I’ve seen print lines and scratches really easily on PSA’s scans. It becomes more difficult for older certs that don’t have scans readily available. Unfortunately, pickiness is the personality trait that costs the most in Pokemon graded card collecting.
That’s fair, though I’ve had a few where print lines not visible on the scans since it is so light. CGC I find the scratches don’t show up well on scans, at least for EX era stuff (at some point 1-2 years ago I learned to not buy CGC EX era cards…)
Yeah, but my point is, it’s unlikely PSA would honor the grading guarantee for this reason when they are constantly grading cards with scratches as 9s. You can search pretty much any vintage set, look at new labels, and you’ll find things that are worse than “one minor printing imperfection”. Maybe I’m wrong though, haven’t tried the guarantee
I can’t attest to the Grading Guarantee, as I’ve not had any experience with it. I’m not overly concerned with it as the only point I was trying to make is the inconsistencies present. Hence, I agree there are many 9s that don’t meet the standard outlined by PSA.
I’ve expressed above that previously this could be viewed as a point of value as people could grade vintage cards and still receive positive grades.
Also, it is worth noting that there is a $250,000 cap on the Guarantee. Meaning the Illustrator would not net more than $250,000 under the Guarantee if downgraded.
Ouch seems a little harsh. I’m not an idiot. I can see obvious issues in scans. But there are a lot of things that don’t show up in scans, especially scans or pictures of old certs done by the seller that are not in the official Psa database. Many of them are lower resolution. And most Psa slabs these days come fresh from Psa with scratches on them. Some of these look like they are on the holo and can be hard to differentiate. But I suppose your expert eyes can see them. And I’ve definitely gotten 9’s with scratches. A LOT.
I remember now why I spend more time on discord servers than this forum these days.
I mean this in the nicest way possible but most people aren’t this picky. If my memory serves me right, I think you returned a PSA 9 shining mew from me ages ago because you didn’t agree with the condition. I’m not mentioning this to make you feel bad, just that it’s a huge outlier to my other 10s of thousands of sales. Statistically speaking, the strong majority of people are fine with front and back scans.
With that said, I think everyone would agree there is no downside to PSA putting up HQ scans on their site. If they did what fanatics does with the full 360 view that would be above and beyond!
My response about the scratches was in response to post above saying that 9’s are not supposed to have scratches. I’m not saying they aren’t allowed personally. Just that I have seen a lot with scratches.
Never going to let me live this one down are ya? This was 12 years ago. I’ve certainly grown a lot as a collector and am not the same as I used to be. I’m not nearly that* picky today. But I’m really sorry if my request back then caused you a lot of grief. Back then I was learning what a psa 9 really is and what a 10 is. Heck, most 10’s have defects and back then I was not ready to accept that.
As for this discussion. The point that was made was: “you should be buying the card not the grade”. Then I and another gave examples for why that falls apart sometimes. And now instead we’re back to you’re too picky, trust the grade. Do you see the problem I have with this circular logic?
Let me give a concrete example. I recently bought a 2X cert 1st edition Neo (not going to be too specific) holo. In addition to the usual corner whitening, a couple vertical thin holo scratches, it also has a curved scratch on the holo as well. Frankly I don’t think this should have received a 9 and the scans provided of the card did not show the curved scratch at all.
But maybe I’m being too picky to expect a 9 not to have multiple noticeable scratches including a curved one that really jumps out.
Honestly it’s easy to remember because it’s so rare. I don’t hold it against you or even care, it just felt appropriate for the conversation, and thought it might help demonstrate an outlier vs the standard, don’t take it as anything else.
Anyway I’m trying to politely highlight how the strong majority of people are fine with front and back scans. They make their “buy the card”judgement with that and are satisfied.
I never called you an idiot. You are just more picky than the average collector. For someone with your level of pickiness, the only solutions are to ask for more photos if/when available or to trust the grade that PSA provided if you do not believe that scans are sufficient (if available).
But as we have discussed elsewhere on this forum, if someone is asking for 10+ photos, I’ll choose to sell to someone else. 9 times out of 10, they will waste my time and ghost. Or they will ask for all of those photos (and a video nowadays) and then send a lowball offer.
TAG might be made for a collector like yourself that wants documentation of every piece of damage. That way, you have all of the necessary information to purchase without endlessly asking for more photos. I hope you give them a try.
Like I said earlier, there is no right or wrong way to collect. Some methods are just more difficult and time-consuming than others given our subjective expectations.
This level of frustration towards PSA was probably last noticeably felt during the pandemic. The key distinction between PSA’s position in today’s market boom and during the pandemic boom is their maturity as a company: During the pandemic, PSA was still in the early stages (having just been acquired by Collectors) of scaling and optimizing its operations to handle the sudden surge in submission volume. The company has continued to successfully grow with international offices, and they have significantly optimized their processes during just this one Pokemon market cycle.
The challenge for them now is different than just five years ago. At today’s scale, PSA faces exposure across multiple layers of potential failure within its workflow of their reimagined collecting ecosystem. But if we focus specifically on the grading, the jump from approximately 44 graders in 2019 (and previously only 14 graders) to hundreds of graders today, spread internationally and trained by different grading standards (including SGC and now Beckett graders), the weak links are orders of magnitude more complex.
Revamping their grading schools/training programs may help reduce some of the inconsistencies, but they will inevitably be diminishing returns. This inconsistency becomes unavoidable when hundreds of individual graders (which the number of graders will theoretically increase with increasing submission volume) are being trained off a “standard” that has already been proven to be fluid (even excluding their recent firm adjustments to their existing standards). Unless PSA can move beyond using technology for simply flagging defects for human graders, I don’t see how this inconsistency can be mitigated, let alone resolved at scale. Quite frankly, their challenge in addressing this growing inconsistency will exponentially increase as they increase their number of graders.
I am not good with statistics so I punched in my line of thinking into ChatGPT - apparently the inconsistency will technically not be exponential, but quadratic. Regardless, it definitely will not be linear, which some people on the forums have stated even on threads prior. I think this explains why it feels like more and more people are getting fed up with the grading inconsistencies.
cpbog1
For anyone competent with statistics out there, feel free to validate what ChatGPT pumped out:
1. Single-grader inconsistency (baseline)
Assume:
Each grader evaluates X subjective variables (centering tolerance, surface severity, print defects, eye appeal weighting, etc.).
Even with training, each variable has some noise (judgment variance).
A single grader’s inconsistency risk grows roughly with X, but it’s bounded and internally consistent.
2. Multi-grader system: combinatorial effects
When you add graders:
You’re not just adding people.
You’re adding unique weighting functions for each of the X variables.
If:
Each grader weights X variables slightly differently, and
Cards are randomly distributed among graders,
Then the system-wide inconsistency grows with something closer to:
Those interaction effects (grader A vs grader B vs grader C) are combinatorial, not linear.
3. Why it feels exponential in practice
In large-scale grading systems:
Every additional grader introduces new pairwise comparisons with all existing graders.
The number of grader-to-grader consistency relationships grows as:
I never said anything about PSA, I was just putting in my 2cents about TAG.
I agree about the report feature, it’s a good one to have.
But like i said, without an open and transparent system, The promise of “AI” objectivity isn’t going to solve the same problems that other grading companies have with human graders.
No grading company is without issues. Just pick the ones that are right for you
Ultimately I’m on the same page as @Dyl with their post :
I’m sitting at ~200–250 PSA 9s now. Early on my graded collection journey, I was very picky and basically interpreted PSA 9 by the book: only one minor flaw, no surface scratches.
Over time, I’ve observed that PSA 9s on the market can exhibit any of the following defects, and it’s common to see multiple on the same card and not only a single one:
Corners with noticeably different sharpness/shape across all 4 corners
Whitening and dings on corners
Whitening and dings on edges
One or multiple surface scratches
One or multiple print lines
Heavy off-centering
Across my 200–250 PSA 9s, it’s not rare to see holo surface wear and even multiple issues on the same card. What I’ve learned is that the grade often comes down to an “eye appeal” threshold: the flaws usually don’t cross a certain visibility level. I’ve only sold two PSA 9s because they failed that threshold, both had deep, obvious scratches visible from basically any angle.
The bigger problem: I can’t reliably evaluate “strong 9 vs weak 9” from PSA scans or typical seller photos. In my experience, almost EVERY PSA 9 shows some holo surface wear under a bright LED at the right angle, and I strongly disagree that you can consistently spot that on PSA’s scans or seller’s photos.
So in practice my only option is to buy the grade, not the card. And if I go through the effort (and sometimes at a premium) to hunt down a specific PSA 9, I want that grade to remain stable. Especially because I’m already accepting that PSA 9s can include holo wear and combinations of flaws due to PSA inconsistency. If I accept that reality, the least I want is for the grade to stay the same.
On top of that, a downgrade isn’t just “annoying”, it can create real financial loss:
Market shifts can mean a PSA guarantee/payout doesn’t actually cover the loss
Extra costs on international purchases (taxes, import duties, shipping, middle man costs) are simply gone
Any premium paid to secure a specific card is lost
And the time/effort spent tracking down the exact copy is wasted
haha to be fair, I dont think timewaster1700 falls into the category I’m thinking of. The guys im thinking of are on facebook groups shouting into any comment section they can about how psa bad and tag is the future despite never having graded a card
This was 12 years ago. I’ve certainly grown a lot as a collector and am not the same as I used to be. I’m not nearly that* picky today. But I’m really sorry if my request back then caused you a lot of grief. Back then I was learning what a psa 9 really is and what a 10 is. Heck, most 10’s have defects and back then I was not ready to accept that.
