This is why independent 3rd party grading standards exist and why they are valuable despite being far from perfect
2 Likes
Depends on era. The older the card, the lower my expectations. For anything WotC and really up to BW I expect 6/7 at best when buying from TCGplayer or Troll and Toad. Just realistic since they’re quite old. BW and up to early XY, probably around that 7/8 range, any newer and I’m expecting a mint, out of pack card.
If you’re buying blind, then you gotta lower expectations since it’s just a problem with the lack of consistency in grading criteria. Even the HP/MP/LP/NM criteria that a lot of people use is completely difference from PSA grading. Graded cards save you from that headache though. I’ve given up on buying cards to grade myself, just too much time to dedicate to it right now. Hell, for my binder collection I prefer to buy graded and crack the slab since it’s a time vs. money opportunity cost and I’d rather paying more for one card I know is mint than gamble on 3 that might be mint. Only time I make an exception are the newer sets where it’s a lock that it’s mint.
My general expectations:
Advertised as NM or NM/M cards: As long as it could pass as a PSA 7, I’m satisfied (regardless of what it would actually grade)
Advertised as Mint: Should be of PSA 8 or better quality (regardless of what it would actually grade)
However, I typically don’t return cards unless it’s extremely off base (e.g. being sold a “PSA 5” quality card that’s advertised as Mint). If the OP’s card was advertised as NM or NM/M, I’d be okay with it (not ecstatic), but not if it was advertised as Mint (likely wouldn’t ask for a return though).
3 Likes
The thing is, this ‘lack of consistency in grading criteria’ is pretty Pokemon-specific. There are widely-held standards in MTG that most every seller conforms to. I know exactly what to expect when I order an NM card off of TCGPlayer. And with lower grades, I know exactly what not to expect (i.e., no shuffle creases on SP cards, no creases or indentations on MP cards, etc.). With Pokemon cards, it’s a straight up crapshoot unless you exclusively order from very specific vendors. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t consistent grading standards for Pokemon cards.
And a NM Base Set holo and a card from the most recent set should be held to the exact same standards. There should be no grading on a curve. This is pervasive in MTG, too. I have a lot of vintage cards in fantastic condition. Unless the card is effectively pristine, I label it EX. I literally had someone who purchased an EX Unlimited card off of me message me to ask what was wrong with the card, since it looked nearly flawless to him. He was convinced there had to be a hidden crease or dent or something that made me grade it EX. That’s how accustomed people are to this pervasive grading on a curve based on the age of the card. Ideally, it should make zero difference. Condition descriptors lose all meaning when we start holding different cards to different standards. That’s my perspective at least.
Now this is a very reasonable post. Everybody should reread it.
2 Likes
Don’t expect the NM/M designation to mean anything unless your buying from an experienced seller. If it’s someone just selling a few cards on the side, likely they don’t know what a NM/M looks like.
What I expect as a buyer(and when selling):
MP- 4-5
LP 5-6
NM 7
NM/M 8
Wouldn’t expect anything higher than a PSA 8 if your buying ungraded. Most people with psa 9-10 cards will just grade the cards themselves.
I definitely agree there’s a problem with grading consistency in Pokemon, at least on sites like tcgplayer. I think the main problem with something like grading consistency on tcgplayer is that near mint cards can be ~PSA 7 quality because that’s the PSA standard but if you read the descriptor on tcgplayer’s site, they’re quite different. A PSA 7 quality card by tcgplayer standards isn’t near mint but sellers treat it like it is. I don’t have a problem with the principle of NM being PSA 7, seeing as it’s an industry standard. However, tcgplayer has their own set of guidelines and too many sellers don’t adhere to it. Ideally, either tcgplayer is more strict with the sellers on their grading criteria or they introduce a mint condition descriptor and separate the 9-10s from the 7-8s.
1 Like
@justmatt, I’m on the side of the fence where if I’m buying an ungraded copy, I’m not paying mint prices basically. Although notably I mostly buy either base set blastoises or pokemon-EXs from the original ex era, I feel that it is genuinely hard to find a mint copy in the wild, and I am fine with paying PLD prices for some defects. So my perspective is that if it’s ungraded, we should all be talking and dealing in PLD terms. And hey, there’s no obligation to buy/sell, there will be others who will pay mint prices for a PLD card.
For the more expensive things, I would just buy a graded copy at the prevailing market rate. If I want to sell it down the road, it’s still certified by a 3rd party that it is what it is. It can be a less than perfect PSA 8, but you can’t argue that it is still a PSA 8.
@zorloth brings some interesting perspectives from MTG that I agree with as well, so you can check those out too (:
1 Like
Most people above already provided a generally accepted criteria on the grading standards of ungraded cards. I wanted to add that the expectation definitely shifts when one is selling versus buying.
The seller is taking on a majority of the risk. eBay allows you 12 photos and a text description of the item. You can be as descriptive or as cursory as you want. Different sellers have their own listing prerogative. The top tier ungraded descriptors will be concise, have multiple angles, and a description detailing the standout discrepancies of the item. The bottom tier will obfuscate their item with limited or ignorant detail and provide little evidence of condition.
The buyer is taking on very little risk. You hope you are getting what you paid for, nothing more, nothing less. Taking the time to sift through all of the trash and find the gems is tough, it’s work. Top tier buyers seek out top tier reputable sellers or take risks on lower tier ones. Finding those people that list their items with honesty, quality photos, and a truthful description feels great. However, there’s always the other end. Bottom tier buyers low ball, maliciously return items, and are incessant or impolite in their questioning.
The grey area. It’s not all black and white. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn’t. With the Pokemon market, shade city is usually close by. Perhaps the card looks good from the angles they posted and their description appears comprehensive. Sorry, that ungraded NM-MT Typhlosion T17 has holo scratches and wavy corners, but hey they got you to spend $1000. Luckily, PSA, BGS, and other grading companies built their business to solve the very problem at the core of this thread. How do you standardize card condition and authenticity? Keeping the ungraded description as close to what these companies grade is really the best we can do and still people are gonna have problems. Take the same T17 as above, but let’s say this time it’s a PSA 8 example. Someone buys it for $1000. Buyer has preconceived notions of what “PSA 8” means and they’re upset with the condition. You just can’t make everyone happy.
2 Likes
David Persins new video : THE Square Cut Holos AND Seller Integrity! David Persin Pokemon's #1 English Card Collection Video 5 - YouTube
At the 10 minute mark covers this topic with his opinion as a non graded collector
1 Like
Expectations? Zero. Hope? GEM MINT PRISTINE BGS 10??
It’s the hope that kills you.