I feel honored that you would take the time to write a whole AI prompt just to tell me that
Also I wasnât expecting the ending and I actually chuckled a little bit
Unfortunately this is a good point. Have they ever done that before though? Iâm sure they have right?
So then yeah maybe the new guys are just really bad then. Or are afraid to get fired because they over-graded something.
Man, here I was thinking I was all Sherlock about it trynna connect all these dots. And I guess it doesnât affect PSA at all if the grades are lower because theyâve already gotten the money, though I would argue that they are more incentivized to grade higher because of the value tiers, but whatever.
This whole thing just sucks and I just want the grading to be more consistent again. Thatâs all Iâm really trynna say.
And no one seems to know when thatâs gonna happen, so I guess weâll just wait and see so weâll know next time something like this happens.
I would actually argue that if the trend continues, it could result in long term impacts to PSA.
People like their 10âs. People also like PSA because it presents the best value proposition (i.e. 10âs bring the highest premium). If PSA 10 rates continue to stay low or be erratic, than the value of sending cards in decreases and sending to alternative grading companies like CGC or TAG becomes preferential to sending to PSA, because it makes the customers more (consistent) money.
Related to all this, I wish we could see data on total PSA 10 rates from PSA over the past few months. That would tell us if the PSA 10 rate has truly decreased, or if there is just significant variation from submission to submission, but still the same overall PSA 10 rate.
PSA grades on vibes, I decide to send my cards in to PSA on vibes.
One thing I would like to mention, âifâ PSA was grading stricter, that doesnât immediately correlate to them making less money. (The reflex reaction is people would send less cards in if they did that.) But PSA grading stricter, giving fewer 10s, would then serve to increase the value of 10s of any given card. Which then feeds into the âgambler premiumâ, so what might actually happen is MORE people send in cards trying to snag a 10 that is worth significantly more. Gamblers love to rip packs and buy into breaks and âifâ PSA was grading harder, it could create a similar ecosystem. 10s being much more valuable that 9s serves PSA well.
You buying an already graded PSA 10 Moonbreon on the secondary market doesnât serve PSA as much, since they already graded the card and made their money from it. But you getting enticed at buying at raw copy to send in to be graded Super Express for $299.00 to maybe get a 10 does serve PSA.
Wohhhh I never thought about that! Thatâs a really great point!
My man calling me out with kindness maybeâŠmaybe Iâm the Gambler
Bro you may have just brought up something that I need to talk to my therapist about
I think I need to do it more this way. I feel like I would feel better and wouldnât come up with conspiracy theories on why cards donât get good grades
Pfm said it best, grading has always been inconsistent. There is no exact science to it, and that applies to all grading companies.
As someone buying/selling graded cards, I think itâs important to be aware of the negative side to grading (i.e. scandals) but as a collector, I try my best to not let it affect how I enjoy this hobby. My best advice is to be simply be aware of where people are critical with grading companies but ignore the conspiracies you read on social media (even here sometimes).
End of the day, most people who submit to PSA isnt looking for grading consistency, they are looking to fish for 10s. This inconsistency, has been for the past few years, one of the driving factors for PSA in pulling away from Beckett because people feel that they always have a shot at 10 despite knowing that their card has some obvious flaws.
PSA is aware of this I feel, otherwise with their vast resources I am surprised they have not fully automated their grading process by now. The human touch/inconsistency/varying levels of strictness could be frustrating for people expecting a 10 but gets a 9, but on the other end of the spectrum another gambler could be over the moon when a card that wouldnt grade a 10 70% of the time actually gets a gem mint 10.
To full automate the grading process, you prolly have to input a set of guidelines for consistency, and this consistency could be a double edged sword as PSA needs to determine say, a card with x amount of flaws is going to be constantly downgraded to a 9 or stay as a 10. If they go the 9 route people will be unsatisfied but if they go with the more lenient guideline, then there will consistently be more 10s flowing into the market with flaws.
maybeâŠmaybe Iâm the Gambler 
