Need PSA to give this card a free regrading lol
This news is annoying, but I still want my favorite cards in PSA slabs over any other grading company, so I guess I will continue to submit to them 
pretty sure grading has been automated by PSA (and other grading companies) for awhile now. if there is human oversight, its probably reserved for rarer and/or extremely valuable submissions. or potentially if it’s for a particular submission from a particular somebody. (https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1297069)
it probably only takes a slightly miscalibrated system or something like that for it to give a card an inaccurate grade.
there’s not a lot of transparency in the process, so the opportunity/potential for fraud, negligence, etc is not zero.
collectors universe (parent company for PSA) has also been filing patents like this which explicitly states a “system” that uses “machine learning” and “computer devices to perform processes” to calculate a grade. the system doesnt assist the grader, it performs the grading analysis itself.
this patent explicitly uses the word automation. and while it does say "grades can be manually verified” but it doesnt mean grades will be manually verified.
PSA will say there is a human behind every submission and i think it’s technically true, but i highly doubt they are reviewing every single grade for every single submission. that’s would require way more staff and resources which ultimately would hurt their bottom line. i think its pretty clear that their primary goal is to reduce the amount of people and resources needed for the grading process so that the workflow is more efficient and can get through submissions faster. more automation + more submissions + less employees + raising prices for grading = more monies for the company.
1 Like
If I remember correctly, PSA automates centering grades, but still uses humans for card grading. The only companies that fully use machine learning for complete grading are AGS and TAG.
2 Likes
if you look at the patents, its not just for centering. it looks for flaws, defects, and if its authentic. they would need
Based on the process flow document a human is also grading the card without knowing the automated grade. Im sure once the AI has sufficient training that won’t be the case though.
Patents are made to be as encompassing as feasibly (and legally) possible to protect rights and use. They will add numerous functions into the patent for that purpose, even if they solely use it for centering. But to your point, if an imaging algorithm can identify dents for auto-6 grades, then why not use it I suppose.
However, to suggest that filing a patent is evidence of autonomous robograding is a bit farfetch’d in my opinion. I enjoy tinfoil hat theories as much as the next person, but this isn’t evidence of how/where their technology is being implemented.
7 Likes
BGS…amiryte @smpratte? 
3 Likes
Why is it a tinfoil hat theory to think that grades largely being determined by systems using AI/ML/DL? I’m not saying humans are completely removed from the process, but the patent clearly shows the workflow of the grading process being essentially almost entirely automated and a grade being calculated and given for a card before any sort of human review. The patents also clearly show that it’s not use just for centering, but for any flaws and defects covering surface, edges, etc. I doubt PSA meticulously drew out the work flow trees and processes for a system that states the implementation of machine learning/deep learning imaging models and filed a patent on these things if they had no plans on using them. The patents actually indicates these things are already being used by PSA.
Also, the only companies that admit to fully using AI for grading are AGS and TAG. It doesn’t mean they are the only ones that are.
PSA will likely always state there is a human element in the grading process for every submission, and as i said before, I think that’s technically true, but that human element could simply be something like clicking ”accept” on the grades the system has predetermined for them.
In 2024, PSA graded ~15 million+ items with 2025 having an “unprecedented amount of submissions” stated by PSA themselves. If we were to even assume they have ~100 full-time graders (pay is $17/hr) working every single business day (260 days/year) without breaks (one source states they have about 100 graders meaning about 60 seconds to grade per card), the math would look something like this and this is a conservative estimate for 2025:
Assuming these things:
- 60 seconds per card
- 40 hrs/week or 160 hrs per month
- ~2,000,000 cards submitted monthly
- graders are 100% efficient with no breaks, fatigue, meetings, etc
-
~2,000,000 cards / 60 cards/hour = ~33,333 grading hours
-
~ 33,333 hours / 160 hours/grader = ~200+ full time graders
Unless PSA doubled the amount of graders they have (which is highly unlikely considering the fact that most job positions that Collectors is looking to fill are almost all non grading related and leans more towards engineering and support staff), then either:
- PSA is essentially running a sweatshop with graders working 80+ hrs a week while grading a card every 30 seconds nonstop. Or they at least doubled the amount of full time graders employed which I don’t think is the likely the case considering they haven’t refreshed, adjusted, or bumped the job position of PSA grader in months or maybe even years.)
or
- The grading process is largely automated with any human behind the submission relying on the grade that the system provides them with and there being little to no manual review of each card thats being processed especially for bulk submissions.
—
I don’t think it’s that crazy to think that graders, who are being paid ~$17/hr, would simply just go with the grade the system provides them especially when there are so many cards and submissions to get through and there’s an emphasis on being able to get the grades done quickly and a daily quota that needs to be met. But if we assume 30 seconds is all thats needed for the grader to give the card a grade, would that instill more or less confidence in the grade provided?
Either way, to hand wave away a lot of the facts that aren’t speculation, and calling it a “tinfoil hat” theory that grades might be largely automated when evidence and patents show that machine and deep learning models are being used to look at everything from surfaces, defects, wear, centering, etc in order to calculate and determine a grade is kind of silly. I think its more unlikely that there humans are still largely responsible for reviewing and grading every single card outside of calculating centering.
The only way for PSA to realistically be able to handle the amount of submissions they receive on a monthly basis is to rely on automation. Just my opinion, and i don’t think it’s as “tin foil hat” of a theory as you claim it to be.
2 Likes
PSA saying there’s a human element to it is true and i believe it. It’s just a pretty broad statement that doesn’t clarify how big or little that human element is.
I do think it’s certainly a topic worth discussing however, without all the facts it’s also very easy to speculate or misinterpret things. Which is why I haven’t collected my thoughts on it yet, that’s why I have just posted what was told to us by Nat.
Also, on the patent side of things, it’s very common for companies to patent any idea they might think competes with them. PSA could easily have patented an idea, like AI grading elements if they think someone else could use it to take business away from them. Whether or not they use it is at their discretion but it’s a very real business practise which is very unfortunate for most consumers especially in the technology and pharmaceuticals space.
9 Likes
Nah, still being done mostly by humans, in a poorly lit room looking at thousands of cards each day not very dissimilar from what we see in their video from the early 2000s.
And yes, it is still profitable for the company as a grader takes less than a minute to grade a card which the customer paid $18.99 to get graded. Your 60 second per card stat, as realistic as it may seem is a bit off.
I’ve pre-graded thousands of cards for over 10 years now, and can easily go through 5+ modern cards in 60 seconds with pretty good accuracy (9s and 10s), so a professional grader could do better (especially if AI already checked centering for them). Taking into consideration that PSA received 100k McDonald’s Pikachu 020/M-P, I’m going to go on a limb here and assert that 80% of cards that go into PSA these days are modern and not as time consuming as for example an E-Series card.
No need to take our word for it by the way, simply apply for a position as a grader and go through their initial interview, it will give you more insight on what the physical/human demands of the job are rather than those patent fillings. It will probably also give you an understanding as to why customers with vast grading experience aren’t exactly filling those jobs. It’s painstaking, boring, tiring and stressful.
11 Likes
It will probably also give you an understanding as to why customers with vast grading experience aren’t exactly filling those jobs. It’s painstaking, boring, tiring and stressful.
Wouldn’t you say that’s all the more reason for why PSA might be utilizing more automation for grading? Or at least heavily assist in the grading process?
edit: also, can you really definitively make the claim that the grading process is mostly being done by humans when they’re hiring staff to implement the things stated in the patent?
There are multiple job listings for positions that show PSA is hiring engineers to help implement and scale technology utilizing ML, DL, AI, automation, etc.
In 304 of the docs you linked it says the grader is “blind to the grade assigned by the computer”. As I said earlier, it certainly seems like they are training a model that could potentially remove the human from the loop on factors other than centering but I’m not seeing any evidence that it’s currently happening.
I could be missing something though. If so please share. I don’t have a dog in the race either way.
1 Like
Yup, I can really definitely say that.
I can’t be more explicit that what I already have, and will just reiterate my previous recommendation, ‘simply apply for a position as a grader and go through their initial interview‘ and you’ll get a very detailed explanation of what graders do.
Please note my original reply in no way denied the fact that PSA uses and is developing AI, I was simply pushing back against your notion that either the process was so manual that PSA is running a sweatshop or so automated that there is little to no manual review.
2 Likes
