Many people seem to notice a significant difference. Anecdotes count for something, but has anyone (e.g., someone who grades hundreds or thousands of cards) attempted to systematically or “scientifically” study any possible difference?
17 Likes
oh no, not this kind of post again lol…
1 Like
Oh boy. In on the first page at least.
Can anyone who is making this claim actually provide concrete data?
4 Likes
Can’t provide something that doesn’t exist! 
2 Likes
Has someone posted asking about efforts to study the possible difference systematically or “scientifically?”
Some “studies” could help put this controversy to rest!
Lol. Why don´t you start this study?
1 Like
I’m scared
If the label says Gem Mint 10, it is a Gem Mint 10
I’m so tired of this topic… I’m sorry for my unhelpful comment.
1 Like
1 Like
So, did anyone do anything fun this weekend?
1 Like
I ripped out a crappy old hedge and installed a raised planter bed.
2 Likes
Can’t this debate just die already? In my very limited PSA collection I only have one undeserving 10. Guess what, it’s a 444 cert.
My only mistake on this purchase wasn’t that I went for the wrong cert, but that I didn’t request pictures of the back.
Just look at the f*ing card with your own eyes and use your own judgement. If you think you’d be happy with that card in that condition and that it deserves its grade, go for it. If not, move on.
4 Likes
The condition of New vs Old PSA graded cards will forever be debated.
There is no way to definitively prove or disprove in a way that everyone will believe one way or the other.
I have been satisfied with both Old and New certs, but exceptions no doubt exist. It would be foolish to say the bar for certain grades hasn’t moved in a wave-like-pattern over the years. There maybe be a long term trend too… but I don’t think it’s definitive.
Terms like “Weak-this” or “strong-that” help many people justify a cards grade. Buy the card and not the grade - you can always review it or have it regraded.
"Are 1xxxx better than 2xxx or worse? what about 0xxxxx? Are 5xxxxx equivalent to 4xxxxx or will they be more desirable? Is 40xxx less desirable than 45xxxx because it’s closer to 2xxx? Paying attention to these minute differences is very short-sighted if you ask me. Any value in a particular cert is only relevant as long as the perception lasts. When we inevitably get to 7xxxx cert numbers are people going to consistently be able to sort 0xxx to 7xxx in order of quality? Is the first digit really an indication of anything? It’s such an arbitrary cutoff. I can tell you in the past people have even broken down the 2xxxx label into some that are better or worse, where are those people and ideas now? Forgotten.
I’ve looked at the numbers. It’s an undeniable fact that in terms of WOTC cards, PSA has graded less 10s when comparing the end of the 2xxx to the 4xxxx “eras”. Whether this is because they started grading harsher or the average quality of submitted card has fallen is totally up for debate. Keep in mind that 2xxx cards correspond to the time when the most boxes were being broken and graded. Even if we assume that the difference between 2xxx and 4xxx is entirely due to a change in PSA strictness, in the most extreme case you’re looking at a deviation of about 8 in 100 4xxxx cards getting a lower grade than the average baseline expectation. All factors ignored, the vast, vast majority of 2xxx and 4xxx cards are receiving the same grade as expected from the average expectation.
The most relevant thing to consider is even if there was definite proof PSA has suddenly become harsher, that is only established by averages. When you’re buying a single card, you’re not buying an average. From a statistics perspective, it’s like sampling a single data point from two near-completely overlapping Normal distributions. By random chance, (assuming there is a quantifiable difference between 2xxx and 4xxxx) it’s going to be a common outcome to see that the 2xxx is in better than the 4xxx when you’re only sampling from each distribution once and not working with averages (which is captured by gottaketchumall 's point near the beginning of this thread).
Imagine a modified roulette wheel where 18 spots are red and 19 spots are black. Naturally, all things equal, black is a better bet. If you’re playing over and over and doing long averages, you will benefit from actually paying slightly more fore a black spot than a red spot. But if you’re playing one time and you’re paying 25% more from a black spot… well that’s basically this thread. Of course the caveat here for this analogy is that we are again assuming there is a slight difference between 4xxxx and 2xxx (which is my stance based on the data I’ve seen) and what we are actually caring about is condition (“winning in roulette”) and not what people are perceiving condition to be.
tldr. the real difference between 4xxx and 2xxx is trivial if it even exists. A single random sample doesn’t have to be concordant with the average, ESPECIALLY when the differences are so small. People won’t be talking about 4xxx as anything special as we cycle to the next arbitrary thing, just as 0xxx and 1xxxx and 2xxx have no hierarchy" - Scott
2 Likes
This subject is dumb because there’s no quantitative evidence either way. Both sides could/will argue until they die.
@pokehut1, Thats the thing, there aren’t sides, because nothing is proven. Its like talking to flat earthers. The other side is simply reality.
2 Likes