GRADE CREEP - the sliding scale!

[Spfld Ponies]

Many, many of us who have been submitting cards to grading companies for years recognize the last three years have seen unwritten, changing standards applied at, most notably, SGC and PSA. Both are grading more technically and stricter, regardless of the card’s age. It seems each wants to be viewed as "the toughest grader in the business"!

A few of us refer to this as GRADE CREEP - the sliding of the scale toward a more strict interpretation and, thus, a lower grade.

I personally believe TPG's focus more on technicalities than ever, and less on eye appeal. Eye appeal was always an aspect to be considered in the first 20 years of card grading, and older cards produced with more archaic technology were graded ever so slightly less harshly. Not anymore... they (SGC, PSA) are grading everything like its a 2022 pack pulled, sharp-edged card, printed with modern technology. This modest change among the Big Two (PSA and SGC) has been frustrating to collectors.

Question: have you observed this sliding (downward) scale in your submissions of late?

[YayNJ]

Absolutely nobody other than you calls this "grade creep".

[ChaseUA]

Gretchen, stop trying to make “grade creep” happen. It’s not going to happen.

[discodanman45]

A Grade Creep sounds like a middle-aged instructor that sleeps with students for A's.

[Spfld Ponies]

Originally Posted by YayNJ

Absolutely nobody other than you calls this "grade creep".

You’re a grade creep, thanks for voting!

[pachyderm]

I usually collect in pre-junk wax era hockey cards. I do not see PSA grading harder in cards that are 9 and lower. However, I do see that it is harder to obtain a 10 in these cards. For example, In March 2021 the 1984 Cam Neely O-Pee-Chee card had a gem rate of 6.9%. Since then PSA graded 187 copies and only gave 3 PSA 10s. That is a gem rate of 1.6%. There is a possibly that the card being sent in now are of lower quality, but I sent in some what I thought were perfect copies, but they still came back 9s. So who knows.

[hauntedcomputer]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

I usually collect in pre-junk wax era hockey cards. I do not see PSA grading harder in cards that are 9 and lower. However, I do see that it is harder to obtain a 10 in these cards. For example, In March 2021 the 1984 Cam Neely O-Pee-Chee card had a gem rate of 6.9%. Since then PSA graded 187 copies and only gave 3 PSA 10s. That is a gem rate of 1.6%. There is a possibly that the card being sent in now are of lower quality, but I sent in some what I thought were perfect copies, but they still came back 9s. So who knows.

I would consider this a logical fallacy. Glancing at prices, was it even worth sending in a Cam Neeley (aside from hardcore perfectionist collectors who likely chose the best copies) for grading before everyone went insane? I'd agree with your supposition that people were cleaning out the bottoms of their closets when a bubble formed. With higher grading prices, I'd guess the percentage will eventually go up because the profit margin for lower grades won't be there.

Multiply Cam Neely by a million and you get a perception that "grades are tougher now."

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by hauntedcomputer

I would consider this a logical fallacy. Glancing at prices, was it even worth sending in a Cam Neeley (aside from hardcore perfectionist collectors who likely chose the best copies) for grading before everyone went insane? I'd agree with your supposition that people were cleaning out the bottoms of their closets when a bubble formed. With higher grading prices, I'd guess the percentage will eventually go up because the profit margin for lower grades won't be there.

Multiply Cam Neely by a million and you get a perception that "grades are tougher now."

Well a PSA 10 was around $240 and a PSA 9 was around $50 10 years ago and grading was under $10 at the time. Unless everyone is sending in 7 and 8s. I just look at the 9s and don’t understand how some are not 10s. Not that many can have surface issues.

[panamamyers]

Undoubtedly they have changed.
I happen to agree for the most part with the grades I get. I think their new standards are appropriate.
What makes me laugh is when I look at some of the 10s from 10-15 years ago.
I've said it on another thread but the gatekeeping would be too strong to expect anything better than an 8 on any of the three PSA 10 1952 Mantles floating around.

[pachyderm]

Here are some older examples of a Martin Brodeur Rookie PSA 10s.


Check out the centering on this card.



Look the top right edge and the bottom left corner.



Poor corners for a 10 on this one too.



Again poor corners for a 10.

[CaptSpaulding]

I of course voted they are grading tougher but I will add to it that both companies are also very guilty of grading more fairly for certain submitters. It is still not about the card but about who sends the card in.

[BoKnowsCards]

They are absolutely grading tougher. I looked at some of my PSA 9's and 10's that I bought in the late 2000's. The 10's would have a ceiling of an 8 now and the 9's would have a ceiling of a 7. It's silly that you send in what you think is a 10 now only to come back an 8 or a 9, and if you cracked an older PSA 10 it would come back an 8. It's frustrating because often times I see no differences in a 9 or 10 that I submit in the same batch. I would love to see these companies start to tell us why they gave the grade that they did. No complaining or appeal process, just point out why something was a 9 instead of a 10 so we can learn their unwritten rules and thought process. When I go to the doctor, the doctor doesn't say: "Bo your health is an 8/10, but I'm not telling you why just pay me and I'll see you next time."

In addition to the tougher grading, there is always luck involved. You might get a tougher or an easier grader one day. Did your grader's favorite football team win the Super Bowl the night before? He's probably giving out more 10's the next day. Did your grader get into a fight with his wife over burnt scrambled eggs the morning before his drive to PSA headquarters? You're not getting a 10 unless it's immaculate. Did your grader pop a Xanax at lunch because of his anxiety? He might miss some surface flaws in the afternoon.

[rohara99]

Originally Posted by BoKnowsCards

I would love to see these companies start to tell us why they gave the grade that they did.

I know right... something like subgrades would go a long ways in helping understand WTF is wrong with these cards.

Almost as if BGS's subgrade system is better LOL

[hauntedcomputer]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

Well a PSA 10 was around $240 and a PSA 9 was around $50 10 years ago and grading was under $10 at the time. Unless everyone is sending in 7 and 8s. I just look at the 9s and don’t understand how some are not 10s. Not that many can have surface issues.

I absolutely agree they've all overgraded in the past. And to me they are still overgrading. A 10 gem mint should be so rare as to be almost impossible. A 9 mint should be extremely rare, too, especially for older cards. Should a 60/40 card get a mint designation? Not in any rational universe.

We've all seen grades that make no sense, but my take is because PSA has a vested self-interest and built-in conflict of interest in higher grades, both in upcharges and the foundation of the business model of grading, the entire system is inflated. The whole game is a joke, but it's a joke we're all in on.

[D-Lite]

It doesn't bode well for me finishing the last 100 or so cards in PSA 10 for my '83 Donruss registry. The norm was shaggy edges and some cards are just wildly off center in 90% of cases.

[Spfld Ponies]

Originally Posted by D-Lite

It doesn't bode well for me finishing the last 100 or so cards in PSA 10 for my '83 Donruss registry. The norm was shaggy edges and some cards are just wildly off center in 90% of cases.

Same boat for me… just different set. Been submitting to the big three for 22 years now. I know the scale well. Couple years ago they (PSA and SGC) quietly raised the standards. Its obvious. I haven’t personally observed a change in BGS, but then again they are the least respected among the vintage crowd, and are known for a somewhat lower standard. Still, I believe BGS is fine for modern.

Could just be the modern sharp edged, flashly cards influencing the graders, but they seem to have removed the idea that a card’s grade would at least be modestly infuenced by the technology of the era… I’m not sure collectors at large agree with this change.

[f2tornado]

My gem rate for sports cards went from around 80% several years ago to around 50% today. In addition, there is not good consistency from order to order. One will be 35% gem and the next might be 75%, for the same era of cards. I've looked pretty close at some of the 9's I've been getting and can see how a picky grader would deny the gem grade yet see some that have me scratching my head. Will see how things go once value opens up again as I'm being extra picky when setting aside cards these days. As such, I expect my gem rate to increase but at the expense of volume. Probably a good thing for the TPGs near term.

[oddstuff]

I don't have any recent proof as I have 10 bulk orders in the backlog but seeing what others have posted of their recent completed orders, gem rates and type of cards submitted, seems things are swinging back more towards how things were several years ago. Once my bulk orders start popping can provide more info.

[Spfld Ponies]

Originally Posted by oddstuff

I don't have any recent proof as I have 10 bulk orders in the backlog but seeing what others have posted of their recent completed orders, gem rates and type of cards submitted, seems things are swinging back more towards how things were several years ago. Once my bulk orders start popping can provide more info.

Thanks very much, we look forward to hearing your conclusions, based on your returned submissions. Best, Joe

[MitchjpAU]

Originally Posted by CaptSpaulding

I of course voted they are grading tougher but I will add to it that both companies are also very guilty of grading more fairly for certain submitters. It is still not about the card but about who sends the card in.

Amen!!!

[mc1]

The only thing thats changed is your (and my) eyesight.

[lighthouse]

I've kept track of 1968 Topps grades since August 2021. Here's a chart showing the percentage of all grades given out by PSA both prior to, and since 8/2021



People will draw their own conclusions about this data. Some will say it's because inferior cards are now being submitted more often. Others will say grading has gotten more strict. The truth is somewhere in between.

[Ianhatcher]

All I say is what I experienced and my gem rate was around 80% in 2020 and it went down to 40% in 2021. I submit at least 1000 cards a year of modern, ultra modern. I got PSA 9s on 15 higher end card I had sent in at Economy or Regular level. Their prices had spiked quite a bit so I sent them back at Express, Super Express and Walkthrough and 12 of the 15 got 10s. One card I even sent to BGS that was a PSA 9 got a BGS 10. So from what I can tell I either got incredibly unlucky with harsh graders or PSA is grading more strict.

[grade]

there is a popular new TPG company that is even more screwed up.

Graded easy at the beginning,
Graded crazy strict after a few months.
Currently grading te easiest ever with 10's pristine / perfect showing up all over the place.


Inconsistency is the worst thing for a TPG.

[Boostedwrx]

Originally Posted by Ianhatcher

All I say is what I experienced and my gem rate was around 80% in 2020 and it went down to 40% in 2021. I submit at least 1000 cards a year of modern, ultra modern. I got PSA 9s on 15 higher end card I had sent in at Economy or Regular level. Their prices had spiked quite a bit so I sent them back at Express, Super Express and Walkthrough and 12 of the 15 got 10s. One card I even sent to BGS that was a PSA 9 got a BGS 10. So from what I can tell I either got incredibly unlucky with harsh graders or PSA is grading more strict.

Did you crack and resub or do a review?