a 10 and an A on a handcut card? There are certain issues of which the grades make no difference to me when I buy the card. Beyond the Orange Borders, the W555 usually makes no difference to me gradewise:





Same goes with S-74s for the most part as the grades are handed out with no rhyme or reason:

[Robextend]

I don't collect many hand-cut examples, however I think that kind of inconsistency is pretty gross. I would totally be discouraged if I had 2 cards that more or less look the same with 2 totally different grades.

[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

[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.