Duly noted. Lazy writing from me ive corrected it.
7 cert era has begun time to reorganize the cert tier list. Pretty soon we will be counting digits to differentiate a re-holdered 01X cert vs the new incoming 10X.
I’m not sure whether these anecdotes serve a real purpose. I think it is well-known that grading is subjective and that misgrading occurs at scale.
Its still a data point, it doesnt matter if its the standard or exception.
Grading is an objective proccess, not subective. You can defiantly say some inconsistency is contributed to by human behaviors & emotions.
That still doesnt make grading subjective, even full AI grading with no human interaction will result in error/inconsistency. Would it be defined as subjective?
Inconsistency is a result of
Lack of policy & procedure
Lack of training
Lack of knowledge
Some will see a point and some wont. You cant please all of the people all of the time.
Exactly and data points are interesting to me.
I know this may sound somewhat pedantic (probably because it is ), but those two sentences seem literally antithetical to each other. By definition, a process that is inconsistent due to human behaviors and emotions is subjective. Which definition, you may ask? This one:
That said, just like other posters have said before, I’m not sure pointing out the exceptions really does anything, because it is exactly that: an exception. Some people are born as conjoined twins; while that is indeed possible, it is absolutely not the rule, and the rule doesn’t change based on its exceptions. The same view seems completely logical to me in regards to grading: as a general rule, the grading process works. Are there exceptions? Of course. But exceptions don’t define the rule. If people want to send in cards for a re-grade, more power to you. But categorically denouncing a process that reoccurs millions of times because of a couple of anecdotes doesn’t seem useful to me. But I’m open to being proven wrong!
You send cards to XYZ to get graded objectively by the grading standards they created.
Yes, any objective proccess is subject to subjectivity. A card is graded on its appearance using facts not feelings.
If you read PSA for examples grading standards its understandable how the same card can come back +/- especially in certain grade ranges.
The goal is still an objective grade for the card.
Yes, there is subjectivity involved in grading. No, that does not make it a subjective process.
XYZ is objective, people are subjective XYZ doesnt become subjective because there is human involvement.
Using your example are we just not going to talk about conjoined twins? Eh its the exception why does it matter to record or learn about it.
Just because it doesnt matter to you, doesnt mean it doesnt to another- arent error cards the exception but there is a thread on the topic?
& yes using an exception as the foundation of an opinion isnt really useful.
Well I agree with that, and ironically enough that’s actually the reason we can even pick out when there is inconsistency. There wouldn’t be much of a point to send cards in if the banner to the PSA website said “mystery grades, come see what your card randomly gets assigned today”.
I didn’t say it doesn’t matter, nor did I say we shouldn’t talk about it. The picture in the original post makes the leap from “this card was graded inconsistently” to “PSA is terrible”, to which I responded that categorically denouncing a process that, generally speaking, reoccurs constantly with results most people have no issues with (likely because the process worked) doesn’t seem useful. I suppose if one’s marker of legitimacy is absolutely zero inconsistency then the exceptions definitely matter (not saying yours or anyone’s are, just thinking out loud). Just my thoughts
Make it make sense… what deemed it a 5 originally?
this has to be fake
Same as last time he knew it should never have been a 5 so sent it back in.
Loads of examples of similar happening. Not a one off.
I honestly find this video unbelievable lol. Have you ever re-graded similarly? Genuine question
Ive never regraded. Ive still got normal grading to do on my 3rd print fossil set. When ive done all that i am 100 percent regrading any cards im still short in a 10. 9s and 8s will be cracked.
On the original shinings, the foiling process sometimes made it through to the back of the card. This can make it look like the card is dented in. Similar to yugioh ultimate rares if you are familiar with the ulti box on the back of cards. That would be my guess as to why it got the grades it did
I’ve regraded a PSA 7 → PSA 10, but nothing lower than that.
It’s pretty common in the same way that a borderline 9/10 is due to the way they grade indents. A great example is the “lip” that’s common on the edge of vending cards - one grader on one day will call it a 5/6, another grader on another day will call it a 10.
Like @Pbali said, it’s the shining imprint on the back. There was an older thread on here showcasing crazy regrades of the same shining card; something like PSA 7 → PSA 5 → PSA 9 or 10. Unfortunately, I cannot find the thread link to share here.