Confessions of An Ex-PSA Grader (YouTube Video)

[newfiesig]

Thoughts?

https://youtu.be/YuxbvPhoWhQ?si=Nm07ahTFLSQp0SNB

[rnocards]

Originally Posted by newfiesig

Thoughts?

https://youtu.be/YuxbvPhoWhQ?si=Nm07ahTFLSQp0SNB

Cool interview, but maybe a few more probing questions, with actual cert examples, should have been asked.

In regards to the question about the internal targets and limiting of 10s, around the 9 minute mark in the video, I've never understood the glaring discrepancy between the Mint 9 versus Gem Mint 10 on the 1980 #482 Henderson RC. The ratio of 10s to 9s on that card is a little over 1% (25 Gem Mint 10, 2273 Mint 9).

Whereas in the same set, the card before it, #481 Paciorek, the ratio of 10s to 9s is 50% (14 Gem Mint 10, 28 Mint 9). The card after it, #483 Diaz, the ratio is 52% (13 Gem Mint 10, 25 Mint 9).

So, how is this possible? Henderson's card is sandwiched between these two cards, and it's condition is somehow only 1% gem, compared to the before and after cards, which are 50% gems.

Some will say that more collectors were just more eager to submit the Henderson thinking it would gem, which would explain the 1%. But, if these cards were in the same set, same order, then the gem condition of 1% versus 50% is such a great and significant discrepancy, that it can not be objectively explained away like that.

Anyways, just something that's never been resolved in my mind with regard's to PSA's claim that they don't set target limits.

[newfiesig]

Originally Posted by rnocards

Cool interview, but maybe a few more probing questions, with actual cert examples, should have been asked.

In regards to the question about the internal targets and limiting of 10s, around the 9 minute mark in the video, I've never understood the glaring discrepancy between the Mint 9 versus Gem Mint 10 on the 1980 #482 Henderson RC. The ratio of 10s to 9s on that card is a little over 1% (25 Gem Mint 10, 2273 Mint 9).

Whereas in the same set, the card before it, #481 Paciorek, the ratio of 10s to 9s is 50% (14 Gem Mint 10, 28 Mint 9). The card after it, #483 Diaz, the ratio is 52% (13 Gem Mint 10, 25 Mint 9).

So, how is this possible? Henderson's card is sandwiched between these two cards, and it's condition is somehow only 1% gem, compared to the before and after cards, which are 50% gems.

Some will say that more collectors were just more eager to submit the Henderson thinking it would gem, which would explain the 1%. But, if these cards were in the same set, same order, then the gem condition of 1% versus 50% is such a great and significant discrepancy, that it can not be objectively explained away like that.

Anyways, just something that's never been resolved in my mind with regard's to PSA's claim that they don't set target limits.

Agree, would love to see.mpre pressing questions. They did mention a NDA, so there were topics off limits.

WRT the Henderson, I'm not sure. There are many theories, including the idea that any/all Hendersons are worth subbing, as opposed to many others that the submitter would need a.high grade to make it worthwhile. There are also issues with certain cards that make them hard to gem, even in the same set. A dark background by a corner, regular print defect, etc.

Again, I'm not making excuses as I have no idea. However in an industry with:

Dishonest breakers
Mail theft
Card show theft
Trimmers
Fake slabs
Box scanners
Shill bidders
Card scalpers
Counterfeit cards
Card shop thieves
etc.

I get a little exhausted with people blaming PSA for everything that is wrong with the industry, higher egg prices, and the shooting of JFK. All the while shopping at Walmart.

Just my 2 cents.

[BoKnowsCards]

Thanks for posting that.

The fact PSA makes their employees sign NDA's tells me everything I need to know. There's no reason to make employees sign NDA's unless you have things to hide that you don't want to go public. We're not talking about nuclear technology, it's card grading.

[larry25]

Originally Posted by BoKnowsCards

Thanks for posting that.

The fact PSA makes their employees sign NDA's tells me everything I need to know. There's no reason to make employees sign NDA's unless you have things to hide that you don't want to go public. We're not talking about nuclear technology, it's card grading.

You mean you don't think they want to protect their super scientific way of determining whether a piece of paper is a 6 or an 8 or a 10!?!?!

CUT TO:

Roulette wheel spinning round and around and around

[Cardisseur]

Originally Posted by BoKnowsCards

Thanks for posting that.

The fact PSA makes their employees sign NDA's tells me everything I need to know. There's no reason to make employees sign NDA's unless you have things to hide that you don't want to go public. We're not talking about nuclear technology, it's card grading.

There are plenty of reasons why a company have employees sign NDAs that have nothing to do with hiding anything.

[frenchquarter]

Originally Posted by newfiesig

Agree, would love to see.mpre pressing questions. They did mention a NDA, so there were topics off limits.

WRT the Henderson, I'm not sure. There are many theories, including the idea that any/all Hendersons are worth subbing, as opposed to many others that the submitter would need a.high grade to make it worthwhile. There are also issues with certain cards that make them hard to gem, even in the same set. A dark background by a corner, regular print defect, etc.

Again, I'm not making excuses as I have no idea. However in an industry with:

Dishonest breakers
Mail theft
Card show theft
Trimmers
Fake slabs
Box scanners
Shill bidders
Card scalpers
Counterfeit cards
Card shop thieves
etc.

I get a little exhausted with people blaming PSA for everything that is wrong with the industry, higher egg prices, and the shooting of JFK. All the while shopping at Walmart.

Just my 2 cents.

All of these are proven facts along with PSA starting the war in Ukraine and PSA melting the icebergs in the Artic circle.

[bub838]

Originally Posted by BoKnowsCards

Thanks for posting that.

The fact PSA makes their employees sign NDA's tells me everything I need to know. There's no reason to make employees sign NDA's unless you have things to hide that you don't want to go public. We're not talking about nuclear technology, it's card grading.

NDA’s are very common and don’t automatically indicate anything nefarious.

[Gary]

The guy didn't seem to be very constrained.......he also had very little to say about anything vintage......other than they go to a set of graders (thats a good thing imo)......nothing in that video told us anything not already know that i can see.i say all that being no fan of PSA.just seemed like a nothing to see here type video.Someday a grader is going to give us the real story......nda or not whats PSA going to do?sue a min wage worker?cant get blood from a rock.....

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by BoKnowsCards

Thanks for posting that.

The fact PSA makes their employees sign NDA's tells me everything I need to know. There's no reason to make employees sign NDA's unless you have things to hide that you don't want to go public. We're not talking about nuclear technology, it's card grading.

An NDA can't be enforced if the employer doesn't know which employee is spilling the beans. It doesn't prevent an employee from leaking info about a company's corrupt business practices. Odds are, PSA isn't doing anything that would destroy their reputation if it was ever released to the public -- it would have leaked by now.

[newfiesig]

Originally Posted by Cardisseur

There are plenty of reasons why a company have employees sign NDAs that have nothing to do with hiding anything.

This guy gets it.

[newfiesig]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

An NDA can't be enforced if the employer doesn't know which employee is spilling the beans. It doesn't prevent an employee from leaking info about a company's corrupt business practices. Odds are, PSA isn't doing anything that would destroy their reputation if it was ever released to the public -- it would have leaked by now.

But they are a for-profit company, so clearly they are all NAZIs (am I doing modern discourse right?)

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by rnocards

Cool interview, but maybe a few more probing questions, with actual cert examples, should have been asked.

In regards to the question about the internal targets and limiting of 10s, around the 9 minute mark in the video, I've never understood the glaring discrepancy between the Mint 9 versus Gem Mint 10 on the 1980 #482 Henderson RC. The ratio of 10s to 9s on that card is a little over 1% (25 Gem Mint 10, 2273 Mint 9).

Whereas in the same set, the card before it, #481 Paciorek, the ratio of 10s to 9s is 50% (14 Gem Mint 10, 28 Mint 9). The card after it, #483 Diaz, the ratio is 52% (13 Gem Mint 10, 25 Mint 9).

So, how is this possible? Henderson's card is sandwiched between these two cards, and it's condition is somehow only 1% gem, compared to the before and after cards, which are 50% gems.

Some will say that more collectors were just more eager to submit the Henderson thinking it would gem, which would explain the 1%. But, if these cards were in the same set, same order, then the gem condition of 1% versus 50% is such a great and significant discrepancy, that it can not be objectively explained away like that.

Anyways, just something that's never been resolved in my mind with regard's to PSA's claim that they don't set target limits.

It’s obviously pop control and greater scrutiny of more valuable cards. There aren’t going to be too many questioning a pop 15 PSA 10 of some no-name 1980 Topps card because there aren’t going to be too many people looking at it. But there are going to be people questioning a Ricky PSA 10 because it draws a lot of eyes.

Nobody should be denying this. I treat pre-2020 and post-2020 certs with different levels of scrutiny. Pre-2020 is more likely to be over graded, regardless of what genre or specific card we’re talking about. But this is especially true for cards from the pre-junk wax era. Standards were lax back then because PSA had to drum up business somehow.

[bojesphob]

One thing that I noticed is that the fellow was only privy to the grading side of things. What he couldn't assert (either by no knowledge or the NDA) is that it's not only the graders that can affect what grade the card gets by the end of the process. No one sees what the original grader said outside of that grader, nor is there a way to audit the process as a customer, so while the graders weren't told to grade certain cards a certain way, the possibility still exists that the QA team/encasement team are told to ding certain cards. Plausible deniability, so to say, for the graders themselves. Have we ever heard from someone who used to work on the QA team or the team that puts the inserts into the cases? Can't say I've seen that, but it's possible that someone has, so if anyone knows of any interviews with those groups, it would be an interesting listen/read.

The fact we're seeing people who were told cards were a 9, only to go on and see that those same cards were given a 10 after they were sold to PSA lends credence to this particular scenario. To be completely honest, being in IT and a database person specifically, once the number is put into the system to spit out the labels and be presented to the customer can VERY EASILY be changed before the label gets made and the customer informed of the grade, or even after the fact if they know they are going to have one be bought by PSA to sell at a higher grade (the image can be created with the label exceptionally easily, especially now with generative AI). Is that happening? Only PSA knows, but the possibility is there, and who here would put something like this past PSA?

ETA: Another thing I thought of after typing this is that while the graders themselves don't know who subbed the cards, there is someone in that process that will know that, and are likely an admin that can adjust things if they want. So, grader grades 100 cards for super subber Mr. X, getting mostly 8s and 9s, and admin sees that Mr. X subs 10,000 cards a year, well, we can't have him stop sending us business, so some of those 9s become 10s, some of those 8s become 9s, and the grader's hands are clean. No need to have hundreds of graders involved in that if only one person needs to handle it.

[MavsRChamps]

He appears to be a “good grader” so his perspective is of that. Overall mostly good things to hear about PSA but also if you read between the lines on the training it seems like it wasn’t that intensive. Also very few people think PSA actively encourages people to grade harshly or compare cards against other cards within order but even from his answer it seems they don’t go out of their way to DISCOURAGE those things which is important. Meaning this -

Even in his answer , and I may be paraphrasing cause I watched it couple days ago, he said something like “even if I had thought psa would scrutinize me if I gave too many 10’s to cards or order, they never did”. THE THOUGHT is the most important part there. Why would psa grader even have that thought? Why is PSA in training not emphasizing the importance to grade each card objectively & why are they not clear they don’t penalize a grader for say “giving all 10’s” etc etc as long as it’s accurate?

Because the thought he describes may and probably does lead poor graders (graders not like him) to not objectively grade cards accurately.

[micorps1]

Originally Posted by BoKnowsCards

Thanks for posting that.

The fact PSA makes their employees sign NDA's tells me everything I need to know. There's no reason to make employees sign NDA's unless you have things to hide that you don't want to go public. We're not talking about nuclear technology, it's card grading.

This is my thoughts also from someone whose career requires NDA's for good reasons. It is well covered why i think PSA are scam artists and they keep doing more and more to validate those thoughts. I heard on a fb group this week that PSA's parent company bought BGS now also. Is that true?

[bojesphob]

Originally Posted by micorps1

This is my thoughts also from someone whose career requires NDA's for good reasons. It is well covered why i think PSA are scam artists and they keep doing more and more to validate those thoughts. I heard on a fb group this week that PSA's parent company bought BGS now also. Is that true?

BGS is now a part of Collector's Universe, yes. Joins SGC in the world of being phased out of existence, it seems.

[BoKnowsCards]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

An NDA can't be enforced if the employer doesn't know which employee is spilling the beans. It doesn't prevent an employee from leaking info about a company's corrupt business practices. Odds are, PSA isn't doing anything that would destroy their reputation if it was ever released to the public -- it would have leaked by now.

[Gary]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

An NDA can't be enforced if the employer doesn't know which employee is spilling the beans. It doesn't prevent an employee from leaking info about a company's corrupt business practices. Odds are, PSA isn't doing anything that would destroy their reputation if it was ever released to the public -- it would have leaked by now.

Nobody that does some video where the ex grader cant be known will carry any weight.....you and i could do a video saying i was an ex grader with a hidden face doubtful anyone buys it nor should they imo.


PSA not dong anything to hurt their rep?your kidding right?the very first card they ever graded is known trimmed.any one of the trimming scandals.....all the proven pop control,so on and so forth.......its not that PSA never did anything to hurt their rep its that nobody cares as long as their slabs are worth money.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by Gary

Nobody that does some video where the ex grader cant be known will carry any weight.....you and i could do a video saying i was an ex grader with a hidden face doubtful anyone buys it nor should they imo.


PSA not dong anything to hurt their rep?your kidding right?the very first card they ever graded is known trimmed.any one of the trimming scandals.....all the proven pop control,so on and so forth.......its not that PSA never did anything to hurt their rep its that nobody cares as long as their slabs are worth money.

PSA has done plenty to hurt their reputation over the years, but they've yet to do anything to destroy their reputation. That would require evidence of them having an overall policy of manipulating grades and pop reports -- not just specific instances of manipulation, mistakes or corruption.

If PSA has a policy of manipulating grades, that would require several employees executing that policy. You can't tell me that at some point it wouldn't leak that PSA is doing that -- it doesn't matter if the employee is leaking it anonymously; that happens all the time with the media. There are also whistleblower protections in California (PSA's headquarters): https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/whistleblowersnotice.pdf

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by Cardisseur

There are plenty of reasons why a company have employees sign NDAs that have nothing to do with hiding anything.

NDA’s are not utilized to have employees turn the other cheek, they are used for employees to turn their back on what is occurring. We can see what the issues are in Minneapolis when a group protects the foundation of fraud. Sometimes you need to do a little bit of bad to end what is much worse.

You might want to ask what happened to a Texas grading company in 08 when a person was receiving 9.5’s like rain water. When one person receives that many high grades then others have to suffer lower grades.

NDA’s are to hide what those in power exploit. A couple decades ago the number of deaths by cancer for the men who protected Area 51 was roughly 6, now it’s over 60. The only truth that is buried are the employees who die from what the elite hide.

[Gary]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

PSA has done plenty to hurt their reputation over the years, but they've yet to do anything to destroy their reputation. That would require evidence of them having an overall policy of manipulating grades and pop reports -- not just specific instances of manipulation, mistakes or corruption.

If PSA has a policy of manipulating grades, that would require several employees executing that policy. You can't tell me that at some point it wouldn't leak that PSA is doing that -- it doesn't matter if the employee is leaking it anonymously; that happens all the time with the media. There are also whistleblower protections in California (PSA's headquarters): https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/whistleblowersnotice.pdf

If everything thats come out in the past 10 years hasn't destroyed PSA...what your suggesting would have to happen will not destroy them either......and thats the point,nobody cares as long as the slabs are worth more money.....everyone that owns PSA slabs knows of the problems yet still uses them.....its about the money period everything else is irreverent.

Let me ask you this....(and anyone else).....what would it take to abandon PSA?what problem,scandal,or lawsuit would it take for you to walk away?
from what i see the answer is only 1 thing......thats if another tpg slabs are worth more.

[BoKnowsCards]

Of course PSA doesn't have an official policy in their handbook: "How to Manipulate Grades", "How to Enforce Pop Control", "The 4SharpCorners Easier Grading Scale". There's no policy, they just do it.

I do believe most graders have no clue what's going on (maybe except vintage graders who've been there 20+ years). My guess is the real manipulation is at the QA and/or QA2 step. The QA'ers I'm assuming have the power to change the grades to whatever they want. Graders may get feedback on overall grades of cards as whole (example, you graded 8k cards this month and 32% had inaccurate grades), but I doubt the graders are being consulted over every single disagreement between the grader's grades and the QA'er grades. That would take forever and completely slow down the process. The QA'ers just change the grades to whatever they want, the original grader is not consulted, so the QA'ers have unchecked power and they can do whatever they want with grades. The exception sounds like vintage which makes up a tiny percentage of cards graded.

I wonder if there is a database that keeps track grades in form of an audit log from the grader's grades, to QA's graders, to QA2 and the final grade. If that database exists and someone could do a data dump, that would be quite the whistleblow. Anyone working in the PSA IT Department - we encourage you to whistleblow that.

[newfiesig]

Originally Posted by Gary

Nobody that does some video where the ex grader cant be known will carry any weight.....you and i could do a video saying i was an ex grader with a hidden face doubtful anyone buys it nor should they imo.


PSA not dong anything to hurt their rep?your kidding right?the very first card they ever graded is known trimmed.any one of the trimming scandals.....all the proven pop control,so on and so forth.......its not that PSA never did anything to hurt their rep its that nobody cares as long as their slabs are worth money.

Curious as to when pop control was proven. I haven't been able to find that myself.

[newfiesig]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

PSA has done plenty to hurt their reputation over the years, but they've yet to do anything to destroy their reputation. That would require evidence of them having an overall policy of manipulating grades and pop reports -- not just specific instances of manipulation, mistakes or corruption.

If PSA has a policy of manipulating grades, that would require several employees executing that policy. You can't tell me that at some point it wouldn't leak that PSA is doing that -- it doesn't matter if the employee is leaking it anonymously; that happens all the time with the media. There are also whistleblower protections in California (PSA's headquarters): https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/whistleblowersnotice.pdf

Agree 100%.