Conditional rarity is dumb; a rant

Grading
,
1
  • edited thread title before any more people reply to that instead of the post oops

I have a lot of salty thoughts about grading standards and I must rant. Open images below in a new tab for higher resolution.

We’ll start with Charizard from the 25th Anniversary Creatures Corporate Deck. I think this is a prime example because

  • The print of every single card is nearly identical because it is such a limited print run.
  • It is a very recent release and thus all copies have been graded within a (relatively) short window, negating any issues of grading standards changing over time.
  • The print quality is very good in terms of surface and edges, but pretty much every copy is OC in the same way.
  • Presumably every graded copy went straight from the deck to PSA; it’s not like a card that may have accumulated other damage over 20+ years.

So, below we have a few 9’s and a few 10’s. Since the surfaces and edges of every card are pretty much pristine out of the box, the distinction comes down to centering. Can you tell which is which? Don’t bother measuring the borders, as that will yield the wrong answer. As a bonus, 2 of the cards pictured below are the same copy - originally graded a 9, and then resubmitted and graded a 10. Can you find it?

25th zords
25th zords1920×1772 465 KB

The total PSA population for this card is 11. Of those 11, there are 5 that received a 10 grade. At least 2 of those 5 were originally graded a 9 and then resubmitted.

Now, I don’t really care if PSA wants to call the centering a 9 or a 10, but it can’t be this Schrodinger’s Zard bullshit on a card with such a consistent print run. It costs $2000 to have this card graded by PSA. Two thousand. At that price tier, there could be a rubric tailored for the individual card to assure consistency for the very few copies that will ever come in for grading. Instead, the scrutiny is the same as submitting at the $18 tier - which is to say, not much.

Moving on to another card with a limited and consistently flawed print run, let’s take a look at 1999 Tropical Wind. We know that pretty much every copy is OC and has corner chipping. Below we have a PSA 8, 9, and 10. Can you tell which is which?

wind
wind1697×1564 403 KB

This card has a total PSA graded population of 79, and is pop 3 (three) in a PSA 10. Would any of those 10’s receive the same grade if they were cracked and resubmitted? How much of total population is just a regrade of the same copy?

Moving on from consistent print issues, let’s take a look at some misgrades with respect to damage instead.

Three master’s scroll 10’s (total pop 58, 10 pop 26)

scrolls
scrolls1759×812 223 KB

A couple Master’s Key 9’s (total pop 17, 10 pop 10), a Pika ring 10 (total pop 27, 10 pop 19), 2003 Victory Orb 10 (total pop 19, 10 pop 17):

misc
misc1278×1775 350 KB

And on and on and on. I won’t bother delving into more common items like JP Base and Gold Stars, as there are just too many examples to list, and it doesn’t inspire quite the same levels of salt that I have when I see it on “rare” cards.

I don’t know why label buyers are the way they are, but a 10 that looks like a 6 still typically sells for more than an actually “gem mint” 9.5 copy. Grading standards are broken and there’s really no incentive for PSA to do anything about it, as people will keep paying a premium for a label and people will keep submitting cards to PSA to chase that premium.

This isn’t all to say that grading is completely worthless. I really don’t care what a label says for my personal collection, but it still has value on the market side of things. Even if there are inconsistencies, having some kind of baseline condition expectations set by the number makes things easier for both the buyer and the seller, and marketplaces like PWCC just couldn’t exist in their current form at all without graded cards.

In conclusion: I’m mad

Cert numbers in order for the cards featured in this post if anyone that wants to look into them more: 63679084, 63714238, 64299132, 64579890, 64993708, 64999010
65562847, 63543202, 27353838
28490886, 26227277, 40691533
49425820, 63108288, 63134108, 28490890

Scans courtesy of PSA, PWCC, and Heritage.

12 Likes
2

if grading is like gambling then its similar to be an expert card counter because it is not random.

3 Likes
3

Buy the card not the grade…

7 Likes
4

Many 10s and 9s are interchangeable. Ive got 9s that look better than my 10s and 10s that look better than my 9s.

1 Like
5

I’ve never been a huge condition collector. The card matters so much more to me than how many white specs are on the back that I will never check.

13 Likes
6

Yep, it wasn’t until I started trying to get cards that are hard to find in any condition that the switch really flipped in my brain about that. My condition standards for my own collection have now mostly broken down to - “does it look fine? yes/no”. I’d rather put the condition premium toward another card.

I’m still a slave to the numbers when grading to sell, though. This is my penance for not being a tru enough collector. :melting_face:

5 Likes
7

Condition doesn’t matter to me at all for rare cards. Learned really quick if I pass up on this card how long or if ever will I see this card again?

6 Likes
8

Grade doesn’t matter as much for rare cards. Owning them alone is an achievement.

1 Like
9

I’ve become sort of ‘disenchanted’ with slabs in the past while for those subjective reasons that play into grading. I like my PSA 10s and 9.5+ from BGS or CGC across a variety of cards… but it sort of becomes arbitrary to me after a while too. I think that people sort of worry too much about the grades and really should be more focused on obtaining the card in a nice and clean condition without spending a fortune. So 10s for me are sort of reserved to be a special spot in my collection, and I don’t really go out of my way to pay for one unless I really want it bad.

Due to the subjective factors involved, I’m becoming more of a binder/toploader collector. Just clean, NM-Mint cards. Not only can I get way more quantity for the price of most 10s in any given card, I still can be ‘invested’ in the market while building up my collection. I think people have this idea that only a 10 is ‘investment’ grade, but over the years the NM copies can still offer a return and can be just as enjoyable in your collection to own.

So anyway, everyone will deploy a strategy that works for them. I have no issues with people wanting high grade slabs. I just find after a while, I’ve gotten just as much enjoyment out of clean raw NM cards as I have with a lot of my slabs and especially knowing so many subjective factors can be involved at times.

7 Likes
10

@kevinertia You make good points. I think for some the difference between 10 and 9 are so small it really becomes a tossup. For the end users buying a 10, they just want the prestige of owning a “gem mint” copy. I do have some 9s on display and am more open to buying them over their 10 counterparts lately.

2 Likes
11

As my search to complete my collection is nearing completion, my condition requirements has fallen off a cliff. If I haven’t found the card I need by this point, I just want the card in any condition.

But, I highly agree that the price of a 10 is not justified, when a 9 could be a better condition card anyways.

6 Likes
12

10s are another hurdle to overcome to make collecting cards more difficult, and in theory more rewarding. Almost every card ever printed is easily available ungraded, so some being difficult to find in a 10 gives those cards a value they’d never otherwise have

As to the question of whether that’s rational: this entire hobby is basically just spending money on intrinsically near-worthless objects, and what is valuable is whatever everyone around us deems valuable, so you can pick at the rationale for why almost any card is worth more than a $1 until it seems an unreasonable valuation

So sure, there will be strong 9s which are “actually better” than weak 10s or whatever, but by playing this game of buying graded cards, you accept that a card’s value is heavily affected by an awarded number per some random grader’s judgment - and if you don’t really want to do that, you can fill a binder for a lot less money and hassle

14 Likes
13

Yep, I had my phase of all 10’s all the time, then into “strong” 10’s after seeing too many scuffed copies of the cards I was trying to find, then accepted how ridiculous it was to obsess about overlapping standards and just moved on to primarily binder collecting.

@cardstockpile agreed. It also heavily depends on the specific cards in question. Modern Japanese, for instance, is just easiest to find as mint to gem mint as a default state even when buying from shops with no pictures. On the flip side those notoriously “hard to grade” cards like T17 carry a massive premium (and the perceived prestige you mention) riding on what may be an imperceptible difference, or even just the same copy graded on a different day.

@greenshoots all fair points! I’ve opted into the game of “optimizing” card sales, so I get to accept the rules set by the collective participants. :upside_down_face:

4 Likes
14

Heres my 2018 version of this thread for anyone curious

8 Likes
15

It’s certainly dumb, 10s are not logical by any means, but big number mean better card ooga booga monkey brain like big number

9 Likes
16

I still hate graded cards in my collection. There are some standouts, but honestly, I’d rather have raw cards all day long, in nice manageable binders. If I need a graded copy because of rarity, FINE, but I’d prefer a non-graded one, so long as it looks good. Grades are subjective, even at high tiers, apparently, and on what ought to be completely objective elements - i.e. measurements - as you indicate.

HOWever, I also appreciate the grades, because many others do not hold my humble opinion, in their humble opinion, so I understand the value added by the grade in those cases. (pun intended)

17

As much as I enjoy graded cards, it is pretty funny how much of a premium 10s hold over 9s when someone is basically paying for a premium for a minimum wage graders opinion they made in the span of 3 minutes and is impacted by whether or not they got laid the night before.

2 Likes
18

I think there are examples where condition is more important. For example, 1999 prerelease clefable still has no psa 10 copies.
1979 gretzky rookies are notoriously difficult to grade. I think the condition value in those examples makes much more sense!

Also something like Logan’s illustrator, love it or hate it, it’s the only psa 10. While owning a rare card at all is the main goal, owning the higher or highest grade can carry a premium, as seen with Logan’s illustrator.

Where something like whatever new modern zard is completely different. It’s why black labels are trending, and imo how condition collecting can go overboard.

8 Likes
19

Totally agree. I get why a lot of people, myself included, aren’t a fan of paying a premium to maybe have one less white spec on the back of a card. Where it becomes more interesting to me though is when cards are legitimately difficult to grade.

For example, Evolutions is a meme sometimes, but getting a 10 for most of the holos is legitimately difficult. To me that’s an example of 10s mattering in the sense that the circumstances behind the printing/release of the cards makes it hard to get a 10, rather than just counting white specs and assigning a grade.

Not something I tend to care about myself collection wise, but I can understand why cards like that in a 10 would draw people in and command a premium. Just like people like to collect rare cards, some people like to take it a step beyond that and collect rare conditions.

2 Likes
20

I actually think it makes even less sense in these senarios. If every copy of the card produced was damaged then the highest grade copies are disproportionately going to be “mistakes” or flukes in grading. That’s why I bought a PSA 6 Prefable because any higher grade is likely just a PSA 6/7 in a PSA 8/9 case.

I understand that the market doesn’t agree with me though as reflected in prices

5 Likes