Does PSA Grade the Card or the Player? A Deep Dive into the 1980 Henderson Rookie

Special Thanks to Vince for his assistance with this project.
Resources and References:
Spreadsheet of all Card Data from Video:
docs.google.co...
Beckett Explanation for Henderson Grading:
www.beckett.co...
PSA Explanation for Henderson Grading:
www.psacard.co...
Photos of All 6 Printing Sheets from 1980 Topps Baseball:
www.robertedwa...
SCP Auction Listing for a Questionable PSA 10 Henderson:
catalog.scpauc...
Blowout Post Regarding 5 Questionable PSA 10 Henderson's:
www.blowoutfor...
Contact Me: [e-mail]
Instagram: / vintage_card_curator

[@cw9888]

Interesting video and great research! I haven't read all the comments here so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but one thing to consider is the fact that the black background of the dugout behind Rickey can make certain defects really stand out (especially surface scratches). I don't believe this factor would necessarily explain the unusually low number of 10s for this card, but it's another thing to possibly consider.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks. A few other people have mentioned this. I hadn't heard it before. But after thinking about it, I don't believe it's a factor. Think about it a second: that assumes there is a print defect or flaw that only affects the 10's. It would be totally okay to be present on the 9's. If that were true, it would be a well-known part of the legend of this card. We'd hear about it from PSA and others. We'd see web pages, magazine articles in the Hobby and videos pointing out this subtle difference. It would be similar to the lore of the '52 Mantles dumped in the ocean. You'd also be able to replicate it. We'd be able to look at 9's all day long and see this supposed flaw, but it would not be present on the 10's. To test the theory, I looked at about 25 other 1980 Topps cards that also have dark backgrounds behind the players or dugout shots. Here are the card numbers: 45, 73, 76, 91, 180, 216, 219, 225, 226, 248, 330, 365, 387, 396, 516, 545, 580, 583, 695 and 701. Some are Padres cards, which have the exact same green and yellow background as the Henderson: 305, 339, 491, 598, 704. (All the data is in the linked spreadsheet in the description box above.) With one exception the 9:10 ratios of these dark background cards are also within the limits we saw for the commons in the video, around 4:1, some up to 5.5. Several of these cards have the same (or more) number of 10's as 9's. The only card that has a ratio over 5.5 is Nolan Ryan with 22:1. Think about that...another HOF card and the 2nd most valuable card in the set, also has a relatively high 9:10 ratio. Too much coincidence. I don't find the dark background theory to have merit. I appreciate your comment CW and wanted to pin it because others have brought this up as well.

[@cw9888]

@@vintagecardcurator no problem and thanks for more excellent research!

[@MateoB73]

I wish I could give this video a thumbs up every time I watch it. Truly a great analysis.

[@jameslesnik6630]

Amazing research. Very well done. Extremely thorough... you certainly did your due diligence. Impressive

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks James. I just finished a new project that is launching tonight that takes up these themes in detail on the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Auto card.

[@PoorMansInvesting]

Great work, love your videos!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks so much!

[@bart81usaf]

very thorough, nicely done

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks man!

[@reddzone99]

When you take handling over time into account you find your answer. Also you must strongly consider the willingness to submit lower grade Rickey Hendersons as there is also higher market desirability for lower grade Rickeys compared to all other cards in the 1980 Topps Baseball set.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Raymond Blain I discussed this extensively in the second half of the video. I controlled for those factors and found strong evidence that the Henderson is still graded much differently than any other 1980 card.

[@reddzone99]

@@vintagecardcurator i would take stronger consideration for those market psychologies. In 1980, Rickey Henderson was one of the premier young talents in MLB, and the 1980 Topps product was readily available for purchase. In 1980, Rickeys 2nd year in MLB , he was an All-Star & 10th in MVP Vote. In 1981, he was 2nd in MVP Vote with a scorching 100 Stolen Bases. There must be 10s of thousands of low grade Rickeys that exist just due to wreckless handling from the early 80's. So we should definitely take into account far more wear & tear over time for this particular card compared to any other card from 1980 Topps.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Raymond Blain I look at that factor in the video, comparing only the 9’s and 10’s to the 9’s and 10’s of other 1980 cards and other well known vintage cards that are also graded tough. In the video I freely acknowledge that there are a lot of lower grade Henderson’s out there. But those were controlled for in the analysis.

[@reddzone99]

Do you think a much more desired collectable rookie card, such as the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson, which was also widely available as a new product in it's distribution year, yielded examples with more signs of handling (wear & tear) over time? Do you also think this collectability drove more frequent retail orders from the manufacturer, and as an extension of this, a higher / longer production run, creating more Rickeys to be potentially mishandled? What types of card storage were available in the early 80's? Why is this card still so collectable / liquid in low grades?

[@vintagecardcurator]

I think it's a supply and demand issue. This is a wickedly popular card and regularly shows up as one of the favorite cards of all time. I don't think Topps deliberately printed more of them, but there were certainly millions produced. Of course a lot of those cards were mishandled, brought to school and shown off. That's fine, but the analysis in the video excludes those cards. I only looked at mint cards, to provide an apples-to-apples comparison with the common cards.

[@DoubleDvintagebaseballcards]

Great job !! Just fascinating thank you .

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks!

[@antiquingwithmattgreig1370]

The high (er) percentage of of 9's is a really good point.

[@vintagecardcurator]

We have looked up the numbers since this video came out and it's astonishing. The 9:10 ratio has doubled. New video coming out.

[@bigjax731]

Awesome

[@InternetMunchies]

Well done on this video, genius investigating

[@catmayrant3336]

Fantastic research!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you! Wait until you see the next one I do on this issue...working on it now.

[@DiehardSportsCardCollector]

Another thing I wanted to add is that you do know why the cards with qualifiers got them with PSA. St= Stain, OC= Off centering outside of their tolerance guide lines. MC= Factory Miscut. MK=Marking etc.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, thanks...

[@ChuckNorthSideGuy]

Wow! Just blown away by the analysis that you put into this video. The depth and breadth of your review is thorough. In fact, to a degree I couldn't imagine on my own. I don't have answers, as you've asked. Just had to put down a HUGE thank you for your ongoing, fascinating analysis of this hobby. Thank you. And please keep it coming!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Chuck. I didn't realize this kind of analysis could be done either...the prior videos on printing sheet placement helped me understand how that process could be used with other cards too. I hope this work encourages others to do their own research. There's a lot more work that can be done on the Henderson card too. Thanks again!

[@d1ddyp0p]

You should make a large video - “The PSA Giant Dealer Scam”. This stuff happens for all large dealers and many different cards. If you take eBay listings and auctions on other sites and trend the sold listings over time and see who the seller is you’ll find the evidence. Compare submission dates based on case and barcode and you’ll notice ANOTHER odd trend. While many other cards in the set have submitted throughout the years, in Henderson you find they come in clusters and interesting potential points in time (based on the casing and barcode id)

[@vintagecardcurator]

I have attempted this type of analysis in a few videos after the Henderson one. I don't have access to the bar code, only the certification number. You can't tell the submission date from that. (All you can do is see when the card might have first been sold.) Another limiting factor is that the sold data is unreliable after a few years, even on VintageCardPrices. Using the certification numbers I could reconstruct the submission forms of some of the Henderson cards and was able to have some reasonable guesses as to who submitted the cards. Not surprisingly, the same names were on the 10's of Henderson, Murray and Ozzie Smith...the most elusive 10's of that era. The odds that 1-2 people would have gotten 10's on those all 3 of those cards seems too astronomical to be left to coincidence.

[@armyguyautographs4083]

This is amazing

[@bigjax731]

Good stuff

[@hookedonfishing2095]

I’ve since started investing in 7,8,9’s slabbed hendersons. I believe another 30 years from now and good luck finding em in 7,8,9 grades.

[@italiandragon3208]

💯👍✔ im glad someone is finally doing this publicly.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks man. I'm surprised no one thought to do it before. One of the biggest things I learned from this experience is that most of us don't question what we are told about these cards by the people running the institutions. I didn't.

[@jason916]

One thought maybe that this card was highly sought-after all through the 80s and 90s and there's a good chance that many of these Rickey Henderson rookies were passed around traded sold sold again and constantly removed from protective cases which could cause a lower condition. If that were the case though you would see similar traits from other cards of that era the sandberg's ripken's Gwynn's Boggs bonds Canseco's and McGuire's

[@vintagecardcurator]

The 9:10 ratio that I use in the video is able to control for that factor. By looking at cards that PSA only grades a 9 or a 10, we eliminate any "well handled" cards from the analysis, since they wouldn't be considered mint. That allows us to directly compare how PSA grades cards like the Henderson with how they grade every other card in the set. I'm working on a video how that applies the 9:10 ratio to a lot of other landmark cards in the Hobby, most of the ones you just mentioned. I think you'll be interested in what I found.

[@pdubs7069]

Dude you are awesome!! Thank you for this!! Your voice is soothing to listen to 🤤 & Im not trying to be weird about it! 👍

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank man. I can't tell you how much that means to me because I have always struggled with my voice. Basically I can't talk for shit and videos like this involve heavy editing to get it right. I'm glad I'm able to communicate effectively in the videos!

[@pdubs7069]

@@vintagecardcurator Your doing great, keep it up! You make quality content videos! Much appreciated!

[@patmacrotch5611]

I like your very scientific and statistical approach to this.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks...I feel like an objective analysis is so important here.

[@toddrichardson8595]

Another routine masterpiece Keith!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Todd, much appreciated! I worked hard to get this one right. It was certainly up there as one of my most challenging projects.

[@toddrichardson8595]

@@vintagecardcurator It might be your best video yet and that's saying a lot..

[@NYYanksFan7]

Outstanding analysis. 👍

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks my friend! Thanks for the support!

[@Byrrd51]

Great research. I think you call out the scam at the end, which, to me, is the crux.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks...it is a scam to me. I think over the years collectors have at least acknowledged that PSA does this. (Some used to argue with me about this.) But now we get people who rationalize that this is good for the Hobby, which I don't buy at all. Thanks for watching and for the comment.

[@Byrrd51]

@@vintagecardcurator Thank YOU for calling it out. Things always seemed a bit fishy, but the whole business with the 1980 Henderson just confirmed it. Scam. And you're right about people rationalizing that this is good for the hobby until the bubble bursts...again. Great research. Great stuff.

[@markmurphy3918]

This guy should be working at the FBI making seven figures.

[@mikeorz111]

Awesome job!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Mike! Appreciate the support!

[@silverfoocardboard8274]

Impressive research, well done!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you my friend!

[@JasonCardbourne]

Great video as always! We appreciate it

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! I appreciate the response the video has gotten from collectors. I'm glad to see people thinking about this issue.

[@luciogamesmusic]

Really interesting video !

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for watching the video! I have another one coming next week related.

[@blairatkinson7423]

Another great video! Your research is amazing. You can bet the people getting the 10’s were either really early submissions or have an in with the grading company. Keep up the great work

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Blair. I appreciate the comment. The next direction is to look at all the 10's that we know about and see what we can dig up on those. I already have a few leads to pursue. That's the key to answering this...with almost 21,000 submissions you can bet that plenty of everyday collectors have submitted these cards to PSA. How many of the 10's were given to these guys?

[@beansballcardblog]

I had no idea. Thank you for sharing your analysis!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment and watching the video!

[@verl20]

Another outstanding video! Kudos

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you!

[@wrigleyregular1926]

Excellent commentary and analysis. Thanks for taking the time to make this video.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for watching and commenting. I'm glad other collectors are finding this useful.

[@theybuythemforthegum3670]

Interesting video agree very hard to high grades in star cards

[@user-iw7wm6ji1h]

Its taken me over 20 years to acquire this card. Ricky has always been my favorite growing up. To me , this card is in excellent condition, centered and all, but seeing the rarity of getting the 10 grade and no good reasoning behind it really bums me out. I wonder if any new links have been made to explain the stinginess of the grading companies? In anycase ,thanks for the vid. Verry helpful!

[@ranskal]

Great research and analysis! I lean towards your last comment about the $$$.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you Randy! I've got more work to do. I smell smoke...

[@sithlordpat]

Great video

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for taking the time to comment...I appreciate it!

[@eltoroloco1936]

A really strange occurrence happened when I broke 3 vending boxes of 1980 Topps from BBCE. A lot of the cards were off-centered. One of the few that were perfectly centered was a Rickey. It has a very high potential of getting a 10. I can take a look at the connected cards and see how they turned out.

[@vintagecardcurator]

It's great you got a centered Rickey Henderson. If it was any other card I would say you had a shot at getting a 10, but with that one PSA seems to have turned off the 10's. It's like they feel there are enough in circulation already.

[@johnodonnell2798]

Great Job as always!!! Remember the old Saying- FOLLOW THE MONEY 💰

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks John! My next step is exactly that, to follow the money. We can account for 19 of the 24 cards through auction sales. Wouldn't you know: all 19 were first sold through anonymous consigners. You would think somewhere in 21,000 submissions that an average Joe collector like us would get a PSA 10 and decide to sell it on eBay themselves. IDK

[@justinjohnson9293]

Psa holds back tens on the 1980 HENDERSON and 1993 Jeter SP because of the market demand for them. They love the amount of submissions they get with people hoping for chance to get a 10 on the flip. It’s a scam...

[@vintagecardcurator]

So far the evidence has not disproved your theory Justin. More research is needed here. Thanks for the comment.

[@patmacrotch5611]

It makes sense from a business standpoint for them. It would be interesting to see this same data for cards of similar standing from different sets.

[@patmacrotch5611]

@watchtheirhands You have to factor in every other card they treat the same way. That's hundreds of thousands of submissions a year. That's millions for PSA, potentially.

[@WolfGirl72-n5g]

Dark black background shows scratching. Another variable .

[@vintagecardcurator]

I feel pretty confident saying we could test all the cards with similar dark backgrounds and we wouldn't find any of those with a similar 9:10 ratio as the Henderson rookie.

[@HitMan-tc6im]

Great job Keith, your work and research helps those searching for the best card and work is appreciated

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you John! I'm glad people are finding this research helpful and useful in their own collecting.

[@charlyscards2661]

I used to LOVE my PSA 8...

[@vintagecardcurator]

I have a PSA 8 too. I've had it since I was a kid, pulled out of a pack. That means more to me than the PSA slab.

[@charlyscards2661]

I saw a PSA 7 at a show yesterday, Beautiful. Need More 10’s. Ow PSA’s buddies own them all. Signed BIG Ricky and A’s Collector.

[@howiez3126]

Outstanding !

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Howie! I appreciate that!

[@richardmagliaro1214]

Outstanding and compelling research. Columbo cameo at the end is a riot. "Just one more thing": well done, sir!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Dude, we need Columbo on this case...there's still too much that is hidden from collectors. Thanks for watching and appreciating the reference!

[@ronfigg1]

Excellent video! I love your work!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Ron!

[@deadlyredly]

im guessing some guys at PSA own the Ricky PSA 10s

[@888strummer]

I believe it is mostly the centering that prevents so many Henderson rookies from being graded a 10. The % of cards graded a 10 doesn't mean much because people only send in a 1980 common to be graded if they think it will get at least a 9. And many dealers only send in commons from 1980 if they think they will get a 10. Most commons from 1980 that get graded a 9, only get in the $5 range, so sending them in to be graded is a losing deal. That's why the % of commons getting a 9 or a 10 is so much higher than the % of Hendersons. Even a rookie Henderson that's not centered well, but can grade a 7 will still get $25 to $40, so these are all worth getting graded.

[@vintagecardcurator]

I addressed this extensively in the video...it's in the second half. I anticipated that collectors would offer this argument. What we have to do is compare the Henderson to those commons in the video: focus just on the cards graded 9 or 10.

[@888strummer]

@@vintagecardcurator I think you are right, that PSA is tougher on cards of value and on this Henderson card. But I watched the whole video and thought when you addressed the part about collectors and dealers being careful to only send in commons that are definite 9's or 10's; I thought that answered the question as to why the % is so skewed. PSA says to be a PSA 10, the centering needs to be 45/55 or at worst 40/60, so I would think only commons are sent in that are at worst 45/55. So perfect commons are sent in, while Hendersons as low as PSA 5 are sent in. Focusing on the Henderson rookies currently graded PSA 8 or 9 on ebay shows some are centered 45/55 but didn't get the 10

[@thebatterycarlylerood]

Great research as always. I think the dark background of the dugout on the Rickey Henderson rookie is what often holds this card back. It's the highest contrast card in the entire set and it makes flaws stand out. Heck, it even makes defects on the card holder stand out more!

[@ClassicCards]

While watching this video and considering the wealth of information included, and thinking of the set as a whole...The contrast of the colors in this specific card is the only thing I could think of! I also believe we are dealing with PSA subjectively suppressing the numbers of 10s now simply because the “legend” of the card. They gotta make sure they stay in business 🤣

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for that...I haven't heard that reason before. I should look at the Padres cards. I didn't realize it until I started producing the video, but the Padres cards look to have exactly the same color scheme as the A's. I'm going off what PSA itself says the reasons are for the tough grading.

[@groundzero270]

Best video yet brother! More reason to question the grading process as always! Keep up the videos!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! I think I put more work into this video than nearly any other project I've attempted. There's still more to say on this card and I will likely do that in a future video. I appreciate your support of the channel!

[@orbonds3603]

Yea grading squeezed the last little bit of fun out of collecting...sucks

[@groundzero270]

Vintage Card Curator brother I love these, I work with Business Analytics all the time and love your methodology on these vids. I understand the amount of time you take to do these. Educating the hobby, no one is doing what you are currently, and not as deep. Great job!

[@redfire2987]

It could be great to be able to talk to an employee who worked for Topps in the late 70s early 80s

[@clintonstone324]

Love the in depth analysis. Great video!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Clinton. I appreciate you watching!

[@farlow126]

I don't have a theory, but this is my favorite baseball card of all time.

[@vintagecardcurator]

It's one of the most important cards in the Hobby to me...it bridges the gap between vintage and modern. Everyone loves it. That's what makes this topic important to me...its grading has a huge impact in the Hobby.

[@tbm9160]

Keep up the great work my friend. Thanks again for sharing.

[@vintagecardcurator]

I appreciate your comments and continued support of the channel...it's really helped it to grow in what is a crowded field on KZbin.

[@aedesper]

Impressed by the time you put into this, wonder how many more examples of this are from other decades

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! You bring up an area for future research...do other HOF rookie cards have grading profiles like the Henderson?

[@rogertayloRRR]

Great work! Awesome vid. Good points. I really enjoyed it

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for watching and commenting! Appreciate it!

[@forgerelli1]

I've wondered about this myself. Another excellent video.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for watching and commenting! Appreciate it.

[@aaron.from.winchester6744]

MY GAWD!!! YOUR RESEARCH IS IMPECCABLE! Bravo, good sir. 👏👍🙌 PSA does this kind of stuff on purpose, IMO. For what reason, I don’t know.

[@vintagecardcurator]

There a few reasons I could think of why PSA could deliberately withhold 10's. 1) they want to say they have a reputation as the toughest graders, 2) they want to encourage people to resubmit 9's in hopes of getting 10's, increasing sales volume; 3) they feel they are the arbitrators of the Hobby and don't believe there should be that many 10's in circulation, that 10's should be an ultra exclusive commodity and 4) that they are using them to reward their biggest customers. All of those reasons are wrong...a 10 is a 10.

[@deweyoxburger2963]

They are a scam and are cheating people out of money, that's why. wake UP!

[@EarthtonesCymbals]

@@vintagecardcurator Indeed...a 10 is a 10 no matter what.

[@andrewtaylor995]

Or perhaps a few people in the PSA family have a Rickey 10 or two and want to maintain it's scarcity value.

[@farlow126]

Great analysis!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! I appreciate that!

[@krackerjacksna]

One of my favorite cards!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, absolutely. Everyone loves this card, which is why I think it's important to explain what is going on.

[@123precision8]

Impressive. Well done sir. To me, this supports my decision to only collect raw. I buy what has visual appeal to me, not to someone sitting at a desk with a magnifying glass.

[@vintagecardcurator]

It shakes my faith in the graders too. And I'm someone who is heavily invested in them. I don't want this to be true, but I have to ask the questions.

[@jonalvarado9272]

Look at the Rickey rookie PSA 10 that sold through Heritage Auctions in Feb of 2021. Front is slightly off center and back is more off centered. This card was part of the Dmitri Young collection. I have seen better 9s!!!!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

The Dmitri Young Collection is frankly an embarrassment to PSA. I've looked over a number of the cards, like the Rickey, and they have massive gaps in their holders...they look trimmed. One of the guys that worked with Young to acquire the cards shows up on the list of card doctors published on sportscard radio.

[@mightbegenius]

I have some players cards in psa 10s that only get a 10 around 5-8% of the time. They're not especially valuable, but PSA grades the cards tough for some reason. My guess is that they're controling the market. Wouldn't it be insane if they had a pile of Henderson rookies in a safe somewhere that they kept for "rainy days"? Oh, we need more capital. Quick, grab a couple of henderson rooks out of the safe. We'll grade them 10s and put them on ebay for a quick $50k+. I mean, it would be pretty tempting for them.

[@JustinFarber]

RE: The cards around the Henderson and on other sheets - their total populations and overall demands are much lower, and people would be less likely to submit them if not high grade. Plenty of people would submit a low-grade Henderson though due to it's demand. This at least partially explains why those other cards have higher grade 10 %'s. Great research though!

[@JustinFarber]

Ah you say that exactly at 8 minutes in lol

[@vintagecardcurator]

ha ha, I read your mind Justin. I appreciate the critical thinking...the Hobby needs some of that. One of the side revelations I had about this project is how reliant we are on the so-called experts and media figures in the Hobby. Did they do their due diligence or are they simply parroting what someone in the industry is telling them? As I know very well, it takes a lot of time and trouble to get to the bottom of some of these questions. But the first step is to ask the question in the first place and very few people in leadership positions in the Hobby seem to be doing that. We saw that with David Seideman from Forbes magazine and his coverage of PWCC.

[@MyerheadsCards]

GREAT research and data! As Carlyle stated below, I've always heard the dark area on the Henderson card (the dugout area) has print defects (a dot? a blob? a speck?) which automatically render it a 9... and this is the first place graders go when grading the Henderson. Only afterward to they look at corners, edges, centering, gloss, etc. Somewhat similar to the rumors surrounding the 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr RC... it has been said the graders first take a hard look at the centering of the UD diamond hologram on the back of the card then move on from there (forgetting for a moment the obvious issues of Griffey being card #1 in the set).

[@vintagecardcurator]

I have to look into this some more Michael. Others have mentioned it too. I haven't heard of that before and PSA doesn't mention it as a factor in their grading. I did see that the San Diego Padres cards have the same color scheme...I'm going to see if I can find an image that is similar to the Henderson to compare. I just think it's odd that a card can have an issue that will be okay with a 9, but not a 10. That is certainly different from the way I've seen other vintage cards graded.

[@ryandeffley7652]

I'd say at least 50-60% of the "9's" should actually be in 10 slabs for the Henderson RC. The problem is that this card is very political with PSA and they pop control it to drive the value up.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment Ryan. I 100% agree with you and the analytical data from PSA's own database proves it too. Population control with this card and others of that era.

[@ryandeffley7652]

@@vintagecardcurator - Well with dark bordered cards like the 62, 70, 71, 75, etc that makes sense to me. Also 78 is one of the TOUGHEST years for centering Topps put out. My Nolan Ryan Topps Master set is #3 currently in the world for PSA's set registry and is slowly creeping up on #2. So I can attest to the 78 Ryan in 10 being near impossible with only three 10's. LOL But with a white border 1980 Topps card and nearly 2000/9's, it makes no logical sense as to why it is such a tough 10. The only possible explanation is holding the pop down let this card reach mythic proportions over time and PSA loves driving the value up. I mean now a 10 is $60K!! But at least 9's are finally getting respect closing in on $2K. It never made any sense to me that a 10 could be $25-30K and a 9 was $450-500.

[@billt488]

Another awesome video.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you Bill! I appreciate you watching and commenting on the last video!

[@RichNelms406]

Not sure if this was mentioned, there were too many comments to scroll through. With all of these cards, how many do you think are resub (resubmitted) over and over again because people hope for a more lenient grader? That could cause some skewed numbers also and there will be no way to ever tell or not. I personally will crack and resub PSA 9s if the value is substantially higher for a 10, although I do this with ultra-modern NBA cards (like Zion) as opposed to vintage. Thanks for your videos!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Hi Rich, some people have mentioned resubmiting in this and other videos. I'm sure it happens to some degree. For example, that PSA 10 1953 Topps Mantle that is making the news for the percentage share that you can buy in it, was a cracked and resubmitted 9. It's owned by Evan Mathis, to further tarnish its provenance. I've been wondering how this process works. Like you said, there is no way to tell. But let's say you have a PSA 9 Henderson (worth about $1800) and you decide to take a chance, crack it out and send it back to PSA. Does that person then send PSA a $2,000 grading fee because they feel the value is $30,000? And if it grades a 9 or 8 does PSA refund the excess fee? Lots of uncertainty about the process. The other factor is that grading is so subjective it's a huge risk to resubmit, especially if the card has an older grade. PSA seemed to be more lenient with the numbers starting with 0.

[@jude999]

Outstanding, making it plain. Worthy of a Pulitzer. Holding the powerful accountable.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for that comment...I really appreciate it. I believe that if PSA has so much power in the Hobby that their decisions should be transparent and able to be understood and replicated. I'm concerned that if they are not grading the card for the card, then it has some very serious implications for every day collectors like me.

[@houseofbaseballcards4672]

suppression of the population report - good to have a few flagship examples like this one for their long term branding.

[@vintagecardcurator]

It does make those existing 10's so valuable they can be used in marketing material about how PSA can "turn cardboard into gold" by having collectors send their $30 raw Hendersons to Newport Beach with thought of a winning lottery ticket.

[@TonyBlack574]

I recently picked up a graded Henderson rookie and was an 8 with a printing defect

[@vintagecardcurator]

I would think a print defect would bring a card down to an 8 max, but I guess it depends on the defect.

[@sewaseem]

Love that pic of Columbo at the end. columbo's on the case

[@vintagecardcurator]

I could only wish we had Columbo investigating this one. Thanks for the comment!

[@20byrd]

This is super unfortunate... I wish there was an honest third party grading company not riddled with obvious fraud and corruption.

[@Eliteco3]

o there is man SGC

[@Oz1976]

@@Eliteco3 I know this is 2 years old but: you mean the company that was started by a known card trimmer and restorer, Dave Foreman? The company that graded a cracked PSA 6 Bobby Hull that was then trimmed and restored as an 8, boosting it's value 10 fold? Right, right, no obvious fraud or corruption in SGC's history.

[@abnkc]

Absolutely superb content! You have really outdone yourself with this one. I agree that the answer to this riddle may very well be found in figuring out who was awarded a 10. I'd bet my 1980 set that PWCC appears a few times on the list. Looking forward to your next video as always! Thanks for all the effort and hours you put into your work.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! In the spreadsheet there is a second tab that contains all the sales records for the PSA 10's. PWCC appears on that list a lot. In other words PWCC was the first public seller of the card. Were they the ones who originally submitted the cards on behalf of a client or card doctor OR was this a private collector sending the card in to PWCC already graded with the intent to sell? We do know that PWCC was a big customer with PSA, submitting hundreds of cards at a time. This will be the next area I focus on.

[@123491622]

Ughhhh. I have a Henderson card. Been in a case forever. Completely centered, sharp corners, great edges and no noticeable scratches or defects under a 10x. Not sure if i even bother to send it to PSA for grading.

[@orbonds3603]

For fun...is there away to list the most ridiculous cards submitted for grading...example...a junkwax era common that gets a 1 outta 10...you know submissions that make you wonder why they were submitted...favorite you tube channel...keep it up and thanks

[@vintagecardcurator]

oh yeah, I'm sure they are out there. You'd only have to browse the pop reports on PSA to see some ridiculousness with common cards. A quick search shows a PSA 1 Dan Brigges common from 1980 and a PSA 1.5 qualified grade for the A's team card.

[@orbonds3603]

@@vintagecardcurator you are the best!

[@mrsmith7751]

It sucks because I have a few PSA graded cards but I think that consumer confidence and PsA is gonna drop and so will the prices of their graded cards

[@vintagecardcurator]

so far we've had 8 months or so of these questions and only PSA's stock price has been hurting. Their submissions are high and turn around time long. They seem to be doing just fine.

[@Trading_cards_and_more]

Standing applause 👏

[@vintagecardcurator]

wow, thanks!

[@in2rock275]

As always, it's all about the money. Big guys vs. little guys. Pretty sure if I had a PSA 10 Henderson, cracked it and resubmitted, it would probably come back a 9 or even an 8. Anyone agree?

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, absolutely, it has more to do with the name on the submission sheet.

[@angelcolon8755]

Interesting hmmm

[@PickerJimS]

Kudos! You have done an amazing job putting this all together! The card you showed at the beginning sold for 26K+ last spring and was only graded within the last year or two. My feeling is that PSA is manipulating the grade for the Henderson card for some reason.

[@vintagecardcurator]

When I posted that card a day or so ago people pointed out how it looked off-center, which it does to me too. Thanks for your support Jim!

[@otisthebeef3142]

The data doesn't lie. PSA is supressing the number of 10s of this card either because insiders hold those copies or big PSA clients hold them. They can keep the price of the 10s high by doing this. The high ratio of 9s to 10s of this card proves that. Great analysis!

[@topps85401]

Wow this video is amazing!! You threw the kitchen sink at all the theories. The only thing that would have me believe that the Henderson is condition sensitive all three major grading services grade the Henderson tough. Thanks for this video it certainly was thought provoking.

[@vintagecardcurator]

There can be some reasons why PSA and the other companies would grade this card tough: 1) they want to be seen as the toughest grader in the Hobby, 2) they believe they are the arbitrators and deciders of the Hobby and feel that cards like the Henderson should only be available in very, very limited qualities in a perfect grade, 3) they are trying to create a market for future submissions as people crack and resubmit their Henderson 9's over and over again. There's also the possibility of deliberate market manipulation to reward friends and big customers. It's hard to know what might be going on...I still feel we are not yet able to conclusively prove that the market is being manipulated. I would want to look next at who submitted the 24 cards. If any of the above reasons are the cause, then it's a terrible mark on the Hobby...a huge problem. I believe the card should be graded on its individual merits and not subject to outside factors. A 10 is a 10.

[@hj-xb2tr]

Even with all of the scandals in the grading world now, this comes off as something that has more of an explanation to it somehow (rather than a conspiracy), especially since Beckett and SGC rarely give the card a 10 either. The 10s are so rarely up for sale that the money actually being made on theoretical selective ones doesn't seem to come in too often. And with only 24 of them out there after all these years, if PSA really wanted to help their huge submitters on it, you'd think at least a few more would have surfaced by now (despite how that would dig into the market value some). All that being said, the ratio of 9s to 10s for a 1980 card is still an insane outlier. It seems like they've pinpointed a blanket issue (the snow mentioned) that most of the cards have, and used that to knock down otherwise perfect ones to a 9. But that goes against their norm of discounting very common defects, so who knows.

[@vintagecardcurator]

I appreciate your comment and thinking about this issue. As I've thought about it more it doesn't have to be a deliberate market manipulation or criminal intent. It could be a business decision that may be made unconsciously. The reasons I've thought about could be: to be seen as the toughest grader, to create a market for more re-submissions or that the TPG's think they should be the ones determining the volume of high dollar cards in the Hobby (controlling the spigot). So while I can't say which reason could be behind it, the evidence to me does not disprove that this is occuring. And that's very unsettling to me. We collectors expect that when our cards are submitted to a TPG that they are graded on their individual merits, in a vacuum, and not subject to external, political or business factors. I would love to see someone from PSA explain in detail why those 24 cards are 10's and that the vast majority of the 9's you could pull up are not. For that to be true it seems to me that there would be some well publicized condition or print defect that everyone is aware of. We have that for the 6 other vintage cards I mentioned in the video. We don't have that for the Henderson. What we do have coming out of PSA and Beckett belies the way the card, and others like it, are graded. I have to look into this issue some more.

[@hj-xb2tr]

@@vintagecardcurator The thing about your reasons is that it really doesn't answer the question "why just the Henderson and nothing else?" Well, I'm assuming there aren't any other mid 70s to 80s cards with anywhere near that ratio of 9s to 10s, and especially with the huge amount of 9s. That would take a long time to sort out. The only comparable market items in that era are the Ozzie and the '75 keys, and naturally the reasons for those are clear. And to a lesser extent the '78 keys, but they don't nearly as many 9s as the Henderson. I also don't think Henderson is THAT much more popular than those other players. It's a head scratcher

[@vintagecardcurator]

The '79 Ozzie Smith is the only card I've found so far that does come close to looking like the Henderson. It's similar by the 9:10 ratio and low 10 percentage. I considered including that in the video, but there's a big difference with the Henderson: the Ozzie rookie IS condition sensitive because it was placed in the first column. My own speculation for why the Henderson is just the popularity of the card. But I'm going to look at how PSA grades other HOF Rookie cards as well to see what the 9:10 ratios look like elsewhere. I also plan on doing that with the perceived most valuable cards in each set, if there is no HOF Rookie. I want to test the theory that PSA treats the most valuable cards in the set differently than they do the rest of the cards.

[@toppsvintage316]

Amazing detail in your research! I am still not convince that PSA is playing fair these days.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment! This was a tough project, but the importance justified it to me. I still need to dig a little deeper before I make a judgment on PSA, but it's not looking good for them.

[@bobross1829]

I believe Henderson, like other high value cards, are purposefully given tough grades to protect the people who bought the cards for high dollars. The more 10's, the less they are worth. If they started handing out more 10's, would Henderson rookie still be worth $30,000? Fat chance. It is not a rare card. The ridiculously high dollar amounts that some have paid for the grading fad has made it inevitable that the grading companies would then protect those values. Those values are GREAT for their business. I said it elsewhere, but grading has exploded the value of cards to almost irrational levels. It is a bubble economy as how many people can really afford to splurge $30,000 for a card? If they rated another 100 cards a "10" and the value collapsed..how mad would the people who bought it at that level be? Very mad. Then they would not use their services anymore and their business collapses. I do not think they set out originally to do this, as the astronomical value their "10"'s now bring was unforeseeable, but it put them in a pickle. Your research only further proves this point as there is no scientific reason for the few "10"'s of high value cards.

[@collectiblesource3902]

I've shared this to so many people who argue PSA doesn't pop control cards. It's just plain false. They definitely do.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for sharing...I can see in my analytics how the video spikes every time it's shared online. What I think is so interesting is PSA's reputation over the years. I see a lot of people now who believe they actively suppress the population of key cards.

[@Co-ClownWorld]

This guy is completely exposing possible corruption! Look at certs 42937165-42937182. The same guy had a Patrick Roy RC OPC PSA 10, 5 Dan Marino RC's PSA 10, and also 4 OPC Yzerman PSA 10 RC's in this submission. WHAT A SCAM!!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

That's the kind of analysis I'm planning with the other Henderson 10's too. Nice work!

[@gregggyf]

Good Afternoon, There are 314 comments before me and I am not sure if someone has asked this question OR the reasoning for my question is "obvious" within the hobby/industry. The questions are: 1) Why would PSA population control this card? If the answer to question #1 has something to do with aftermarket value of a card then my next question would be 2) Why would PSA care about the aftermarket value of any card? PSA's job is to grade a card within PSA's own grading standards. I would have thought that once a card has been slabbed with a PSA label and shipped out... the card would no longer be of concern to PSA. If anyone could help me with the questions above and/or any other related thought.... it would be deeply appreciated. Thank you.

[@cscottriffle]

Incredible. It’s irrefutable that PSA and others grade the player.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks John!

[@bradgrimm6244]

I really think there is going to be a massive correction in the card hobby at some point in the near future. The shenanigans of the grading card companies are but one factor. I think you would be a fool to spend $20,000 on a PSA 10 1980 Rickey Henderson knowing there are probably tens of thousands out there that look every bit as good, especially after seeing this video. I also think the whole contrived scarcity/lottery mentality of the modern card market is teed up for an implosion as well. While I don't collect modern cards you can be sure there will be at least some collateral damage in the vintage market. The final nail is just that young people don't watch or care for baseball anymore nor collect cards the way we did in the past so there are fewer and fewer following behind to pick up the demand as the rest of us move on. My 15 year old son has never heard of Mike Trout, let alone Mickey Mantle. Who's going to buy these cards in the future? I don't say any of this gleefully or angrily -- I just think it is a reality. I still enjoy collecting and try to spend my money conservatively, but I just don't see ever coming close to my cards selling for more than I spent on them through the years -- especially when considering inflation and opportunity costs.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for your comment Brad; I always enjoy reading them. Clearly you think a lot about this stuff as well. I've thought about a possible correction as well and I agree with you. I know most collectors would disagree with us so I don't go around publicly saying it. To me the foundation of the Hobby is on very shaky grounds. What we do know is that a lot of high end vintage cards have been altered and trimmed. And there's likely to be a lot more that we don't know about (yet). We do know that the pops of some of these cards have been increasing at an unnatural rate. We do know that some dealers that do a lot of business with PSA are getting 10's at a rate that defies common sense. But prices have continued to rise and the demand for these cards keeps increasing. That's because there are more collectors returning to the Hobby than leaving. In addition I think many people are so invested in PSA slabs in their own collections that they are willing to rationalize what has happened to protect their significant investments. At some point things will flip and we'll see a correction. I think we are already seeing it for the low pop common cards that the Registry members buy. Those were prime targets for trimming and from what I've seen, prices on those cards are dropping. The results of the FBI investigation should tell us a lot too and we may see more drops there if confidence in the market is reduced. I also think there's a big demographic shift coming. Once baby boomers exit the Hobby there aren't enough collectors in Generation X or Y to make up that difference (BB are a HUGE demographic in terms of numbers). As you say, kids behind us don't collect now and won't in the future. They don't value analog things as much as digital anyway. I don't know much about modern cards but if there is some irrationality to their prices we may see a correction there too. We've seen collapse in the Hobby before. I've started selling off a number of my slabs, things I intended to hold until retirement. I don't want to be holding the bag. I'm keeping some stuff for my personal collection, but I want to divest myself of most of my PSA slabs. The prices are still very strong now, so I won't get killed by selling short.

[@BrewersCardsForever]

The way they charge for more valuable cards, you would think you would see MORE 10's so they could make more money

[@stevejohnson204]

That is coming once the company hits rough waters.....charging more for grading based on the grade? Moral Hazard to the extreme.

[@jbscardbreaks4389]

Maybe an executive at psa has a 10 and wants it to hold its value lol

[@vintagecardcurator]

I'd love to know who submitted the 24 PSA 10's. All the sales records I've seen for them shows that they were all sold through anonymous consigners. What does that tell you?

[@jbscardbreaks4389]

Vintage Card Curator there’s no doubt there’s fraud going on in card grading. I will still probably send in but I won’t be surprised when it all blows up and a lot of graded cards become a lot less value able seems like it’s inevitable.

[@Al-ImprovEd2022]

As far as comparison to the other nearby cards could it be explained by the amount of handling? You don’t touch the commons so you put them aside but the Henderson is handled more often. On a side note I picked up about 10,000 1980’s commons from someone and they’re all in great shape, many mint. Is there any reason to hold onto them? I find it odd someone would grade commons from the early 80’s. Will people be completing 1980’s sets one day? I’m making good money on my 1970’s commons due to people completing sets.

[@vintagecardcurator]

The commons that are getting graded are going into PSA Registry sets. That's the market for those, which I think is kind of limited. I think it's worth selling the commons you do have so other people can complete their own sets. I've sold my old doubles off so others could build up their own sets. The 1980 set as a whole will probably have limited value in the future. With the handling argument, I wanted to control that by looking at the ratio of 9's to 10's. Looking at what happens when PSA receives cards that appear to be mint. In those cases PSA is 81x more likely to give the card a 9 than a 10.

[@stevejohnson204]

Once Mr. Hedge fund starts seeing a down market all those 9 Henderson's become 10 and they take a 20% cut of the value....the value they will determine.

[@Eliteco3]

sensational off the charts research & editing and yes PSA does not grade this card fairly. They do this with many key cards. Population control = inflated PSA 10 values which in turn adds to PSA's prestige

[@vintagecardcurator]

"Turn Cardboard into Gold" is PSA's motto, after all. Thanks for watching and for the high praise. Humbled. Stay tuned, I'm going to apply the Henderson analysis to a lot of other sets to see if the pattern is repeated.

[@castinlead3997]

Your doing a good job.PSA needs to be questioned about their unethical practices.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks. So far their response to any questions has been silence. Let's keep pushing for some answers though.

[@aaron.from.winchester6744]

I do have a question. I am curious when PSA gave out the most 10’s? A long time ago? Or more recently? If they gave them out early then stopped, that would prove to me market manipulation.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Someone else asked that and I did some research on the pop count increases over time: 2012: Pop 10 (11,073 submissions, .09% rate, much lower than now). 2012 was the first year I could find data for. 2015: Pop 13 (13,287 submissions) 2016: Pop 15 2017: Pop 19 July 2018: Pop 21 Sept. 2018: Pop 22 April 2019: Pop 24 It looks like the biggest increase was in the 2 year period between 2015-17 when the Pop went up almost 32%. 10's are seemingly being awarded more frequently now before 2015.

[@aaron.from.winchester6744]

Vintage Card Curator I would almost bet the card trimming scam would have something to do with that in that time period. I still think PSA was complicit in that scandal.

[@CardiCSportsCards]

Fantastic research, thoroughly enjoyed the video! Deliberate suppression on PSA's part for this card is starting to wade into the conspiracy theory realm. I agree that the research shows that something funny is up, but it might be more of an unconcious bias towards these cards. If they are get a '80 Henderson to grade, they know right off the bat that the 10 pop is so low that their grading is going to be under a high level of scrutiny, which might cause them to find a defect that would justify a 9 where they might have over looked it in other cards. But only the graders and Joe Orlando will really know! Great stuff!

[@vintagecardcurator]

I should have specified that it doesn't have to be conspiracy theory stuff. There are plenty of other reasons this could be happening that don't involve criminal activity. Business-wise there would be incentives to: 1) be seen as the toughest graders in the Hobby and 2) create a market for a steady stream of resubmissions of 9's. There also could be 3) a misguided vision that PSA should be the arbitrator of the flow of these high grade Hendersons into the Hobby. In any case, I believe these are all bad reasons and I suspect most collectors would agree that the card submitted should be judged on its merits not external factors. What troubles me however is the sales data that shows that 100% of all 19 PSA 10 Henderson rookies that were sold, were done so through anonymous consigners. You would think that somewhere over the years we'd see an average collector get this card and sell it themselves. Thanks for the comment Cardi C!

[@CardiCSportsCards]

Yes! Definitely sketchy that the big consignment houses have been the ones to get the high grades. Grading is a total pay to play scheme these days.

[@jakeschrom4659]

Has anyone tried resubmitting a PSA graded card, back to PSA, and gotten a different result?

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, people do crack and re-submit all the time. One of my KZbin friends has done it a number of times and quite often he gets a similar grade or maybe a .5 bump. It's inevitable with human grading that we'd get different results. I could post scans of a card in one of my videos and I'd get at least 5 different estimates of the grade.

[@glennc100]

PSA wants $300 to grade the RH rookiefor being a possible 9, and they would want $5000 to be rated a possible 10, considering the astounding final bid of $180,000 in February 2021 for a gem mint 10. PSA knows if they keep the gem mint 10 count low, they will get more submissions by people like me trying to the win the "lottery" hoping for a 10. My card could easily be graded a 10, but odds are its a 8 if I'm lucky. Quite frankly, I don't want to give them my money to prove this but what choice do I have, if I wanted this to get 100k at auction. THIS IS A RACKET BY PSA.

[@vintagecardcurator]

You raise an interesting point Glenn...one I've been wondering about for years. What if you sent your mint RH card along with a $5,000 grading fee? Would it get a 10? What if it got a 9...would PSA refund you $4,700 in fees? Interesting questions.

[@glennc100]

Vintage Card Curator I sent it in and recently got it back. Paid $300 plus fees for a possible 9 grade for a declared value of up to $5000. They gave it a 7! 7’s go for $100 if I’m lucky. So now I have to appeal to PSA for a partial refund or have the card regraded for a possible 8, which I feel is unlikely. TOTAL RACKET