Illusion of Objectivity: PSA Grading Practices Examined

Spreadsheet of Data:
docs.google.co...
This video explores PSA's grading practices for mint condition cards by comparing the ratio of 9's to 10's for a number of key cards between 1978-1993.
The 9:10 ratios of the key cards are compared to common cards in the same set to determine if PSA grades key cards with the same standards they use for all other cards. The 9:10 ratio can tell us which cards in a set are graded toughest by PSA. Those cards will have the highest 9:10 ratio in their set.
If PSA grades cards fairly and objectively across the board than there should be little/no difference in the 9:10 ratio's of the key cards and the commons. For example, we might see in the 1984 Donruss set that the Mattingly card is graded toughest, but in the 1985 Topps set a common card might be the toughest 10. We shouldn't see a pattern where one type of card is continually graded the toughest in set after set. If we do see a pattern where only the most valuable cards of these sets are graded toughest, it can be evidence that PSA is engaging in pop control of these cards.
Another important measure paired with the 9:10 ratio is using Printing Sheet Comparisons. Printing sheets provide a wealth of knowledge to test PSA's practices because we can identify cards that are in a similar position on one or more printing sheets for that set. We can then compare these cards to see if there is some consistency between how PSA grades all cards in that set.
I encourage you to watch the whole video; it can be a complex issue, one that I tried my best to simplify.
Contact me: [e-mail]
Instagram: vintage_card_curator

[@Bowman1951]

I felt my teeth clenching with rage as I watched this so I know you are doing something right. Manufactured scarcity might be PSA’s biggest sin yet.

[@vintagecardcurator]

HI Jeff, thanks for watching and commenting. It's terrible. I watch these PSA Reveal videos and have realized that average collectors have a pretty low chance of getting 10's, even when we submit our mint cards. We have all been there. The data was really helpful to me in understanding how that happens. The print sheet analysis too has been a god-send for me. The next step is to look at who gets the 10's and I'm already making some progress there.

[@bobross1829]

I think this is key. PSA has their own auctions and their biggest draw is the insane, fantasy land values their auctions are getting for "10"'s for cards (or with older cards, a 9, which is still super rare for pre-1970 cards) , that are parabolic from what they were worth just a decade ago. They realized that the "investors" are where the money is, not the collector. Investors who think if they buy these cards it is like a stock have driven this scam, and the grading companies know it. It is a bubble economy that will burst soon because "investors" buying these highly unliquid insane cards are in for a big shock when they try to resale them anywhere other than a card grader auction. (even those auctions are on borrowed time). I am just waiting for the explosion of rage when some of these "investors" who paid tens of thousands for "10" or "9" graded cards learn that their cards are worth a tenth of that

[@Ballen1182]

I hope they can be sued for it.

[@mocoblue1]

One thing I know is, collecting cards. And I jus received an email from psa that my cards are ready to be shipped off. I took a look @ my grades online and said the pop control monsters are @ it again. And 2 of my 5 card submission wasn't even graded. So I will Crack the shell and submit them to some other grading card companies. By the way ur video is spot on!!! Thank u, truly

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks a lot for the feedback, and I'm sorry to hear of your experiences. I have a new video coming out tonight, one that I spent months researching, that deals more with pop control of high value cards.

[@rj-vj8gr]

Outstanding job

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you!

[@jakobh6257]

Excellent info, thank you 🙏

[@GLS.25]

EVERYTHING you said is spot on! Your research has confirmed the suspicions I've had for quite a long time! I've actually sold to one of the companies you listed at the beginning. Bought my 9, resubmitted to PSA for a 10. Fairly expensive card in a 10, and it was definitely not a 10 in regard to condition. I'm sure a majority of your naysayers are dealers/breakers/bulk submitters. THANK YOU for continuing to enlighten the community! I hope everyone in the card community watches this video and adjusts their collecting habits rather than continuing to enable PSA to make this problem worse than it currently is. The era of grading along with the new cards being produced is creating another junk era all over again. Like the economy and stock market, the card market will crash again, sooner than later. Too much supply, not enough demand. Don't get me started on Topps! LOL Keep up the great work, always look forward to your videos! - @Gucci.Mac

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you Gucci Mac. I've had a similar experience. I have a nice, mint vintage card in a 9 and see one of the companies in the video selling a 10 of the same card with visible flaws that mine doesn't have. Seeing that made me wonder if it was really happening and I had to test it out for myself.

[@GLS.25]

@@vintagecardcurator I'm going to message you on IG. I shared your video to some Facebook groups today. Received some interesting responses that you might find valuable for your follow up video.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Hi, I saw the message request on IG and accepted it, but then it disappeared. Is there any chance you could resend it? So sorry.

[@jamespinette9403]

Keith, just a phenomenal video . Thanks for the time and research you did and the presentation was outstanding. There are some pretty good hobby video people out there but imo u r easily top 3. Keep up the fantastic info videos.

[@NYYanksFan7]

I'd like to vote this guy for President.

[@HitMan-tc6im]

NYYanksFan7 Keith is great ..... helpful to the community and just talks cards not all the other junk others get caught up

[@vintagecardcurator]

Geeze, thanks man. Really appreciate that. Love your channel!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks John!

[@ohno1017]

Always had a feeling they did this..now i know they do

[@WinetimeMyTime]

Quality research and presentation. I enjoy all your videos. I just subscribed. Thank you.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for subscribing! I have more videos coming. Appreciate the support.

[@kevinmoynihan8087]

Fantastic video. Thanks for your work here.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Kevin. I'm glad you found it useful. It's gotten a good response from collectors.

[@miklom41]

Superb !!!

[@joelebstein]

You are a genius. Incredible data and research. PSA is guilty as charged. Makes me never want to send in my cards to PSA!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you so much! This video has been out a while...been watched a bunch of times and no one has been able to disprove it

[@This__Is__True__Beats]

just subscribed......amazing work, thanks

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks...I appreciate that. I'm getting a lot of new subs to the channel...not sure how you all are finding me, but I'm sure grateful.

[@tyreesneed]

dude you are seriously a GOD for doing this! to do this kind of forensic research analysis and take that time I know must have been NUTS!!! but these things NEED to be done!!! to SHOW and PROVE to people whats going on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@kevinclingaman6277]

This is exactly what’s wrong with the grading industry. Thank you for this video!

[@mdlatino]

This is great information, I am sharing this !

[@vintagecardcurator]

Awesome thank you!

[@joshbullock280]

Great job man appreciate the work

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks so much, really appreciate the view and comment!

[@zachfields6174]

Fantastic video!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks!

[@SconnieTradition]

Well done Keith!! Great analysis. A million cards!? Thats insane lol

[@fernandomaldonado265]

thank you for actually researching and dissecting this topic in a mathematical and scientific way. Keep doing what you are doing! Just watch your 6! what you’re doing is amazing, but you’re exposing people with heavy pockets. Stay safe!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment. I try to be careful because I know how vindictive Joe Orlando can be towards any critics. I'm sure he knows who I am, but I haven't submitted to PSA in a very long time. Appreciate your support!

[@captmorgan2063]

Wow at 5:41 I noticed my guy Eric Davis on the edge no wonder his is tough on condition , thanks for the video and I have so many PSA 9's that have better eye appeal compared to identical cards in PSA 10's

[@vintagecardcurator]

I have to wonder now how much the edge placement contributes to the low pop.

[@charlesmoore7020]

Terrific video with great, well supported conclusions.

[@tommylopiccolo3835]

A Fantastic presentation....

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! Appreciate that!

[@facilitypro]

I completely agree that PSA does some shady pop control. From a researcher perspective, I wonder if key cards are cracked and submitted multiple times, which might inflate the 9/10 ratio. Cracking 9's and trying to re-sub for a 10 seems pretty common. Might be something to consider! Love your channel!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

I'm sure resubmitting happens, yes. But in considering it, some of these 9's are so valuable that I tend to think many of them would be cracked out and resubmitted, when they could just as much come back lower.

[@trepidation34]

By far your best video. The key follow up question: you foreshadowed at the end of the video. 'Who is getting these tens'?

[@vintagecardcurator]

That's the title of my next video; I'm already deep into the research on it. I'll give you a teaser: if an average collector got one of these 10's for a $100,000 card, you would think you'd read about it somewhere to promote the auction. Good stories sell for high prices. Why don't we ever hear about these great finds?

[@trepidation34]

You are a talented thinker. That is right. Why do these teens seem to end up with PwC and the other larger auction houses? Only a small % of the Hobby even uses them (I'm one of them) but they seem to end up with a disproportionate number of these cards ..

[@trepidation34]

You are right, you would think smr would publish success stories of the average collector that gets a psa 10 on a Henderson, Murray's ozzie Smith, etc in order to promote their brand to encourage more submissions

[@trepidation34]

The game is anonymity.. .. keep under the radar for tax reasons, avoiding fraud exposure.

[@trepidation34]

This is a Business where the Authority undermines the overall intelligence of its populous and gaslights through its propaganda ministry.

[@Resale-a-lot]

Just started this video and watched the one on Henderson. Keep this up please. . you videos are really needed.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! There's still a lot to talk about with this issue and I'm working on the research for the next one as we speak. Stay tuned...it just might take a week or so.

[@vintageoddballcards6103]

Great Video

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks!

[@gregorymann3431]

We pay for this expertise

[@jpwiscobaseballcards1192]

Bravo. It is abundantly clear that PSA consciously manipulates 10 populations on key vintage cards in order to create hype for their brand and also likely to appease a select few wealthy individuals who do not want to see their explosively expensive cards decrease in value because of increasing population of 10s. I do still believe that PSA is largely objective in other cases (after all, the 2011 Update Trout has more 10s than 9s). But when dealing with older cards they are clearly not.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment. You mentioned another motive for these grades: that PSA wants to protect customers who already own the few 10's for those cards. I do wonder about that. It also raises what happens next...what if PSA started grading these cards fairly and the pops really increased? I'd have to look at the 2011 Update set. Even with more 10's than 9's, it's possible that the Trout is undergraded relative to other cards. I saw that with 2018 Topps.

[@jbortega1178]

WOW... you PROVED what everyone was already assuming...pop control...I will be looking at 9z with a little more dignity on key cards... numbers don't lie... this is what you call investigative journalism 👏

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you sir! I appreciate the kind words. I think the video has aged well and that most collectors have come around to the conclusion, despite the initial skepticism of many.

[@jj-em7cd]

Awesome video!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks man!

[@CardCollex]

You're right about all of this, and thanks for putting all this hard work in. What I just keep coming back to though is, "If I plan to resell the card, what other options do I have?" A Beckett 9.5 sells better than a PSA 9 and *seems more transparent, but are they really? I just sent off a really high grade example 84' Update Clemens and Puckett, probably to be somewhat disappointed again. Great stuff Sir. Keep up the good work!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks so much for the comment. Yes, you've hit the central point. This is the reality collectors have to deal with: that their truly mint cards are not likely to get 10's from PSA. But there are no other options for collectors.

[@CardCollex]

@@vintagecardcurator and even if people prove manipulation and collusion, it still won't change anything... (I guess there are still cases pending, but that probably won't help us any)

[@MyerheadsCards]

Another SUPERB video with references, support, and evidence! I'm continually wow'ed by you and your research!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Michael, I appreciate your continued support of the work. It keeps me going!

[@Philmington]

Sadly, this is not shocking to me. Great work Keith.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Phil...I appreciate the comment. I think it's something all collectors wonder about when they get their cards back.

[@tbm9160]

If PSA ever fails due to things like this, PWCC, etc the hobby will be in a lot of trouble. Incredible research/work as always Keith. Thank you for sharing.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! You raise a very important point. What happens next? If PSA changed their grading practices and loosened up how they grade the key cards, what impact would that have? If PSA got implicated in the FBI's investigation, what happens then. Still a lot of unknowns.

[@JAY___M]

PWCC in trouble aged well, maybe not because of PSA necessarily haha

[@toddrichardson8595]

Keith! You're Back! I was wondering just today when a new video from you was going to show up! I was in withdrawal. Another masterpiece.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you Todd. I'm glad this one was worth waiting for. This was a very involved process...it took me a week just to write the script and another week of just editing. I probably did a week before just collecting and analyzing the data. Obviously I can't do this all the time, but the subject matter justified the time.

[@toddrichardson8595]

@@vintagecardcurator Your videos are definitely worth the wait my friend!

[@TheRealWarez]

Man, you need a Patreon... I've subscribed to one, but I would subscribe to your's. Amazing research/info.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! I couldn't sustain the content needed for a good Patreon. Having the views and the subs is very much appreciated.

[@austinwelch2315]

And on top of this PSA does not tell you WHY they grade the card as such. Leaning towards SGC more and more. Great vid and amazing research.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for watching. Yes, PSA doesn't have to justify any grade and collectors do not demand they do.

[@catmayrant3336]

I'd give your research an 11/10.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Cat! This was a pretty challenging one to put together...I hope collectors find it useful knowledge.

[@kevinclingaman6277]

PSA would only give it a 5.

[@RicksterRabbit9845]

Great video! Great research! This video definitely gets a 10. :-)

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks very much!

[@hert10]

Excellent work! I’ve suspected this for some time and did not go beyond the pop reports. I’ve heard the arguments about the placement of the card on the sheet but I could never take on the task of compiling that amount of data to get the results. Much respect for the work put into this. ✊🏼

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Reggie. I'm glad all the information was available for me to put the pieces together.

[@deanjackson625]

GREAT video as always. YOU always out do yourself on finding out what drives the hobby and what we call controversy on Psa standard's of grading practices.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! I wish I could stop it, but I get pretty obsessed with these issues in the Hobby. If there are a way to prove/disprove these long-standing rumors, I want to find a way to do so.

[@sw1217]

I really liked the video. One thought about comparing key card 9:10 ratio to "commons" from the same set would be people are less inclined to submit a Bob Stanley unless they feel they have an above average shot at a 10, while the may be less discriminate sending a Clemens.

[@vintagecardcurator]

That comparison has been mentioned by a lot of people since the video was released. I disagree with it on two counts: 1) we are only looking at cards that are either a 9 or 10, a mint card. The differences between them are so slight. So whether it's your best Bob Stanley or best Clemens, they are still mint cards. We can obviously use percentages to track the 9:10 ratios, making it an apples to apples comparison. 2) These key cards also have 9:10 ratios higher than the top tier HOF cards in those sets too...cards that very much would be submitted by collectors at similar rates to the Clemens. The 1985 set is an damning example: The McGwire and Clemens cards have higher 9:10 ratios than all the HOF players too...and neither of them are even in the HOF.

[@sw1217]

@@vintagecardcurator I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I completely agree that often the difference between a 9 and 10 is in the eye of the beholder (i.e. grader) and that it seems as if there is an edict to be more critical on key cards. However, there is a number of 9, that will never be 10 because of centering (front or back). And I would argue that I'd happily submit an '85T McGwire with the advance knowledge that it's a 9 in centering....but back to Bob Stanley, unless I think it has a real shot at a 10 it's staying in the binder. Unfortunately, b/c PSA doesn't subgrade we'll never be able to further dive in to the data for analysis. I guess what I'm saying is that the 9:10 ratio seems like a good idea, but falls short in accuracy with such a multi-faceted situation. Do I have a better idea, no way. Am I thankful I found your channel, yes. I give you a ton of credit for coming up with the best possible gauge in this imperfect (i.e. incomplete data) landscape. Kudos.

[@ChuckNorthSideGuy]

Once again, another very thoughtful, elegantly argued, video about a critical assumption we collectors make when we "invest" in key cards. Your methodology is unique. Question: does this same argument extend to how Beckett and SGC grade? Same variability in those 9/10 ratios? I do think you are on to something with the scarcity principle for key cards. Even artificial scarcity has a broad impact on value, and certainly that must be a business decision that is deemed sound by PSA. I hope this video gets wide viewing and much discussion. Thank you VERY much!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Chuck. I believe you could do the same thing with SGC and Beckett. Their population reports are also online. PSA was a good test case because of the sheer volume of data and long-standing grading decisions they've had. My guess is that SGC and Beckett do something similar and have probably taken the lead from PSA. There is a business interest in making these 10's tough to come by that needs to be acknowledged.

[@Go-Getter]

I would like to see this report on the Beckett Jordan rookie

[@SportsCardInvestor]

Great video. My only counterpoint is I think naturally collectors are more likely to submit key cards in slightly-less-than-perfect condition, because they're still very valuable as a PSA 9 or PSA 8, than they would with non-key cards, where getting a PSA 9 or PSA 8 may not enhance the value much more than the cost of the submission. That doesn't fully explain some of the huge ratio differences you saw here, though. Would like to hear your thoughts.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for checking out the video...I'm a sub to your well produced podcast. This has been brought up a lot in the previous comments. I think the simplest way to explain it is to look at cards that are more like the key cards, i.e. other HOF'ers. Take 1985 Topps for example. Nolan Ryan is in that set and has 1700 submissions. It's a card that other collectors would likely also submit if it was a borderline 8/9 because even in an 8 it's worth the cost of grading to take that risk. But the 1985 Topps Ryan only has a 2.9:1 ratio of 9:10's, basically 15% of the McGwire or the Clemons at 20:1. And you can find these examples in every set. While the key cards have higher ratios than the commons, they also have higher 9:10 ratios than every other HOF'er in that set.

[@SportsCardInvestor]

@@vintagecardcurator Great research, thanks for the reply. Job well done on this video!

[@Philmington]

@@vintagecardcurator Nice work, but you may want to consider an additional video refuting this counterpoint here. In the Clemens example there were 23,000 submitted, indicating the median quality of card submitted was unquestionably lesser on the Clemens side versus Nolan Ryan (perhaps materially so). I agree it probably doesn't explain the vast ratio gaps, but maybe this Ryan example isn't the best example of a "key card". I believe in the essence of what you're saying here in your counterargument, but you just may need some more supporting analysis, with relative quantities expressed.

[@BrandonWeimer]

I haven’t finished the video, but I wanna say I think the main flaw with your hypothesis is this: people are more likely to send in a key card in hopes of getting a good grade, because simply having it slabbed gives it value. Common cards are sent in only when they are sure-fire 10’s.

[@houseofbaseballcards4672]

I agree with this one. I have sub'd a ton of cards from this era that I knew were likely PSA 9's but with the hopes it would get a 10 with the right grader on the right day. I only do this with key cards or star cards I really want graded. If I send a common or relative common I make sure centering is 50/50 top to bottom and left to right in every case but I'm willing to send Mint 9's with 55/45 to 60/40 centering all day long in the hopes I get a grade bump if it's a high value card. I am not saying some form of bias doesn't exist with these cards but I think I agree with Brandon's point.

[@vintagecardcurator]

I'm not sure if you guys saw the whole video or understand the research tool I used. It gets to the heart of what you are saying: that commons are only submitted when they are 9's and 10's. And that's why I only analyze those cards in my research: cards that are either a 9 or a 10...cards that both PSA and the collector agree are mint cards.

[@blairatkinson7423]

Another great video. Above and beyond this time!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Blair. I so appreciate that comment. This was my biggest production to date, but I think it justified the time commitment. I know a lot of collectors have been wondering how fairly their cards are graded and I've been obsessed with trying to test that.

[@RealJSchmo]

Great video! I really enjoyed how you broke everything down.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! Maybe I should have broke down one card at a time, but I think the 9:10 ratio lends itself to easily looking at a lot of cards at once. After you set up the first spread sheet, it's pretty easy. It literally takes 10 minutes to decode an entire 800 card set.

[@PaulKatcher]

This is spectacular research and delivery of your findings. This hobby is full of data that seems not only due for a correction but a real reckoning.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Paul. I'm worried that PSA is a house of cards, built up with brilliant marketing and the Registry. Once we start to test what they do, either through examining trimmed cards or testing their grading practices, they seem to have a high failure rate.

[@PickerJimS]

Great video Keith! You research is amazing! Your hard work validated what I have long thought! PSA controls the population, especially on key cards! Do you know if Beckett and SGC have similar ratios with the key cards!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Hi Jim, thanks for the comment; I appreciate you watching and considering the research in the video. A lot of us have thought this over the years. I see it time and again in PSA reveal videos from other KZbinr's. I've seen card dealers show me perfect cards that were undergraded from PSA. I don't know about Beckett and SGC, but their population reports are online. My guess is that they probably do the same, but maybe not as tough as PSA. When I looked at the Henderson rookie, they were both tough on the Henderson too, but not as bad as PSA's. PSA was an obvious target for this research because of the sheer volume of grading decisions over the years.

[@smizu1442]

I just came across your video today and while agree some of your points may be true, I think a lot of the reasons why non-key or common cards are graded higher is that people only submit the best looking ones of those since only a high graded one would be worth anything. While with the key cards, even if it grades a 7 or 8, it might still be worth it to grade in some cases, so people submit a lower quality card.

[@vintagecardcurator]

This criticism has been made since the video game out, but I don't find it valid. Please tell me how the existence of lower grade HOF cards impacts PSA's grading decisions when they are examining a mint card (either 9 or 10) for grading?

[@HitMan-tc6im]

As always this was a stellar episode and I know you worked long on it .... great job

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks John. This was the most involved video yet. I'm happy to see the response from collectors.

[@bart81usaf]

hard to argue with these facts

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you Bart! I appreciate the comment.

[@bigjax731]

Awesome

[@bfgolf]

The graded card bubble is probably gonna burst at some point

[@vintagecardcurator]

I see that too. The foundation is very shaky and is doing so well because so many new people are entering the Hobby again. I have sold off a number of my PSA slabs. Prices are high right now...good time to sell.

[@topps85401]

Amazing video, I’ll take that fine 9! Thanks so much for your research.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you! The response from collectors has been encouraging. Even if they don't agree they are at least considering the research and findings.

[@doktorcopernikuss]

Finally seeing this! Great vid. Is there any follow up info with the other grading companies?

[@vintagecardcurator]

Hi, I didn't take an exhaustive look at the other companies. What little I did check showed me that they act very similarly. In fact, some of the companies pop control even worse than PSA.

[@davidcoon6455]

I would LOVE to hear PSA’s response to this video...........waiting..........tick tok PSA.....

[@vintagecardcurator]

It seems like PSA's policy has been to not comment publicly about anything related to criticism of their operations. I'm sure if forced to, Joe Orlando would dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist.

[@brinks554]

I have never really been a fan of "Gem Mint" designation. But, its my opinion that all the cards that you are mentioning are cards that were sought and handled from the year they were released. So your Mattingly rookies and Jeter rookies and Cal Ripken Jr rookie were all pulled from packs and sets and handled many times prior to the 3rd Party Grading services. Your Mike Heath is a GREAT example of a card that was never pulled from a factory set and was handled very little. Could this be why we see the "key" cards grading tougher? Seems logical to me. Or am I way off?

[@RiceBondsMntna2Young]

Bink Scott I think Keith’s point is that assuming this is true, then you should see the same effect on the 9s because they’re both minty and nearly indistinguishable to the naked in many cases. It’s almost a judgment call so he’s lumping all minty cards together. Maybe you can see a trend when you compare the ratio of 9s plus 10s together, against, say 1s plus 2s plus 3s. But it’s hard to isolate whether lower grades came from wear that happened out of a pack or imperfections right off the cutting machine.

[@vintagecardcurator]

My belief is that a well handled card is not going to grade mint in the first place. The cards you described that were opened in packs and passed around would not get a 9 IMO. For my argument to be incorrect someone would have to show that only the star cards act in some unique pattern. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that they are different from mint commons. How would you test your hypothesis?

[@80sFreak100]

The primary reason is that the key cards get handled more, especially from earlier years. Many of these cards were pulled and placed in top loaders, sleeves with top loaders, and the extremely destructive card saver top loaders. Investors are taking storage boxes of commons and stars that were put safely away with care and not handled and cherrypicking the finest examples and submitting them with PSA. This is a better explanation of the variance. Most of the big cards that would have also graded PSA-10 get much more handling that leads to damage that reduces the grade. Chances are that the ratios even out if someone breaks unopened vintage material and submits the best cards for grading with PSA.

[@itcummifaegg]

You're crazy dude!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Ha ha ha, that’s a little brown M&M Easter egg you found dude!

[@BaseballCollector]

Well that was just fantastic!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Mike! I appreciate you watching!

[@pdubs7069]

If I ever make another submission with PSA I'm writing PWCC on the box using my same address... maybe I will some how get my cards back quicker with better grades! Hey it's worth a shot!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

ha ha, that made me laugh...good one!

[@magaroam]

Thank you for taking the time to do the research, make the video and present it in a very objective way. It's blatantly obvious, after breaking it down into quantitative data, that the graded card market was deliberately manipulated. Anyone proven to have knowledge of this activity should be charged with theft by deceit, in my opinion. The hobby is fragile to begin with and this becoming exposed would certainly taint it for a long time, if not kill it.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment Anthony. It does seem that the card market has been manipulated and certainly tilted against average collectors who are holding mint examples of these key cards. I'm not sure what comes next. Collectors still seem eager to send PSA their cards, despite the risks.

[@jimrenaud1987]

Couple of questions: what about self selection? You compare GOAT cards like Jeter to cards that are not nearly as valuable. Wouldn’t most collectors send ANY Jeter into PSA hoping for a high grade? Who is sending random cards in that set for grading? You’d have to be VERY certain you’d get a high grade to even make it worth it. Not so for higher end cards. Secondly, scores of PSA graders have left PSA over the years and none of them have ever said this was the case. You’d think a few ex-PSA graders (even with an axe to grind) would mention this but every former grader I have spoken to has denied Pop control is a thing. I appreciate the video and research. I think it tells a story, but not the complete story. Have you done the same research for BGS 9, 9.5 and 10’s?

[@jbscardbreaks4389]

I would love to see someone pop out a psa 10 and send it in and see what the grade comes out. Or even a 9 this would be a great video.

[@vintagecardcurator]

I think we would all know the answer to that! It would be an expensive experiment!

[@jbscardbreaks4389]

Vintage Card Curator I think something like this needs to happen to really expose them

[@GLS.25]

I've thought about doing this as well. I think I'm going to send one out this week lol

[@jbscardbreaks4389]

GLS.25 Post video I’ll watch

[@GLS.25]

@@jbscardbreaks4389 You've just motivated me lol Will do! It'll take a few weeks for the process to play out and be able to make the video. I'll make a reminder for myself. Give me a follow. I'm on IG as well: @gucci.mac Just sub'd to you. :) -Greg

[@drewhunkins7192]

ding! ding! ding! ding! ding! -- 12:31 mark!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, who is getting the 10's. That's the subject of a future video.

[@daniellarsen889]

Insider tip: My dad who was a collector and dealer during the junk wax era, said Upper Deck would sell stacks of 50, 1989 Ken Griffey Jr. cards. So they are more abundant then any other 1989 upper deck card. I seen another you tube video that had these stacks of 100 in the 1989 Topps Gary Sheffield rc too a guy purchased at a local live auction.

[@vintagecardcurator]

I've heard that about Upper Deck...once the Griffey card commanded a premium the company started printing off entire sheets of the card. It makes the low pop count even that much more insane.

[@TheKillermike83]

Thats funny because i just saw a listing on ebay for 100 89 Topps Sheffields.

[@robdemare8250]

Nice work with outstanding information presented.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Rob! I appreciate that. The response from collectors made all the work worth it.

[@rookiecards4me258]

Great video and information!! I personally think it's dollar value on the "High Demand Cards" the more 10s the lower the value over all.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Josh. One of the possible motives for keeping 10's low volume is to protect customers who already have those cards. Any more 10's dilute the value of the existing ones. That makes this a very tough issue. What would happen if PSA started grading these cards fairly and objectively? They've dug themselves in a hole. It's not likely to change, but I think it's helpful if collectors are at least aware of this.

[@GLS.25]

They probably issue 10's mainly to dealers, bulk submitters (to keep the volume and business fluid for both parties) and...shareholders.

[@bodietyler519]

Why do people keep doing business with PSA? Isn't the PWCC scandal enough? They keep putting it to the common collector and most keep going back to them.

[@vintagecardcurator]

A lot of us have a ton of $ invested in PSA slabs. I know I do. It's a very tough habit to break since PSA has been established as the standard in the industry.

[@hgspiderman56]

@@vintagecardcurator First of all thank you for your hard work and putting this into an easy to digest video. As to answer Keith's question, I think it's more than just habit per se. If a majority of people, let's 80% (just came up with that number out of thin air) of card collectors who normally use PSA all of a sudden stop, then PSA's credibility takes a humongous hit as well as their sales. If their credibility takes a hit, then that means the value of any PSA graded cards these card collectors have will come into question and ultimately plummet, too. It's the strength in numbers. The collectors can use it to hurt PSA, by not giving them their business and inform people of PSA's lack of credibility, but thus screwing themselves by hurting the value of their PSA cards, or reinforce the charade and the farce so as to preserve the values of their cards. In short it's self preservation. I just got back into card collecting 1 month ago after stopping in 1991. Anyone reading this feel free to let me know your thoughts and if there are any holes in what I wrote.

[@EarthtonesCymbals]

Glad you are happy to "play along".

[@paulkeinrath3252]

Because they want 10s on their slabs

[@GodofDisco]

My one critical question about your methodology is this: people are more likely to take a swing at a higher value card even if they don't think their card will get a 10 and often it's worth it on big cards to submit for a 9 (for example, some Giannis rc's I have are worth more in a 9 than raw but that's not true of say Trae Young). Whereas on the lower end cards it is only worth submitting if you're sure it's a 10. This would help explain the discrepancy in 9s and 10s. This is personally true for me as I submitted 2 big select Lebron /10s knowing they wouldn't 10 but it was worth the chance. Whereas, I'd never do that on a select /10 Ayton for the same set.

[@vintagecardcurator]

People have pointed that out as well. I do think the methodology works because no one can be sure PSA will send them back a 10. If they send in a common I believe they understand that a 9 is also possible, and they are okay with that. A 9 on most vintage cards is still worth the cost of grading. But for those who don't accept that reasoning, you can also compare cards that are very similar to the key cards...other HOF"ers. The key cards still are tougher to get in 10's than all the other HOF cards in those sets too. That is especially obvious with the rookie cards of McGwire, Clemens and Mattingly...none of whom are in the HOF.

[@markb2714]

First, I love the analysis! I agree that it is likely that something fishy is going on. However, I also agree that you have to be very careful in parsing these 9/10 ratios for different cards. To a certain extent, you are assuming that the submitter has no ability to differentiate a 9 from a 10, so therefore the ratio inherently illustrates possible bias. However, if a submitter is okay potentially getting an 8 (because it is a valuable card), they might still submit and could happen to catch a 9. However, if they got an 8, it would be completely removed from your data set. In contrast, for a common card, you would only submit if it looked absolutely perfect. This does skew the data a bit.

[@farlow126]

The sad thing is even the ones getting 10's aren't as nice as a lot of the 9's. I saw a PSA 10 Griffey with some of the hologram missing, a 1980 Topps Henderson 10 that wasn't centered perfectly, and a 93 SP Jeter with scratching. If they are going to grade the key cards harder than at least they should make sure that thing is damn near perfect in a 10 so the premium would be worth it for some collectors.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for that comment...it's an important one. That's my next project: taking a strong look at the cards that did get 10's. I've already found some concerning things: a number of the Henderson and several of the Jeter 10's have notices on the PSA website to contact Joe Orlando's assistant if you own the card. Not sure that that means.

[@farlow126]

Vintage Card Curator You should check out the “Dimitri Young Collection” 93 SP Jeter PSA 10. That is the worst one I have seen. My 9 is way nicer than that one.

[@farlow126]

Vintage Card Curator To illustrate this point further, please look at a current PWCC 1985 Topps McGwire PSA 10 auction. I have never seen a PSA 10 this bad. PSA should buy this back and get it out of circulation.

[@vintagecardcurator]

farlow126 wow! I’m posting that to my wall.

[@ryanfitzgerald2816]

@@farlow126 oh my, that's an obviously trimmed 8 at best! crazy

[@drewhunkins7192]

Fabulous clip as always. Thank you for posting this.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Drew! I appreciate your continued support and comments!

[@Luckyjdr]

I have alot of the cards you mentioned in this video and none are graded. I've had them for years. I'm hoping the new companies HGA and CSG grade the card and not the pop report

[@danielunderwood7723]

Think this from Robert Jeffries' book, 'Investing in Vintage Baseball Cards & Other Sports Cards,' on Topps #216 Joe Montana 1981 rookie card, is very interesting in light of your research. Though he is defining and describing what an "Iconic Player" is, as determined by the market itself, these statistics certainly seem to highlight your point(s). "An incredible 15,745 Montana rookie cards have been submitted to Psa for grading, and 8,830 of these cards are PSA-8 or higher, including 104 PSA-10s. For nearly any other player in any other set, this avalanche of high-grade cards would eviscerate their commercial value, with perhaps only the PSA--10s selling for more than a few dollars." (p. 31). Two things: 1) 104 out 15K+ seems like an incredibly minute number, though debatable I guess, and 2) is it probable that the incredibly small number of 10s in this example, actually supports the value of the card itself across the spectrum, and the card grading company's understand this and thus artificially manipulate? In other words, there are 8,726 PSA-8 - 9s that are worth far greater than they should be (if they shouldn't themselves be 10s) only because of their proximity to the 104 10s?

[@vintagecardcurator]

It's a good point. I suspect that spoken or unspoken, PSA has decided it's good for the Hobby (and them) if these high grade cards are in high demand. And that may drive their grading strategies for cards like the '81 Montana.

[@AlexXanderMarketing]

Amazing research. What this leads me to believe is that yes, PSA is absolutely crooked, but also that you’re much better off paying 1/10th the price for a nice looking PSA 9 of any of these key hobby cards.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, those 10's really didn't look good before, but now it seems insane to pay these prices. In January someone paid PWCC $16,000 for an Eddie Murray 10 that looks like it's been trimmed.

[@DiamondyardSportscards]

Excellent video, Keith. I do believe that most collectors are not submitting commons, minor stars, or even major stars unless they anticipate a very high grade. Generally, collectors will submit many, many HOFer rookies even if they don't anticipate getting a 10 because they are key cards. Does that justify such incredibly lop-sided ratios, absolutely not, and I think your research really bears that out. You are such a great contributor to the community, Keith, thanks.

[@888strummer]

It does justify the ratio difference. People only send in commons after 1975, if they think they will get a 10, but key cards are sent in even if only a 7 or 8. The only way to test all this is to show key cards getting 9's that really deserve a 10

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks George, I appreciate that a lot. The beauty of the 9:10 ratio is that we can only focus on the mint cards that are submitted. I understand that commons won’t be submitted unless they are mint, which makes the % of 10’s for star cards difficult to use as a measure. I was excited to discover the 9:10 ratio so the lesser graded cards could be controlled for.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, people will send in any key card in any condition, but the 9:10 measure excludes all of those from analysis. We are only looking at mint cards.

[@DiamondyardSportscards]

Thanks for your response Keith. I was just saying that collectors are likely to send in 10 nice Donruss Mattingly rookies, knowing they likely will not get a 10, but they won't send in a single solitary Ron Kittle, John Montefusco, Rod Scurry, or Richie Zisk unless it has a high, high likelihood of being gem mint (I just wanted to type those names). I still think your research shows a massive gap between 9s and 10s, that is hard for PSA to justify.

[@vintagecardcurator]

George, I was thinking about this some more and I think that the focus on just commons may be misplaced. These key cards also have 9:10 ratios higher than the other HOF'ers in the set. The HOF'ers are submitted like the key cards: 6's and 7's are worth the cost of grading. Take 1985 Topps. We have two key cards (McGwire & Clemens) that are not HOF"ers with a 20:1 ratio. That bests all other HOF'ers in the set. Nolan Ryan has 1700 submissions and that ratio is only 2.9:1. So whether you compare commons or HOF'ers, these key cards are still the toughest grades in the set.

[@stevenswancoat1150]

The key cards are more likely to be handled. Bought, sold, inspected with a loop, taken in and out of sleeves. One reason might not get as many high grades, but totally agree with you. I can clearly see where PSA grades vary.

[@vintagecardcurator]

My point is that if PSA is holding two mint cards that could be a 9 or a 10 that takes out any of those well handled cards. Those would be an 8 or less.

[@allstarjd74]

I think you’re missing the key component of sample size. Nobody sends in a 1985 Topps common unless they’re confident they’ll get a 10. Whereas, there’s financial incentive to send in any McGwire rc that might grade an 8+. Basically, I think if you subbed 5000 McGwires and also 5000 Joe Blows from the same set the 9:10 ratio would be similar. This would make for a very interesting (and expensive) experiment.

[@vintagecardcurator]

I get this a lot and I've addressed it specifically in one of my latest videos. We are looking at only cards that grade mint: 9 or 10. All those other McGwire's that don't grade mint are excluded from the analysis.

[@allstarjd74]

@@vintagecardcurator thanks for replying. I understand that point but I was basically saying nobody would submit commons from 1985 for example unless they were the best of the best. So there’s little acceptance of the risk of getting a 9. Whereas there’s plenty of financial incentive to send in a stack of McGwires, (all of which look like at least 9’s) hoping to get a couple gems. So essentially the submitter has zero incentive to submit 100 Joe Blow commons that are all 9-10 and massive incentive to submit 100 McGwires that are all 9-10.

[@allstarjd74]

@@vintagecardcurator may be better to illustrate my point with numbers. Let’s say you have a stack of 100 Joe Blow commons from 85 Topps. Best case PSA 10 sells for $30 on average. If you get a 9, you’re losing money. Whereas McGwire PSA 9 goes for $150 and PSA 10 goes for $2k+. So submitters are rewarded for grading the less-than-perfect cards.

[@jessegarnertheopinionated544]

Great video. I will never submit to PSA unless it would be a huge investment. Big 3rd party investors are ruining the hobby.

[@vintagecardcurator]

It’s a sad realization for me. I sent in a high value card and got a 9; I’ve seen 10’s of the same card with visible flaws mine doesn’t have. Now I understand more how I got the 9.

[@simondaughtry4619]

The Joe Orlando sign off was always..."Never Get Cheated" ..... Thank you Joseph. ~ Great job as usual........How do you feel about unsolved murder ???

[@SgtJoeSmith]

Controlling the market to increase value of key cards to generate more hype over psa grading

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, you understand this.

[@SgtJoeSmith]

@@vintagecardcurator is been watching several your videos on this. Great points.. I understand the logic and ratios you used. Ok let's say only the best of the best commons are sent in and let's say psa is a little less picky on them cause it's just some guy wants card in slab for personal collection so let's just give him a 10 vs 9.5 to be nice. If that was case it could explain maybe a 10% difference in the 9/10 ratio. But not a 10 or 20 times difference. I wonder if psa is getting kickbacks. I heard about these guys doing video game grading and also game auction company that were grading their own games they bought higher than everyone else's and then schill bidding and re buying them at their own auction to pump up prices. Then issuing press releases to all the media websites to create more hype for their actions and grading company. Sounds like something crooked going on here too

[@vintagecardcurator]

Great comment, thanks Joe. I've seen that video too, by Karl Jobst, that laid bare the manipulation in the graded video game industry. The same players, Heritage and PSA (owners of Wata Games) are obviously deeply involved in sports cards too. I have no doubt that the same thing happens here, with a couple exceptions. With sports cards, there is alteration of cards that are certified by PSA to get the grades needed to supply demand for these high dollar auctions. I also believe that there are favored dealers that capture most of the best grades. It's a theory I've been working on for a while. There was definitely some evidence of this with the dual graded Upper Deck Griffey PSA 10/10 card. I think it happens with other cards too. I've seen it with the awarding of the Eddie Murray and Ozzie Smith PSA 10 rookie cards (same guy(s) were awarded 10's of those ultra low pop cards). I've also seen it with the way PSA gave 10's to low pop commons. Some of these dealers got dozens of consecutive 10 grades on vintage cards. Obviously no one is that good or lucky with vintage submissions to PSA. I don't think it's kickbacks, necessarily. My theory is that it's relationship driven...rewarding the Tier 1 PSA dealers that have kept the company going in lean times. There is a special relationship between these dealers and PSA. Is it complicity in manipulating the market for their mutual benefit?

[@SgtJoeSmith]

@@vintagecardcurator exactly. Now here's the question. You talked about dealers getting 10s on trimmed cards or cause buddy system on cards that may should've been a 9. But now ask how many common folks got a 10 card in a 9 slab? And got screwed out of thousands selling them. A dealer in cahoots with psa can by 9 slab cards for tenth the 10 price. Send them back to psa and say hers some them 10 cards you put in 9 slabs. Swap lables...labels.... then resell for 10 times as much. Of course doing that too much would increase the 10 pop and dilute the value of all the 10 cards. If 10 pop is 5 its a $100k card but if same card becomes pop 500 in 10 with 495 new 10s on market its gonna plummet. I wonder how many of those super low 10 pop cards are owned by psa execs? Also after all you revealed.... who's to say the card you send in is the 1 you get back in these low pop instances? If i send in a 10 52 mantle are they gonna swap it on me and send a different 9 card back and sell my 10 to their dealer buddy? I think now all cards need to be serial #d like the limited print inserts and autos. Even base cards. Then you know how many Base cards exist so companies can't just keep releasing more of a popular set like during junk wax. And also you will know card you send in is card you got back. Also it'll stop some the fake slabs where they use psa serial on a card that wasn't ever graded. Also if people break them out for regarding that on card serial is recorded at a certain grade already. This may help fight trimmed cards too. If that card serial was graded 6 before but now looks like an 8, get out the tape measure. I watched few more your vids sorting cards last night. Didn't know about the mustache deal but I ain't seen lot of cards prior to 70 and never paid attention. Plus just figured the 70s was the hippie mustache decade and became more pop culture then to have mustaches. 50s and 60s ball players look like ww2 sailors. Cool video tracing photo dates and locations. That must've took time. You must not be married or have kids to have that kind of time. I barely have time to show the cards I get each week on youtube. Thanks for taking time to write back

[@g8risgr849]

Pretty clearly price control. A question I see not addressed is "well, what about what people choose to send in for grading?" when someone sends in a star, they'll send it in because it is a key card. people will only send in a common if they think it's fantastic. I haven't put much thought into that, but think it could be a very minor factor.

[@vintagecardcurator]

The 9:10 ratio does control for the commons. It allows analysis by controlling the grading of only mint cards. There are very slight differences between a 9 and a 10, which are mostly subjective. If grading is objective you would expect random results of how often PSA gives out 10’s.

[@charlest7311]

Great research and video. We all need to be leery of grading companies. This industry does not have any regulation and has shown in the last few years can easily be manipulated. We also need transparency from Topps and Panini about print runs. It seems like production has increased the last 3 years and I fear we may be headed into another junk wax era.keep up the great content.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Charles. We have a perfect storm of: a lack of transparency and regulation, with few consequences. We know greed hates a vacuum.

[@jysportscardguy8935]

You've blown this wide open then ended w/ the very questions I was asking next; who owns the majority of these 10's and how close friends are they w/ psa? #slabgate

[@groundzero270]

JY _ SportsCardGuy agree

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks JY...I've already started on that research and it didn't take long to find some abnormalities in the 10's. I'm working on tracing some of these cards back to the original submitter. I already found 1 order that had 3 straight '78 Eddie Murray PSA 10's. That's beyond any logical chance. I'm still working on the research and hope to have something next week.

[@jysportscardguy8935]

@@vintagecardcurator watch out slabgate!

[@8jams73e]

@@vintagecardcurator OUTSTANDING WORK!!! DON'T STOP!!

[@MrRagerYT]

Keep us updated please. Great video by the way @@vintagecardcurator

[@mikeorz111]

Great job as usual!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Mike!

[@TheHubeef]

I ahd a MAJOR auction house tell me last week," We have friends at PSA and can get grades moved up for the right cards". I had 4 Kobe Autos graded , There was a 10, 9, 8 1 of 1 , and authentic. I was thinking of selling them and explored some Sports card auction houses

[@vintagecardcurator]

Damn...that's alarming to hear, but not surprising. Yes, friends and relationships with PSA mean an awful lot. Thanks for sharing this.

[@southerncalicards]

great video and content. very interesting.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Juan! I appreciate you watching & commenting!

[@smartluck100]

This is why I never never never ever get any cards graded. Never trusted them, never did, I just have a feeling this was true all along. They truly influence the market. Blank them and all other grading companies like them.

[@typhoon81]

Great video my Friend. I agree with you. I'll bet PSA has a list of " Friends" and there submissions are singled out for higher grades then are sent to PWCC for sale. Then it's share the wealth. All we want is honesty. Will it ever happen?

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you! My next project is to look at the 10's that were given to those cards in limited numbers. It's not going to be easy to trace these cards back, but I'll give it a try!

[@pdubs7069]

Well said! It's basically a type of organized crime!

[@joeecm27]

Fascinating video. My one question is, most of us would sub any key card from these sets, even if we expect less than a 10. Does that factor into the 9/10 ratio on these key cards? I guess I mean, would most people bother subbing a common from 1986 Topps if it wasn’t a likely 10? Whereas, one would be more likely to sub a key card, even if it were likely less than a 10.

[@vintagecardcurator]

A number of people have brought this up and I don't think it impacts the research. 1) no one can predict how PSA will grade a card with complete accuracy. I think that someone sending in a common thinks they have a 10, but accept that it could also be a 9, so they send it in. 2) the ratio doesn't depend on how many commons vs key cards are sent in...it's assumed that key cards are submitted more often. Ratios allow us to make direct comparisons for two cards that both the submitter and PSA agree are mint cards (9 or 10). Some still don't accept this so I offer up that these key cards also are tougher 10's when compared to all the Hall of Fame cards in the same set. Those HOF cards are submitted more in line with the key cards, in a range of conditions. Take the 1984 Topps/Donruss Don Mattingly and the 1985 Topps Clemens and McGwire for example. Those non-HOF, key cards are still tougher to find in 10's than all the Hall of Famers in their sets. I think the statistical evidence is pretty clear that PSA grades these key Hobby cards more stringently than other cards in their sets, no matter what factors you control for.

[@SnipeCityCards]

Love this video! We did an entire month where most of our content was devoted to graded hockey cards last month. And it was a lot of things like this that opened our eyes. Your video is awesome. As I’m just in the early stages of actually realizing how ridiculous card grading is, how it controls population of certain cards and how it’s a money stream for the big companies like PSA.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks, glad you found it helpful. It's a good way to evaluate PSA's objectivity.

[@thebatterycarlylerood]

Thanks for sharing your spreadsheets. I'll probably look at them more closely this weekend. I really appreciate your transparency. If I discover anything interesting with this data, I'll let you know.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Please, take a look at it and let me know if you find anything more out.

[@headlessnation1631]

Another great video! Thanks for all the hard work.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! I'm working on a follow-up as I type this.

[@blitzsportsmemorabilia5844]

I just sent 4 flawless 2011 update trouts to psa and got 3 9s and an 8, I checked the ration compared to the altuve friiiick this is eye opening

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yeah, the data is there and it backs up what Hobbyists have been saying for years. I'm sorry that happened to you. Happened to me too.

[@collectiblesource3902]

I got back into collecting about 2 years ago and have been slowly buying a lot of my collection that I sold when my son was born 16 years ago. Ever since I started buying, I figured that this was the case because I had seen the same thing done with CGC in my comic book collection. My rule of thumb? Buy the card not the slab. I will buy a 8.5 or a 9 before a 10 every time. sometimes 25% of the price and if you are selective of the cards you pick, you cannot tell the difference. I have a sick collection now and I intend of cracking all my slabs. I would be willing to bet the person who buys my collection from my son when I pass (harsh reality) will pay top dollar for it because of how nice it looks and they will probably resubmit it all to one of the grading companies in hopes of hitting the lottery with 10s. Just some food for thought. Maybe I will post a few videos of my collection to show it off soon. :)

[@vintagecardcurator]

I just subbed as I'd love to see these cards. I didn't realize the same thing was happening in the comic world. It may be human psychology, that when something valuable is placed in front of you, one tends to more closely examine it. Your advice to buy the card is sound. A good card will hold value, no matter who made the slab.

[@collectiblesource3902]

@@vintagecardcurator In the comic world the biggest thing I see going on is comics coming back a 9.4 or 9.6, which would be the equivalent of getting a 8.5 or 9. The problem is CGC doesn't supply graders notes on why your books come back lower than a 9.8. There are a lot more factors that go into grading a comic which makes not having the note or reason your comic got a lower grade very frustrating. So what happens, you press your book a send it in again for a regrade. Thus the same cycle of them getting money from the same books over and over. There have been conspiracies of CGC giving better grades to people they know as well. Getting a 9.9 or a 10.0 can make a book that was 80 bucks or so sell for over a grand easily and this is their version of winning the lottery, similar to getting a black label in BGS. I'll definitely do a couple videos on my cards and comics and some thoughts I have about both hobbies since I have been collecting for so long. It's nice to know others are interested and I really appreciate your hard work. A lot of this stuff needs to be said and out out there so people can make buying decisions objectively and with good information.

[@alyork11]

Good analysis. I think one factor that may be skewing these ratios is the total populations being submitted for key cards versus commons. I believe someone is much less likely to submit a common unless it is in absolute mint condition and would be much more lenient for a key card. This would make sense from a value standpoint as you would more likely recoup the grading cost with a key card if getting a lower than expected grade. However, I don't believe this factor would explain the whole differences in theses ratio, so I do believe your point does hold water, but maybe not to the degree you think.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Many people have brought this up and while I don't agree with it 100%, I see the point. My counter is that these cards are tougher to 10 than any HOF in those same sets...cards we know are submitted similar to the key cards. A future project will look at an iconic vintage card that has significant population control and compare it to other valuable HOF'ers in the same set.

[@bobcrane2720]

Some cards are in a bad spot on a sheet and either get handled (or mechanical defect) or are more prone to back miscuts. I would sub any SP Jeter rookie, but I'd only sub mint centered front/back cards that are only valuable as 10s.

[@vintagecardcurator]

I think using the 9:10 ratio corrects for that submission bias Bob. By only looking at 9's and 10's we are excluding all those SP Jeter cards that are not mint centered, front/back.

[@TalkingBallCards]

Awesome video! I think a portion of it comes down to the culture they instill in their graders...you do not want to be considered the lenient grader on the team. This is inevitable in small groups

[@vintagecardcurator]

Yes, there may be some human psychology happening here too. I can only speculate as to why this happens. The next test is to try to identify who got the 10’s. If that is random, between average collectors and big dealers, then we have less of a problem.