Very true, it doesn’t get mentioned enough in conversation how little the graders are paid & how that can impact the quality of consistent grading, especially when considering what monotonous minimum wage jobs can do to people’s work ethic.
But are we agreeing that PSA is more strict on average?
I think PSA is just as inconsistent as it has been for a long time, but the sheer volume of cards being graded now is skewing perceptions.
It’ll be interesting to see the goal posts move five years from now. Grading is simply not methodical enough of a process imo. Someone can put together a dissertation together on this topic in all seriousness. Regardless it’s just a hobby and should bring joy to those who partake.
So you’d buy a 7xxx cert that looks worse, over a 4xxx that looks better?
A genuine question. I think disregarding a card before you even look at it because of the cert just opens you up to buying a misgrade more than an accurate grade.
No, of course not, I’m not implying that. Nor did I ever imply that I don’t inspect cards before I buy them. I’m just saying that I believe (opinion) the average 7xxx is superior to the average 4xxx.
Speaking for myself, I don’t know and I don’t really care. I think focusing on the “average” strictness of PSA at any point in time is getting too lost in the sauce.
It would matter if you were buying graded cards at scale, never inspecting the card yourself and really caring about the small differences in “true” condition on the margins. However this is a completely unrealistic situation.
If you care about getting strong grades, then buy strong looking cards. You will always beat the average. If we’re worried people will look down on us for our cert numbers, then wait for the leading number to increment and suddenly all currently graded cards are old and weak.
I don’t discriminate based on certification # but would like to share an amusing anecdote.
In local Facebook group I am member of there’s a fella who’s really “active”.
About a year go he was very vocal in his opinion that newer certs are “stronger” and would preach it from the rooftops.
Fast forward to present day and he’s preaching that you should only buy old certs because there’s a risk that newer cert cards were altered via “cleaning products”.
In both cases the local herd of sheep have echoed his opinion as if it were gospel.
I used to think he was a dumbass but I’m starting to wonder if he’s a satirical genius…
Old certs Pokemon cards will soon be carrying a higher premium than new certs due to the exploded vintage Pokemon card surface alterations/restorations in recent years. People just still haven’t realised how severe the situations are yet…
I have a strong feeling that a visually clean old cert will be carrying a much higher value than new certs in the near future.
Doesn’t everyone just submit all cards as TCG Bulk with the declared value set to $200 or whatever the max is for that promotion?
If you send a 1st edition charizard in today through bulk it’s not going to be graded by the bulk employees
I would try to avoid violating the intended declared value limit by more than an order of magnitude. 10-100%, I don’t think they care but who knows, I don’t work there or know anyone that does.
This is completely anecdotal but sending modern in bulk tier for me is strict af. I have way higher gem rates in value or value plus than I do in bulk xD
My modern PSA 10 rate is about 75% in bulk and 95% for Value and 100% Regular
Based on what I’ve heard from the inside it’s some tenured sports graders that grade the more expensive orders. I don’t know it as a fact but I have a hard time seeing them let a 5 figure+ card go through the bulk pipeline, especially if they are upcharging you in the end.
I’ll give it a try honestly and just see how it goes. This is something I’ve heard before almost exclusively in the direction you’re saying…l higher tier = more 10s. Seems like something I don’t want to be true, but I a,pm curious.
A questionnaire for label and cert collectors and tinfoil hat users.
Which Charizard would you buy?
Which Charizard was graded the harshest?
Which Charizard has the strongest grade?
Which Charizard is the weakest grade?
Which Charizard has the highest premium?
Which Charizard would sell the lowest?
Which Charizard is the same Charizard?
Seeing repeated circular conversations on this forum over the years hurt my eyes. But understanding that some people are new to the community and have the joys of experiencing this conversation for the very first time:
For those who are unaware of the PSA 10 grading standards (PSA | Grading Standards) :
The descriptions of the grading standards have been consistent for decades: “A PSA 10 card is a virtually perfect card.”
Claiming PSA became more stringent during an era of specific certs is incorrect. One can claim that quality control or the training of PSA graders to uphold the grading standards improved over the years. Or to make a more alleged claim, one can cry about PSA gatekeeping cards or scrutinizing more on specific cards, but the PSA standards have not changed.
I feel the crux of these iterative conversations over the years have been less about the strictness of grading companies and more around the consistency of upholding to their respective grading standards. My question to the community: Is consistency something the community prioritizes and values when discussing card grading? If yes, should human factor and biases be removed as much as possible when grading?
PSA’s response to this question:
I frankly feel PSA’s response would have been really good if it were not for the feeling that they are shielding themselves from liability of their grader’s decisions. I also have qualms of their PSA 10 centering standards that “the image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately…” to further protect graders for (whom I’m assuming are) eyeballing the centering for lower tiered cards.
Personally, I am still on the fence about fully removing subjectivity in grading because a defect caught on a high resolution camera, in reality, could make absolutely zero difference when viewing and holding the card in person; however, is the allowance for subjectivity of eye appeal worth the large variance for human error, quality control, and biases that many people in the community have witnessed?
cpbog1
In my opinion this is only a controversial topic because there are people who value older certs lower regardless of the card inside.
When I was trying to sell a higher end card with a 4x cert before I’ve had someone offer 10% less and how they would “for sure” take the ask price if it was 6x or above. Sent full close ups so there was nothing to hide.
I honestly think people in the hobby only have an issue with people who utilize old certs as some kind of argument tool to get a cheaper price. There is nothing wrong with wanting to take an extra close look at a card when it is an older cert, just don’t use it as a bargain tool when the card fits the grade.
Numerous times I’ve been bidding on a card that has two PSA 10s selling at the same time, and I’ve won the lower cert card for considerably cheaper. I’m all for people not wanting old certs because that just means I get them for a better price 
This happened to me too, a 4x cert, which looked worse, sold for hundreds of dollars more than the 2x cert I bought on the same block. No complaints from me!
I just cannot imagine, as someone who scrutinizes the cards in holders very heavily, ever so much as glancing at the cert number. There are a dozen more meaningful ways to determine the quality of the card and this one has no predictable influence at all.
Seriously! I’m pretty damn particular about my collection but it would’ve never even occurred to me to be picky about a cert number.
