Hobbyists have decided that PSA’s brand is worth more, so a PSA 10 regularly sells for more than cards gem-minted by other grading companies – but if you have a card to grade, many have not realized that sending it to PSA no longer brings the best value. I see two main drivers for this:
1.
PSA is issuing lower grades. For the past 2 yrs, my grades have taken a drastic downturn. From what I gather, this is a common, shared experience for all submitters. The most compelling proof I’ve seen is John English Vintage Sports, where he cracked out 26 PSA graded cards and resubmitted them to PSA. 22 of 26 cards came back with lower grades (with cards dropping as much as 4 grades). None of them went up in grade, and the average drop was 1.65 grades! While painful to see, this matches my own experience as well. With PSA 10s specifically, Gemrate data documents well the continual decline of the PSA 10 (especially on older cards).
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAIZf42GkCo
2.
Other grading companies are not exhibiting this same behavior. There are numerous YouTube videos showing crack->resub horror stories. The highest profile examples are probably recent videos from Geoff Wilson and Tyler Nethercott (TPot), where they submitted the same cards to all major grading companies. Results from both experiments are compiled here (recent comps, if any, are provided in parentheses):
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRKQKMnrgVw
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHHZm9kV0Uk
1940 Play Ball Ted Williams
- BGS 5
- SGC 5 ($2340)
- CGC 5.5
- PSA 3 ($1225)
2022 Bowman Inception Caitlin Clark AUTO
- BGS 9.5
- SGC 9.5 ($880)
- CGC 10
- PSA 9 ($1600)
2001 SPx Albert Pujols AUTO
- BGS 9 ($735)
- SGC 9 ($1150)
- CGC 9
- PSA 8 ($900)
1962 WS-Verlag W-E Pele
- BGS 5 ($600)
- SGC 2
- CGC 3
- PSA 2 ($210)
1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr.
- BGS 9.5 ($1650)
- SGC Auth ($81)
- CGC 9 ($650)
- PSA 6 ($66)
This data seems to confirm what we already know – that PSA has become more stingy on grades. When we look at ROI, however, PSA is literally the worst game in town. Here’s a direct side-by-side comparison with each competitor (where recent comps exist for both cards):
- PSA $1176 vs BGS $2985
- PSA $3791 vs SGC $4451
- PSA $66 vs CGC $650 (based on 1 card only)
Some other interesting high-profile examples:
To take a few more data points, let’s say you have the following popular cards to grade. If your cards are in mint condition (1-2 minor issues), here is what you can reasonably expect. Again, PSA is giving grades 1.65 lower than competitors, based on the above data. I’m just using a one grade deduction in the data below. The real picture is likely much worse than this.
1996 Topps Kobe Bryant (rookie)
- BGS 9: $113
- SGC 9: $135
- CGC 9: $100
- PSA 8: $65
1999 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr (rookie)
- BGS 9: $223
- SGC 9: $214
- CGC 9: $140
- PSA 8: $95
1987 Fleer Michael Jordan (2nd Yr)
- BGS 9: $1252
- SGC 9: $1276
- CGC 9: $810
- PSA 8: $630
Which begs the question… why are flippers and resellers continuing to grade through PSA?
Yes, small sample sizes, but the overall picture is becoming very clear. With PSA grades being 1-2 grades lower as compared to competitors (as well as with earlier PSA), the value is simply not there if you’re looking to maximize value. To be clear, it’s not that PSA grade values are low (they’re not)… it’s that the grades they’re giving are significantly lower, which leads to significantly lower market and resell values. Collectors should collect what they want to collect, but for those looking to resell, PSA is no longer the best choice.
So what is happening at PSA? Here’s my guess:
1. They’ve embraced tech- and AI-assisted human assessments and the tech continues to improve in its ability to identify issues. In the past, PSA graders would miss things. But after compiling years of data that highlights common issues with each specific card, and with AI providing additional insights, less issues are being missed. I know many think PSA has an ulterior motive here, but I think they’re simply better at finding issues. Where they’ve failed us, is in maintaining consistency in grades (which has led to a severe drop in customer trust). FWIW, TAG does a great job at this. Their technology identifies tons of issues, but they map those issues to appropriate grades. PSA should integrate AI insights to speed up grading, but it’s negligent on their part to not make adjustments to resulting grades.
2. Trust in PSA is eroding due to lack of transparency. They’re clearly making changes, but there’s very little communication to customers unless there’s a highly-visible PR issue. For example, PSA’s unannounced changes to PSA 10 centering guidelines cost me many hundreds of dollars in grading fees because I was unaware they internally decided to be more strict.
3. PSA no longer cares about grading sports cards. TCG is where the battle is being fought, so that’s their focus. They continue to raise the prices for sports cards grading, haven’t done a special for sports cards in 5 months. They’ve “won” the sports card grading, and it’s showing in how they’re treating us.
4. The demise of BGS and the purchase of SGC has been horrible for the hobby. With the top two competitors out of the way, PSA has zero incentive to fight for our business. They can give us super low grades, continue to raise prices, give no specials etc… and customers continue to pay for this. Until we recognize this and take action, I suspect the poor treatment will continue.