I’m not saying that didn’t happen, I’m just saying that if you resubmit 1000 PSA 5s, I bet 99% will be come back PSA 4-6 with most of them 5s.
Here is one non-verifiable example of a potential CGC “error”. Not sure it matters too much though, I’m sure there are plenty of CGC and PSA and BGS misgrades out there.
I’d really need to see that card myself which won’t happen unless I buy it but definitely appreciate finding it thanks. I know there’s more psa than cgc and more cgc than bgs available to buy so I’m going to see more psa errors than cgc it’s just that I’m not seeing any. BGS is just full of them. Psa I am seeing stuff and cgc I keep trying to find it. One thing I do know is my cgc 9s on average look better than my psa 9s and I’ll be cracking them in the future to send to psa along with psa 9s so I’m going to find out what does better at psa. If graded properly I’m expecting my cgc 9s will do better as a lot look better than my psa 10s that i have. Everybody please feel free to send any dodgy looking cgcs my way thanks.
Would it be possible for you to link/repost those results here? Seems that they are difficult to find in this huge grading thread.
Great thanks. Its hard to tell with the lighting and reflecting. It could well be im just unsure.
I can only see what I want to see… PSA = really bad but imma send cards to them
You have lost me on this thread
I’m trying my best not to lose faith in psa. Is that so wrong?
Cheers!
In this thread, some people argue that PSA’s pop control could have led to stricter grading. I am not taking a standpoint here but was wondering whether there is any evidence for this contention? And if yes, about what apprx. cert number do we talk? Thanks
No. This comes up every year or so about PSA being more strict or lenient with cert XX. Literally since like the early 2000s, its kind of funny.
Yes, but first gen label PSA cards truly are poop lol Certs 2x through 7x are pretty consistent
This. I’ve cracked and re-graded hundreds of cards and almost every single one ended up with a higher grade, even with the same grading company, because I specifically picked those cards that were “undergraded” or would benefit from the different categorical standards (i.e. PSA treating an indent as an auto 6 or lower) between companies. Seeing people try to judge it as any kind of statistical trend between companies is asinine because the whole point of re-grading is selecting outliers.
Agreed with many others here.
Selection bias is a massive issue. We take the best looking cards to crack, not the “fair” grades. You can’t judge crossovers fairly if you choose the cards with the best shot at improving in grade.
totally agree, now this makes more sense.
