Illusion of Objectivity: PSA Grading Practices Examined

[@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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@kevinclingaman6277]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@SconnieTradition]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@thondomain]

In 1999 when the Ken Griffey Jr. cards were so high, I submitted about 20 Griffey RCs to PSA. They were a mix of different products: Fleer, Topps Update, Donruss, UD, Donruss Baseball's Best, Score Traded, and Bowman. I picked the best I had, most coming right out of sets or wax packs from sealed cases. Amazingly, they ALL came back graded 9, in sequential order. I was so shocked I called PSA and questioned how they could all be exactly the same grade. I was told they were getting so many Griffey rookies to grade that they were severely limiting the 10s. Another card dealer we did shows with told me I submitted them wrong. "You aren't submitting enough at a time," he said. "I submit 100 cards a month." He began bringing his PSA cards to the show each month and opening the return package in front of us. He had a method; he would send 100 cards at a time, all nice cards, and he would get 10 X PSA 10, 20 X PSA 9, and the rest mostly PSA 8. Right at the show he would crack open the 9s and 8s and set them aside to resubmit, along with additional cards. "I'll bring them to the show when they return, but I guarantee you some of these 8s come back as 9s and the 9s come back as 10s." He swore it was simple math; send 100 cards of almost identical condition and 10% would get PSA 10, 20% PSA 9, and the rest 8.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Wow! Thanks for sharing that. It's disheartening to hear stories like that, but I've obviously heard them before. You don't want to think there is a formula or artificial strategy going into a submission request. It's funny you mention the Griffey card because the entire start of this project for me was watching a PSA reveal by a guy who submitted 89 seemingly mint 89 UD Griffeys and got a ridiculously low number of 10's. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpSZhqCeg7JlpdE Watching that video made me wonder if market manipulation and artificial control of the Hobby was going on and I wanted to try to prove or disprove it. Anecdotes like your's are all over the Hobby...so many it's pretty much an open secret. Thanks again for the insightful comment.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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!

[@robf4639]

Wow. This is some amazing analysis. The more I learn from folks like you that really dig into the details the more I find myself leaning towards going back to collecting raw cards. Anyone else feel this way and made a change?

[@vintagecardcurator]

I have gone back to raw cards and collecting sets again. I was buying high grade HOF PSA slabs, but I had to give that up. I'm much happier and feeling safer that way.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@bink7181]

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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@charlesmoore7020]

Terrific video with great, well supported conclusions.

[@billthehofcollector4525]

Great work on this one. You might speculate, but it’s quite obvious they’re not objective. One major reason I don’t get involved in grading whatsoever.

[@vintagecardcurator]

For collectors your best strategy is to just buy the cards already graded. Sucks, but that seems to be the reality. Most of the PSA Reveal videos I watch underscore that point again and again. Thanks for the comment!

[@swancoatart]

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@abnkc]

Fantastic content like always! Thanks for all the work you put into your releases. I'd love to hear a response from PSA. I can't even fathom a reason why the key cards are so far off from the trends of the sets overall. If you want a subject for a short video, try focusing on what PSA does right.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment! There already is a lot of content out there on what PSA does right. A lot of people promote them in videos. I really want collectors to challenge what they've been told. One of the huge eye openers for me from this research is that so much of what we are told by "experts" in the Hobby (PSA and other TPG'ers, forum posts and Hobby publications) doesn't stand up when you empirically test it. We have all just accepted that certain cards are condition sensitive but few of us ever try to test that assumption. When we do, the assumptions are wrong or unprovable.

[@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.

[@drewhunkins7192]

Fabulous clip as always. Thank you for posting this.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Drew! I appreciate your continued support and comments!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@wrigleyregular1926]

Another great video. Keep up the good work. I also enjoy your card of the week videos and your Instagram page.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! I need to get back to a weekly card feature. These last couple of videos have been so time intensive that I didn't want to take any time away from them.

[@sylversyrfer6894]

Such a well researched, and presented, video! Well done sir! I was particularly intrigued by the suggested possible reasons for tough grading on key cards, including driving resubmissions of cards graded a 9. I’ve previously heard that suggested for BGS, and there have been some well documented cases of collectors resubmitting their BGS graded cards to Beckett multiple times in order to ratchet up their sub scores, and eventually, their total score. I agree then that it is entirely possible that PSA could be doing the same as well. Please continue your excellent work, and again, thank you!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment! I'm not sure what to work on next. This video was kind of my Mona Lisa. If people aren't convinced by it, I'm not sure what else I can say. More videos like this would probably just be restating the same thing over and over.

[@derekingram3494]

Sadly, PSA feels more corporate-focused to me than other companies. I've moved over to SGC full-time lately and they seem more-honest, humble and collector-focused. Thank you for your hard work on this video.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment! I need to learn more about SGC...they certainly have garnered a lot of attention lately.

[@tommylopiccolo3835]

A Fantastic presentation....

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! Appreciate that!

[@123precision8]

Interesting. Thank you for your effort in collecting the data for this video. This continues to encourage me to only collect raw.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment! I'm glad other collectors are appreciating the research and findings.

[@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!

[@gcruz1028]

Fantastic analysis once again. It's really demoralizing for us collectors that a company who's main currency is trust and objectivity is so lackadaisical in their grading methods.

[@vintagecardcurator]

It's disappointing to say the least. When we send our cards in we expect objectivity. This makes me reconsider how I send cards in for grading.

[@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.

[@Gregk51]

Awesome content. Your efforts put forth to create your videos are enviable.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks! This video did take an awful lot of time to put together!

[@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.

[@billt488]

I'm guessing no one from PSA was available for comment? Thanks for justifying my latest 160-card submission to SGC!!! Keep up the good work.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Ha ha, I don't even bother. Their stance has been to never comment on grading decisions, trimming, etc. They also like to shut down any criticism on their message boards.

[@rj-vj8gr]

Outstanding job

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thank you!

[@ohno1017]

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

[@headlessnation1631]

Another great video! Thanks for all the hard work.

[@vintagecardcurator]

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

[@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 ???

[@jjlaing3204]

Great video. I love the power of Excel. Really makes me stick to BGS and SGC

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks. It was startling to see the numbers prove what a lot of us suspect has been happening.

[@robdemare8250]

Nice work with outstanding information presented.

[@vintagecardcurator]

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

[@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.

[@joycollecting]

Very compelling and well prepared video. Thank you for putting in the time to put this together. Great watch!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment. This video was a real challenge...it took me two weeks to create it after all the research. The reception has been good and I'm happy that collectors are finding the information useful.

[@joycollecting]

@@vintagecardcurator Very well done. Loads of respect for putting in so much time. It's not easy. Looking forward to future videos.

[@robg7656]

Awesome video!!you have good knowledge to this hobby we enjoy please don’t ever stop giving tips to collectors as it’s very educational to the first time collector or like myself, A long time collector!! Very knowledgeable information to use and to question!! As I am getting ready to submit a bulk order to PSA and are,second-guessing a lot of my pics for submission because I am afraid of the fact of if it’s possible to receive a high end grades on key cards, it bothers me that they control the market like that. I always had suspicion about PSA doing that, boo👎🏻and now,this sums it up for me,thank you very much for the awesome video!!! ROBGIO87

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Rob. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think it's helpful for collectors to have that information and make good decisions. It's caused me to question my own submissions, which is something I haven't wanted to do. I have thousands of dollars in PSA slabs myself. I think it terms of your own submissions, you'd have to assess the likelihood of getting a high grade from PSA. With cards like the Henderson, Murray and Jeter, it doesn't look like the 10's go to average collectors. With lesser cards, it's tough. I see so many videos from guys on KZbin doing their PSA Reveals...these are knowledgeable guys with many many years in the Hobby. And then I see them getting 9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 9, 9, etc., it's disheartening.

[@robg7656]

Vintage Card Curator Question I have a lot of 1975 topps cards I pulled out a cello packs,Back in the mid 90s when I could afford that stuff, do you think it’s possible that they would award 10s on those type of cards,as I’ve been trying to send in The best looking cards from those cellos I opened, pretty much all the star cards I had graded back then but nothing better than a psa9 thank you for your comment and I might be going to the nationals this year if so like to meet you if that something you’re into thanks again for your time and videos ROBGIO87

[@vintagecardcurator]

Hi Rob, that's a tough question to answer. It sounds like you have experience grading with PSA and an eye for what they are looking for. I would recommend a 10x jewelers loupe and be very conservative in your assessment. (that helped me a lot) You might also want to go into the pop reports for the 1975 set and see how PSA grades those cards that you do have. That might give you some insight into whether it's worth the risk or not.

[@robg7656]

Vintage Card Curator , thank you!, yeah I have some experience I’ve joined before but never really got around to doing any type of bulk submissions before this actually would be the first time I’ve submitted over 100 cards at one particular time. Love your knowledge to the Card market And what to watch out for it’s definitely something I am going to be very aware of when it comes to buying graded cards thank you again and thanks for the tips!!!! ROBGIO87

[@FilmCardStars]

Great analysis, would be interesting to compare how SGC & Beckett fare in 9:10 ratios

[@vintagecardcurator]

I looked at this in my previous video on the Rickey Henderson rookie. They also graded that card tough, but not as tough as PSA did.

[@beansballcardblog]

Absolutely great research and video, thank you so much! I shared this on twitter.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks man! I'm not on Twitter so I appreciate that. I would love Darren Rovel to take a look at this.

[@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.

[@groundzero270]

Makes you want to not sub cards lol!!!! Appreciate the exposure and validation of what we thought! I wonder who does get 10s, that’s the question. I did land a 10 on a Sandberg 83 Topps on my very first sub.

[@vintagecardcurator]

That's good you got that 10. I wouldn't argue that average collectors won't get 10's, unless it's one of the low pop, $15,000+ examples. You hit on something important: your best strategy is to buy your cards already graded rather than submit them yourself.

[@BaseballCollector]

Well that was just fantastic!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Mike! I appreciate you watching!

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@davidburris8230]

I would think a higher value card gets a more stringent review than just a common in the same set which results in less higher grade cards.

[@vintagecardcurator]

It could be...it could be that PSA is over grading these common cards vs. undergrading the key cards. Hard to prove either way.

[@SconnieTradition]

I think all TPGs grade the blue chip cards tougher. Is it fair...probably not. I think one thing it does do is create high markets for those Gem Mint cards. It certainly is very tough to differentiate a 9 and a 10.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment Scott. I think it's something we all suspect, either from our own experiences or watching reveal videos on KZbin. I was excited to apply some statistical analysis to this issue. I appreciate your support of the channel!

[@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.

[@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.

[@mdlatino]

This is great information, I am sharing this !

[@vintagecardcurator]

Awesome thank you!

[@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.

[@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?

[@mikeorz111]

Enjoyed this video for the second time!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Mike, I appreciate that! I'm always curious how collectors who have been doing it much longer than me would respond to this research. Thanks!

[@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.

[@mikeorz111]

Great job as usual!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Mike!

[@TheMURPH398]

Incredible video , you’ve got my wheels turning

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks man! I really want people to think about this issue, even if they disagree with me and the methods I use.

[@vintageoddballcards6103]

Great Video

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks!

[@tampahomeinvestorsllc7559]

Just my thoughts and observations talking here... I personally do typically tend to notice a difference between the 9's and 10's when it comes to modern cards. I will say, like all of us have... I've been dumbfounded as to why or how mostly "junk wax" era cards are 9's and not 10's and so on. I always chalked it up to the TPG knowing something about the card that I just didn't notice when you break it down to a level they should be able to break it down to on a specific card. I also just assumed that they'd seen the best possible version of a specific card and anything less would not stand for a 10 grade. It shouldn't be this way, but maybe they can get a little more lenient on the commons but It looks like you've probably answered this with the numbers presented. Another incredible video and top notch info, we appreciate it!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment and thoughtfulness. I'm really happy to hear when you and others are critically thinking what they see in the Hobby. One of the things that surprised me most is that the assumptions we have about these cards don't stand up to verification when they are tested statistically. The condition sensitivity argument is a very obvious example of that. I was very deliberate in picking cards from the junk wax era because the quality control was so much better in those days. It's stunning to me that the 1985 Topps cards are about 1:1 between 9's and 10's, while the 2 key cards are 20x harder to get in a 10.

[@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.

[@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)

[@CMCollectibles]

First off, awesome video and amazing research, I enjoyed it immensely! I have to bring up a few points though that perhaps can help explain the ratio of 9's to 10's for key cards. I would imagine that someone is much more likely to send in a key card that they know would get an 8 or 9 as opposed to a 10 than they would be a common. The only reason someone would send a common in to PSA would be to get a 10 to build their registry or personal collection most likely, I would think, whereas someone would certainly send in a Jeter if they thought it had a chance to get an 8 or 9 no? The only reason someone would send in a Jason Bere from that same set would be to complete the set in high grade and in my opinion would only choose the highest quality example to get graded. Secondly, I would imagine time has played a factor in this as well. A ton more cards are now being sent in from these sets from the 70's, 80's & 90's. The only cards most people would be sending in now would be the key cards, but 20-25 years ago they might have been sending in different cards of what are now commons that were 20 years younger and inherently in better condition than the cards sent in today simply due to aging of paper. It was a lot easier to pack pull a Jeter or Jason Bere back in 1994 that would be a 10 due to the fact the paper isn't nearly as old and the box/case the card was in hasn't been tossed around for 20+ years. Again, all of that being said, I enjoyed the video and it definitely was thought provoking.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. You've given me some things to consider. There is some validity to the key cards being borderline 8/9, while the commons are borderline 9/10. I have two thoughts about that: 1) we can't know how much of a difference that makes, but I don't think it explains a 20x difference with most of these cards. 2) in all of these sets, the key cards have higher 9:10 ratios than all the HOF cards too. And the HOF cards are submitted as borderline 8/9's, just like the key cards. In terms of the age of the cards impacting submission...idk. Your rationale makes sense, yet submissions are still very high as people are returning to the Hobby. And from what I've seen in some other research, the pops of PSA 10 cards that are 40-50 years old keeps going up at what seems like an unnatural rate. People are definitely pulling out cards from the '70's-'90's and sending them in. I'm not sure how to quantify and test what you are talking about, but it would be good to try to control for those factors too. Thanks for the comment!

[@RiceBondsMntna2Young]

Keith, one thing you might control for is how much absolute submission numbers affect the 9:10 ratio. To the extent that you can find similar-tier cards that aren’t hobby darlings and aren’t poised to make a person thousands of dollars’ profit in one lucky swoop, is there a way to see if the 9:10 ratio widens as submissions increase as between two different but similar cards in the same set? Fantastic stuff by the way. Confirms what I’ve long suspected and I also suspect controlling for absolute submission numbers won’t really change your conclusions.

[@vintagecardcurator]

That's an interesting idea. In general, the commons don't have a ton of submissions so I tried to focus on one's that PSA has seen at least 50 times. When we have 700+ cards in a set and hundreds of thousands of grading decisions for that set, I tend to believe that's an accurate measure of how PSA grades these cards, regardless of the submission numbers. What you are saying is to look at similar cards like: 2nd tier HOF'ers vs commons and then compare the 9:10 ratio sorted on the basis of total submission numbers. Seeing if there is a relationship between submission numbers and 9:10? I'm not sure what that would tell us because more valuable cards are necessarily going to have higher submission numbers.

[@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.

[@charlesdb99]

Another great video! I would be very interested to know if these same issues exist with SGC graded cards. I would love to see you do a video on that topic. Thank you and keep up the good work!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks Charles. I've been doing some research on SGC and the people that own it. It's not encouraging. There is some shady stuff with them that has been substantiated in the government's prosecution of Bill Mastro. Their operation seems to lag behind where they should be. For example, they don't have certification verification on their website. They are in the process of putting out a population report too. Those are things I would have expected to be up and running. I need to do more research before I have a solid opinion about them.

[@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.

[@tdfowler79]

You are doing incredible work on this. Keep the awesome videos coming. I don't necessarily have a problem with them grading "key" cards harder... a random common in a set just doesn't have the same stakes as a high value card. That makes sense to me, it's human nature. In a perfect world, everything would be 100% objective... but I'm not sure that is realistic.That said, I suspect that there is something more nefarious going on here. Your ratios are pretty telling... like I said, I don't have a problem with key cards being scrutinized, but 20x harder? That's outside of what you'd expect.

[@vintagecardcurator]

Thanks for the comment and support. Yeah, I think that 20x higher ratios are a big abnormality that needs an explanation. For some cards there are some explanations offered, for most there aren't. I was surprised when researching the '85 McGwire that even PSA doesn't offer up an explanation on their profile of the card. In fact, I couldn't find anyone making a condition sensitivity argument. But even then I don't think the condition sensitivity argument truly explains a card's ratio. And I agree with you that there is likely a psychological function at work, the closer examination of something more valuable. Still, if you are the collector submitting that card it doesn't feel right.

[@theworldsbestrobertoclemen4281]

Awesome work! Really curious to see who gets the 10's!? It is amazing that a company with as many exposed problems as PSA has still has as strong a hold on the hobby as they do!

[@vintagecardcurator]

I'm looking into that now. I haven't found any evidence yet that average collectors are getting these 10's, but I'm still looking. And I think collectors have so much skin in the game that they can't stop with PSA, no matter what comes out.

[@11679MRT]

Great video! What's in it for PSA to grade key cards tougher?

[@vintagecardcurator]

Hi, I cover that in the video, at the end. There are a number of reasons why they'd benefit financially by grading these key cards tougher.

[@11679MRT]

@@vintagecardcurator ok, I missed that somehow. Time for a rewatch.

[@pdubs7069]

Most people put way too much trust in the hands of these grading companies... I personally put too much trust in PSA when I submitted my 1985 Topps Hand Cut Box Bottom Mario LEMIEUX Rookie card...Trusting the Card would be Graded with fairness and professionalism without any Error... boy was I wrong, Upon return of the card from PSA I was incredibly disappointed when the card was labeled a 1985 o-pee-chee hand cut Box bottom Mariel Lemieux rookie card AUTHENTIC.... clearly this was a Topps card!!Now I understand human error but this was ridiculous... maybe one day there will be value in PSA error cards🥴😶 So for that reason im holding on to it ...I would hate to wait another 4 months for PSA to fix the mistake that they made!! PSA should do their jobs correctly especially for the amount of money they demand for their lackluster quality of service!! Let's Stop kissing their asses and move on to other grading companies that take pride in their work and have way better quality control!! Enough with PSA already!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

I hear you and don't disagree and I still see people continuing to send PSA a lot of cards.

[@vict777]

Loved the video and shared it with my friends/family. I had been hesitant to submit, wait and pay so much as my instincts told me there was human bias as I have been researching the POP reports and noticed the same things! Thank you so much for putting this together. I downloaded your sheet and I am doing the same for all of the 10 cards I was going to submit. I have 2 questions: 1. Have you thought about doing similar with BGS and/or autograph grading? 2. This may be obvious for you/others, but does PSA perhaps have more individual A vs B evidence on popularly submitted "rare" cards? And do they do a "most recent 10" vs the current one they are grading? If so, then this could lead to slippery slopes whereby they give out a 10 on a cheap card in a laissez-faire way (or because a lack of reference points), and then it leads to more 10s handed out down the line? This was the only point that POP reports (unless you track sets daily to see changes) don't really tell a story on. Regardless of your reply (and I hope you will give one), thank you again!!

[@vintagecardcurator]

Hi, thanks for the comment...I read them all and reply to almost all. Regarding your questions, I haven't looked at BGS. I don't have any of their slabs and IIRC their pop report isn't as accessible as PSA's. I focus on PSA since they have dominant market share. I don't collect autographs and am not familiar with their pop reports. Are you wondering if certain players' autographs are graded more harshly than others? I read over question 2 a couple times and am not sure I completely understand it. In any case I think PSA relies on their grading standards for each card, but I suspect with high value cards there is something about the grading process that is different than if a cheap card was submitted. My guess is that there is more autonomy for an individual grader to award a 10 on a common card, whereas a key card would trigger additional eyes.