Jump to content


Photo

Grading card companies


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 flyfishman

flyfishman

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 22 April 2010 - 11:56 AM

I know that I'm not the only one who has sent a card in for grading at PSA or SGC and couldn't believe the low grade that it was given. This disbelief is only further enhanced when we look at cards in our collection that were far worse and received a higher grades. To add to the frustration, we are prohibited from talking to the grader, nor is he or she required to give written reasons for their decision. Perhaps this would require some extra minutes be added to the already very short grading process. Something is terribly wrong and I know that I am not the only one that sees this.

I sent in a very nice card from my childhood which had never been out of my collection and it we cited for trimming. I sent in a beautiful 1934 Goudy Lou Gehrig with near perfect corners, dead on centering and amazing brilliance. It's only flaw was some gum stains on the back and PSA gave it a grade of 2 Good .

I have been collecting baseball cards since my childhood in the 50s and have saved or acquired some extremely nice vintage cards. Over a period of time I have become very good at assessiing the quality of a card. However, there must be some magic formula that they have and I don't. Or is it about something else? Personally, I think it is about power and greed. Isn't that what we always see when we lift the lid on something that smells.
I would like to hear how the rest of you feel. How do we level the playing field?

Flyfishman

#2 mcap100176

mcap100176

    Newbie

  • Limited Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 23 April 2010 - 03:58 PM

I know that I'm not the only one who has sent a card in for grading at PSA or SGC and couldn't believe the low grade that it was given. This disbelief is only further enhanced when we look at cards in our collection that were far worse and received a higher grades. To add to the frustration, we are prohibited from talking to the grader, nor is he or she required to give written reasons for their decision. Perhaps this would require some extra minutes be added to the already very short grading process. Something is terribly wrong and I know that I am not the only one that sees this.

I sent in a very nice card from my childhood which had never been out of my collection and it we cited for trimming. I sent in a beautiful 1934 Goudy Lou Gehrig with near perfect corners, dead on centering and amazing brilliance. It's only flaw was some gum stains on the back and PSA gave it a grade of 2 Good .

I have been collecting baseball cards since my childhood in the 50s and have saved or acquired some extremely nice vintage cards. Over a period of time I have become very good at assessiing the quality of a card. However, there must be some magic formula that they have and I don't. Or is it about something else? Personally, I think it is about power and greed. Isn't that what we always see when we lift the lid on something that smells.
I would like to hear how the rest of you feel. How do we level the playing field?

Flyfishman



Can you post a scan of the Gehrig?

#3 flyfishman

flyfishman

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 23 April 2010 - 04:21 PM

Can you post a scan of the Gehrig?


Sure. I'll do it next week. I'm leaving today and will be back Tues.

#4 flyfishman

flyfishman

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 25 April 2010 - 10:55 PM

Sure. I'll do it next week. I'm leaving today and will be back Tues.


I finished ahead of schedule so I got back in today. I'm attaching the Goudey 1934 Gehrig that PSA graded a 2 Good. For comparison, I'm also uploading a Goudey 1933 Rogers Hornsby that PSA graded a 5. Which do you think deserves the grade of 2. I have many more examples that demonstrate a wide variation in grading standards. Attached File  IMG_0010.jpg   694.38KB   105 downloadsAttached File  IMG_0006.jpg   780KB   67 downloads

#5 PSDNCDOLFAN

PSDNCDOLFAN

    Newbie

  • Limited Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Collection:Set Registry ID PSDNCDOLFAN and Paul Deal's

Posted 14 May 2010 - 06:43 AM

I know that I'm not the only one who has sent a card in for grading at PSA or SGC and couldn't believe the low grade that it was given. This disbelief is only further enhanced when we look at cards in our collection that were far worse and received a higher grades. To add to the frustration, we are prohibited from talking to the grader, nor is he or she required to give written reasons for their decision.



Flyfishman


Welcome to world of PSA. Your submission is at the mercy of the grader and their mood and/or experience. If you don't like the grade you received on this submission, just crack out your cards and re-submit them. Chances are they will come back graded different .I 've proven this theory SEVERAL TIMES with as many as 4 different grades on a single card. The problem is the graders are human and to a lesser degree PSA can't always enforce a strict grading methadology. :(

#6 flyfishman

flyfishman

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 May 2010 - 09:05 AM

Welcome to world of PSA. Your submission is at the mercy of the grader and their mood and/or experience. If you don't like the grade you received on this submission, just crack out your cards and re-submit them. Chances are they will come back graded different .I 've proven this theory SEVERAL TIMES with as many as 4 different grades on a single card. The problem is the graders are human and to a lesser degree PSA can't always enforce a strict grading methadology. :(

Welcome to world of PSA. Your submission is at the mercy of the grader and their mood and/or experience. If you don't like the grade you received on this submission, just crack out your cards and re-submit them. Chances are they will come back graded different .I 've proven this theory SEVERAL TIMES with as many as 4 different grades on a single card. The problem is the graders are human and to a lesser degree PSA can't always enforce a strict grading methadology. :(


The problem is not that graders are human, but that humans are graders. This "eye appeal" BS should be thrown out the window or at the least be relegated to a minor role in the grading process. I should not have to lose money on the value of a card, in addition to the grading fee, because some grading card "artist" votes with his feelings.

Computerize the grading process. First, determine if the card is counterfeit or altered. Then have the card scanned by a computer programmed to grade essentials such as centering, corners, edges, etc.. Let this be the primary grade. On the slab give the computer's grade for each of the essentials along with a combined grade. Then let the "touchy/feely" part involving humans play a secondary role.
These guys would add to the computer's grade a value between .0 and .9 and do so by a blinded committee of 3. Their score is averaged. In case I have lost you let me give you an example.

A 1954 Bowman Mickey Mantle passes the counterfeit/altering process.
The computer gives it a grade of 7
The "eye appeal" committee assigns a grade of .4
The card's grade would be 7.4

Of course this plan has its flaws, but at least it weighted more toward consistency. Let the market or industry determine how much value it is willing to put on the eye appeal part of the grade.
This "they are only human" crap is a hackneyed disclaimer for sloppy work. Card grading is not rocket science nor is it an art. What is it that we really want to know about a card anyway? That it is authentic and hasn't been altered. I personally don't care whether John Smith at PSA thinks its pretty or not.

I shouldnt have to send a card in 4 times to get a decent grade. By the the time I pay for the shipping and reviews I have eaten up any profit there may be in the card. Who knows, if they see reviews requested a lot it may incentivize them to give low grades initially. Oh well, as Dennis Miller use to say after a rant: "I may be wrong".

#7 mbmiller25

mbmiller25

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 03 January 2011 - 05:39 PM

The problem is not that graders are human, but that humans are graders. This "eye appeal" BS should be thrown out the window or at the least be relegated to a minor role in the grading process. I should not have to lose money on the value of a card, in addition to the grading fee, because some grading card "artist" votes with his feelings.

Computerize the grading process. First, determine if the card is counterfeit or altered. Then have the card scanned by a computer programmed to grade essentials such as centering, corners, edges, etc.. Let this be the primary grade. On the slab give the computer's grade for each of the essentials along with a combined grade. Then let the "touchy/feely" part involving humans play a secondary role.
These guys would add to the computer's grade a value between .0 and .9 and do so by a blinded committee of 3. Their score is averaged. In case I have lost you let me give you an example.

A 1954 Bowman Mickey Mantle passes the counterfeit/altering process.
The computer gives it a grade of 7
The "eye appeal" committee assigns a grade of .4
The card's grade would be 7.4

Of course this plan has its flaws, but at least it weighted more toward consistency. Let the market or industry determine how much value it is willing to put on the eye appeal part of the grade.
This "they are only human" crap is a hackneyed disclaimer for sloppy work. Card grading is not rocket science nor is it an art. What is it that we really want to know about a card anyway? That it is authentic and hasn't been altered. I personally don't care whether John Smith at PSA thinks its pretty or not.

I shouldnt have to send a card in 4 times to get a decent grade. By the the time I pay for the shipping and reviews I have eaten up any profit there may be in the card. Who knows, if they see reviews requested a lot it may incentivize them to give low grades initially. Oh well, as Dennis Miller use to say after a rant: "I may be wrong".



I am somewhat miffed at the PSA 2 grade. Your right you shouldnt have to submit a card multiple times to see that it gets into the proper holder. Are you sure there is not a small surface wrinkle on that card thats driving the PSA 2? I have to believe that there is something going on with that card that your not catching with the naked eye.

#8 Tedw9

Tedw9

    Master Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine

Posted 03 January 2011 - 05:45 PM

I am somewhat miffed at the PSA 2 grade. Your right you shouldnt have to submit a card multiple times to see that it gets into the proper holder. Are you sure there is not a small surface wrinkle on that card thats driving the PSA 2? I have to believe that there is something going on with that card that your not catching with the naked eye.


Is there some sort of stain on back? There is something there, I just can't tell what it is.

And on the front, under Gehrig, is that a scratch on the holder or the card?

#9 flyfishman

flyfishman

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 03 January 2011 - 11:38 PM

Is there some sort of stain on back? There is something there, I just can't tell what it is.

And on the front, under Gehrig, is that a scratch on the holder or the card?


Its a scratch on the holder. I'm not sure what stain you are referring to on back other than gum stain.

#10 flyfishman

flyfishman

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 03 January 2011 - 11:41 PM

I am somewhat miffed at the PSA 2 grade. Your right you shouldnt have to submit a card multiple times to see that it gets into the proper holder. Are you sure there is not a small surface wrinkle on that card thats driving the PSA 2? I have to believe that there is something going on with that card that your not catching with the naked eye.


I have put it under light (even black light) with jeweler's loupe. No surface wrinkles or recoloring. No signs of trimming. Specs are (L x W) accurate.

#11 mbmiller25

mbmiller25

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 04 January 2011 - 08:42 AM

I have put it under light (even black light) with jeweler's loupe. No surface wrinkles or recoloring. No signs of trimming. Specs are (L x W) accurate.



That card wouldnt look out of place in an SGC holder. The card is O/C and has gum staining on the back, which leads to me to believe that PSA is being very rigid about in regards to your card. Its also a high profile card, which doesnt help. I might crack it out and let SGC grade it. Again, SGC has a nice following when it comes to pre-war cards.

#12 HeritageAddict

HeritageAddict

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 04 January 2011 - 09:12 AM

I do think they are being overly harsh on it, and Matt is right, that is a good example of a card that would be better off in an SGC slab. If my eyes aren't playing tricks on me it looks like a light crease that starts by the black tick mark on the top right side and runs through the very end of the yellow, also a stain/discoloration above in the white border.

Posted ImagePosted Image
[L=My Registry Sets]http://www.psacard.com/PSASetRegistry/OtherSets.aspx?m=4009[/L]

#13 Dboneesq

Dboneesq

    Grand Master

  • Gold Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 04 January 2011 - 12:41 PM

Has to be one of the nicest looking "2s" I have ever seen!

#14 Tedw9

Tedw9

    Master Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine

Posted 04 January 2011 - 04:02 PM

Its a scratch on the holder. I'm not sure what stain you are referring to on back other than gum stain.



Gum stain, that's it.

These guys are right, I would cross that beauty over to SGC. I think you would get a much better grade and the holder would make it pop more.

That is one beautiful card!

#15 akuracy503

akuracy503

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 04 January 2011 - 04:33 PM

I agree with the original poster in that this day in age there really is no excuse not have technology incorporated in a grading process.

Maybe computerized grading systems will be the future, However i'm fairly certain it will cost a great deal more than the salary of individual humans who make up a team of graders.

#16 bregia

bregia

    Newbie

  • Limited Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 08 January 2011 - 11:22 AM

I agree with the original poster in that this day in age there really is no excuse not have technology incorporated in a grading process.

Maybe computerized grading systems will be the future, However i'm fairly certain it will cost a great deal more than the salary of individual humans who make up a team of graders.


I would be all for computerized grading, but at what cost? Perhaps a premium service for premium cards is the answer, but commons aren't going to be cost-effective to scan (manually, as you certainly can't feed them) or run past multiple graders for a consensus.

#17 bregia

bregia

    Newbie

  • Limited Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 08 January 2011 - 11:28 AM

I would be all for computerized grading, but at what cost? Perhaps a premium service for premium cards is the answer, but commons aren't going to be cost-effective to scan (manually, as you certainly can't feed them) or run past multiple graders for a consensus.


Also, all the of the problems that exist on the Gehrig are present on the Hornsby too, with the front staining being even worse. Unless there is something we can't see in the scan, that 2 should go back at least once.

#18 Griffins

Griffins

    Advanced Member

  • Gold Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • Interests:Set collector-T200, Cracker Jacks, '06 Fan Craze, T218, T118, Sport Kings, '41 Goudey and Playball, '48 Leaf, '58 Bell Brand, '58 Hires Test, pre '59 unopened packs, uncut sheets and panels. Probably other stuff too.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 09:37 AM

I'd buy PSA 2's like that all day long.
Like the saying goes, "If the grade doesn't fit, you must resubmit"
That card looks great with a black matte in any condition, why not send it to SGC, cracked out? If it comes back the same you know there is something keeping the technical grade down that you just aren't seeing, if it grades higher you have your answer. Would certainly seem to be worth the $25 or so to find out.


Also, all the of the problems that exist on the Gehrig are present on the Hornsby too, with the front staining being even worse. Unless there is something we can't see in the scan, that 2 should go back at least once.



#19 Dboneesq

Dboneesq

    Grand Master

  • Gold Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 January 2011 - 10:12 AM

I agree that it must be resubmitted. The upside is so much greater than the downsize.

#20 mbmiller25

mbmiller25

    Advanced Member

  • Limited Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 09 January 2011 - 11:45 AM

I agree that it must be resubmitted. The upside is so much greater than the downsize.



Flyfishman, Keep us posted on if you elect to crack that card and submit to SGC.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users