Has grading become the Project 2020 Shore Griffey?

[SaveMeTheGum]

Looking at the backup numbers PSA has sent out and seeing all the noobs on FB and elsewhere grading every possible card in sight, will we see a complete watering down of graded cards/pricing in the next 6-12 months?

Obviously, we'll never see raw prices > graded, but I have a feeling the premium for Gem cards, especially newer stuff will start to disappear. That and/or the price of raw will have to go down (or both). Curious what you guys think (beyond the "grading is the devil" opinion that I'm not totally against).

Full disclosure -- I have over 800 cards at PSA/BGS right now. The only bulk order I have from PSA that is past the "research & ID" stage is the one I sent in January.

[dmanrico]

If PSA continues their gem rate similar to the last six months, the premium for graded gems should actually increase. It could be that part of this low gem rate is as you mention -noobs sending cards that have flaws and won’t gem.

[oddstuff]

Not if a lot of these moderns go back to their owners as 9s...the notion that pack pulled moderns getting automatic 10s will soon hit a lot of people hard...and the 9s not moving will burn big holes in people's pocket books.

[scb]

I could see it eventually watering down the price of common base cards that seem to be flooding PSA. When gems of mass produced RCs become the norm, it will be harder to rationalize the price between a raw card and one in a slab. Of course the hobby isn't always rational, so I'll probably be wrong

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by dmanrico

If PSA continues their gem rate similar to the last six months, the premium for graded gems should actually increase. It could be that part of this low gem rate is as you mention -noobs sending cards that have flaws and won’t gem.

I've heard that. I haven't seen it yet though because I haven't gotten anything back yet. My 10 rate is pretty solid, so I'll be interested to see if PSA is actually getting stricter or as you say, just inexperienced submitters.

[speedyjg13]

Originally Posted by dmanrico

If PSA continues their gem rate similar to the last six months, the premium for graded gems should actually increase. It could be that part of this low gem rate is as you mention -noobs sending cards that have flaws and won’t gem.

What is the current PSA gem rate?

[speedyjg13]

Double post

[speedyjg13]

Originally Posted by oddstuff

Not if a lot of these moderns go back to their owners as 9s...the notion that pack pulled moderns getting automatic 10s will soon hit a lot of people hard...and the 9s not moving will burn big holes in people's pocket books.

This is much needed!

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by speedyjg13

This is much needed!

I agree. Although, now the new thing is to try to return a card back to Panini/Topps if it's not perfect. Drives me nuts how many "Should I return this" posts there are in the Facebook groups because of a dimple or slight O/C.

[speedyjg13]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

I agree. Although, now the new thing is to try to return a card back to Panini/Topps if it's not perfect. Drives me nuts how many "Should I return this" posts there are in the Facebook groups because of a dimple or slight O/C.

that's ridiculous.... grading caused this problem. people expect PSA 10s or BGS 9.5s out of the pack. Topps doesn't owe us a perfect card out of pack.

[JoeAdam]

I've always wondered if I'm being too selective with my grading. My sample size is small but I'm 27/30 getting gems with Jewcer.

[ThoseBackPages]

[albatross7979]

Originally Posted by speedyjg13

that's ridiculous.... grading caused this problem. people expect PSA 10s or BGS 9.5s out of the pack. Topps doesn't owe us a perfect card out of pack.

I actually think the problem is more that grading companies grade different cards in each set differently. All you need to do is look at the pop reports to see that PSA is purposefully keeping the PSA 10 pop down on certain cards to raise the prices and make people keep chasing the elusive 10s.

13,736 cards from 2018 Topps have been submitted for grading, and 9,582 have come back PSA 10, 70% PSA 10s. Acuna bat down has been submitted 962 times and has gotten a 10 just 369 times, or 38% of the time. Card #400, Altuve batting, has been submitted 39 times and has received a PSA 10 33 times, for a rate of 85%. Is there something drastically different about the card stock or the product of card #400 and #698? The difference is Acuna is a short print, there are fewer, and they know that by grading them tougher, it will keep people submitting them trying to get 10s to cash in.

This isn't rocket science. PSA is obviously manipulating their grading of certain cards, and it goes way back into the vintage years too.

[JoeAdam]

Originally Posted by albatross7979

I actually think the problem is more that grading companies grade different cards in each set differently. All you need to do is look at the pop reports to see that PSA is purposefully keeping the PSA 10 pop down on certain cards to raise the prices and make people keep chasing the elusive 10s.

13,736 cards from 2018 Topps have been submitted for grading, and 9,582 have come back PSA 10, 70% PSA 10s. Acuna bat down has been submitted 962 times and has gotten a 10 just 369 times, or 38% of the time. Card #400, Altuve batting, has been submitted 39 times and has received a PSA 10 33 times, for a rate of 85%. Is there something drastically different about the card stock or the product of card #400 and #698? The difference is Acuna is a short print, there are fewer, and they know that by grading them tougher, it will keep people submitting them trying to get 10s to cash in.

This isn't rocket science. PSA is obviously manipulating their grading of certain cards, and it goes way back into the vintage years too.

Those Bat Down cards were damaged a lot coming out of the pack. Similar to how Mahomes has a surface bubble on his prizm cards

[albatross7979]

Originally Posted by JoeAdam

Those Bat Down cards were damaged a lot coming out of the pack. Similar to how Mahomes has a surface bubble on his prizm cards

even if you allow for that one example, i could rattle off 50 more that show how they manipulate the pop reports.

[dwillard]

Full disclosure -- I have over 800 cards at PSA/BGS right now. The only bulk order I have from PSA that is past the "research & ID" stage is the one I sent in January.

Wishing I had your card/hobby budget!!!

[JoeAdam]

Originally Posted by dwillard

Full disclosure -- I have over 800 cards at PSA/BGS right now. The only bulk order I have from PSA that is past the "research & ID" stage is the one I sent in January.

Wishing I had your card/hobby budget!!!

Why not send with Jewcer? His turnaround time is much faster.

[dwillard]

Delete

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by JoeAdam

Why not send with Jewcer? His turnaround time is much faster.

Nothing against Jewcer, but I don't like the idea of sending my cards to someone, who sends them for grading, then they go back to them, and then back to me. I'm nervous enough about them shipping to and from the grading co's. Also, I will say, it's pretty crazy how much a lot of the card I've sent have gone up since I sent them. Some cards I sent were $30-$40 cards raw are now $200-$300 raw, so it's probably better I didn't have them to sell them earlier.

[panamamyers]

Originally Posted by albatross7979

I actually think the problem is more that grading companies grade different cards in each set differently. All you need to do is look at the pop reports to see that PSA is purposefully keeping the PSA 10 pop down on certain cards to raise the prices and make people keep chasing the elusive 10s.



13,736 cards from 2018 Topps have been submitted for grading, and 9,582 have come back PSA 10, 70% PSA 10s. Acuna bat down has been submitted 962 times and has gotten a 10 just 369 times, or 38% of the time. Card #400, Altuve batting, has been submitted 39 times and has received a PSA 10 33 times, for a rate of 85%. Is there something drastically different about the card stock or the product of card #400 and #698? The difference is Acuna is a short print, there are fewer, and they know that by grading them tougher, it will keep people submitting them trying to get 10s to cash in.



This isn't rocket science. PSA is obviously manipulating their grading of certain cards, and it goes way back into the vintage years too.

You're missing the obvious reason.
Who would send in that Altuve unless they have searched upside down and inside out to make sure it is a 10? Nearly all of those Acunas get sent in regardless of how it looks.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by albatross7979

even if you allow for that one example, i could rattle off 50 more that show how they manipulate the pop reports.

I see this all the time. Has anyone, anywhere, actually done anything remotely scientific to validate the claims?

Sub 10 cards. Crack and sub same 10 cards. Crack and sub same 10 cards. Show the outcome.

The gem rate will drop as the card value rises and people send in more damaged cards for grading. Any bat down Acuna that isn't creased is worth sending to PSA. In the early days when it was worth ~$25, I bet people were really picky over which ones they sent.

I would argue that the pop report controls itself. The best of the best get sent off first. Price rises. More borderline copies go off for grading, because even a 9 is worth it. Price continues to rise. Now any dinged Bat Down is worth grading because a '7' is worth over $400.

Where's proof of the pop control conspiracy?

[base set]

Short prints get inserted into packs singly - more steps with the machinery involved than random base card produced with 2 sheet neighbors surrounding it at all times. Additionally, cards from edges of sheets have lower gem rates than other cards. A low print run, late inserted card like Bat Down is probably produced on a sheet of just that card, cut into single cards, then occasionally one is inserted in the packaging run.

[drstrader5]

Originally Posted by panamamyers

You're missing the obvious reason.
Who would send in that Altuve unless they have searched upside down and inside out to make sure it is a 10? Nearly all of those Acunas get sent in regardless of how it looks.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

I don’t think a mass influx of crappy cards graded at PSA 10 will have even the slightest impact on high end cards graded at PSA 10.

[kykid4uk]

Originally Posted by JoeAdam

Those Bat Down cards were damaged a lot coming out of the pack. Similar to how Mahomes has a surface bubble on his prizm cards

A motto to live by in the age of social media: Don't try to reason with someone who wears a tin foil hat.

What you say is 100 percent accurate. But it won't mean a thing to someone who is already convinced of a conspiracy.