Is PSA Grading Harder? A Hopefully Fresh Perspective
 

I read a lot of these boards and obviously a consistent theme lately has been around the topic of if PSA is grading more strictly than before. There are a lot of anecdotes about getting gem rates at about half the historic rate for members on these boards. Obviously there are dozens of variables that go into a statement like that. What I haven't seen to date is anyone do a true apples to apples analysis on gem rates over time that attempts to reduce as many of those variables as possible. So a little insomnia last night + some free time today has lead me to the following output:


[url=https://flic.kr/p/2mjkhQJ][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51403288610_2771e1c0c1_b.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2mjkhQJ]Card Pop Analysis[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/161174335@N05/]JB123 Cards[/url], on Flickr

I won't reveal everything that went into this, but I'm using publicly available data to look at large samples of grades for cards over time. I used the Zion Mosaic as the example here because to me this screams "high volume card that in the pre-covid card boom world would probably not have been graded."

The cool thing is I've set the data up in such a way I can create this output for just about any specific card or set. Obviously this one card does not make a trend, but I think it's very interesting to take a look at a specific card over time, like this Zion, and see that recently the gem rate is about the same as it always has been for this sample of data over the past 12-15 months.

Interested in hearing others opinions on this result and methodology.

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence reinforced by your chart that there were some GODs (graders of death) punching out subs last quarter. I'm glad to see they might have resolved that potential consistency issue.

[QUOTE=f2tornado;17605942]There's a lot of anecdotal evidence reinforced by your chart that there were some GODs (graders of death) punching out subs last quarter. I'm glad to see they might have resolved that potential consistency issue.[/QUOTE]

The problem with that statement is that weve been hearing for years now that PSA grades very hard and is actively trying to control pops.

It wasnt reserved to just the past quarter or two.

[QUOTE=f2tornado;17605942]There's a lot of anecdotal evidence reinforced by your chart that there were some GODs (graders of death) punching out subs last quarter. I'm glad to see they might have resolved that potential consistency issue.[/QUOTE]

Ya - again just one card.

Not all cards that I've looked at have that severe of a dip. But also, not all cards have recovered in the recent months the way the Mosaic has.

What I can say with at least a relative amount of confidence right now is that gem rates certainly haven't been cut in half as many are claiming, at least not when you compare the same exact card over time.

Nice work. I would be interested in seeing something like the 2019 Topps Tatis #410.

I agree, would also be interested in seeing the Luka Prizm.

[QUOTE=rngrdanny22;17606067]Nice work. I would be interested in seeing something like the 2019 Topps Tatis #410.[/QUOTE]

Could you do a Donruss Clearly card? I’d be curious to see how those have been grading since everyone says the acetate cards scratch easily.

[QUOTE=FantasyMagic;17606172]Could you do a Donruss Clearly card? I’d be curious to see how those have been grading since everyone says the acetate cards scratch easily.[/QUOTE]

I think you can just go look at the pop report and find that out.

This thread is looking at changes to gem rates over time.

[QUOTE=rngrdanny22;17606175]I think you can just go look at the pop report and find that out.

This thread is looking at changes to gem rates over time.[/QUOTE]

Oops, you’re right. My mind must be tired today :doh:

I saw a simple video of a garbage pail kids series 1 psa shipment and everything was 9’s or 8’s except, you guessed it, the 2 expensive cards in the set got 6’s and they looked exactly the same as the 9’s. The video host was also in the typical disbelief “don’t really know how these can be 6’s”

It’s very strange. Again, every other card was 9 or 8 except those 2

[QUOTE=miscus555;17606228]I saw a simple video of a garbage pail kids series 1 psa shipment and everything was 9’s or 8’s except, you guessed it, the 2 expensive cards in the set got 6’s and they looked exactly the same as the 9’s. The video host was also in the typical disbelief “don’t really know how these can be 6’s”

It’s very strange. Again, every other card was 9 or 8 except those 2[/QUOTE]

Without being able to see the cards in person, that's not strange at all.

We have no clue how good that guy is at picking out cards for grading.

[QUOTE=miscus555;17606228]I saw a simple video of a garbage pail kids series 1 psa shipment and everything was 9’s or 8’s except, you guessed it, the 2 expensive cards in the set got 6’s and they looked exactly the same as the 9’s. The video host was also in the typical disbelief “don’t really know how these can be 6’s”

It’s very strange. Again, every other card was 9 or 8 except those 2[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=rngrdanny22;17606350]Without being able to see the cards in person, that's not strange at all.

We have no clue how good that guy is at picking out cards for grading.[/QUOTE]

^^^ Exactly this - and it's anecdotes like this that made me want to dive in on individual cards. Do I think grading in some areas has gotten a little harder? Maybe marginally. But certainly not to the "I'm getting half the gems I would've gotten a year ago" levels that people are talking about.

[QUOTE=rngrdanny22;17606067]Nice work. I would be interested in seeing something like the 2019 Topps Tatis #410.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=msink28;17606089]I agree, would also be interested in seeing the Luka Prizm.[/QUOTE]

These cards are definitely interesting. The images/data take a bit for me to create and don't have a baseball template built yet so just giving you Luka for now...

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2mjgPAL][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51402611636_2dffd899ff_b.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2mjgPAL]Luka 8.25[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/161174335@N05/]JB123 Cards[/url], on Flickr

[QUOTE=rngrdanny22;17606350]Without being able to see the cards in person, that's not strange at all.

We have no clue how good that guy is at picking out cards for grading.[/QUOTE]

I echo this, also, why are those cards more valuable? Are they simply rarer, or are they more valuable in high grades due to their placement in an uncut sheet and are more prone to centering, cutting, or print issues.

[QUOTE=ChaseUA;17606468]I echo this, also, why are those cards more valuable? Are they simply rarer, or are they more valuable in high grades due to their placement in an uncut sheet and are more prone to centering, cutting, or print issues.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. There are WAY too many people out here that think just because a card came straight out of the pack that it should gem. It's like we've entered the twilight zone, and I'm 94% sure it's new flippers coming into the hobby thinking gems are super easy and they can cash in big.

I don't know if it has gotten harder. However, I do believe it has definitely gotten more inconsistent. When group subs pop and the same people with the same cards get 75% gems, then 30%, then 75%, it makes you wonder. Consensus seems to be new graders so I guess it just depends on who you get.

[QUOTE=Onepocketj;17606726]I don't know if it has gotten harder. However, I do believe it has definitely gotten more inconsistent. When group subs pop and the same people with the same cards get 75% gems, then 30%, then 75%, it makes you wonder. Consensus seems to be new graders so I guess it just depends on who you get.[/QUOTE]

I think the data that I've looked at so far says differently. If there was variability in new graders beyond the PSA acquisition/backlog (early 2020) we would see individual cards gem rates go way down. That just doesn't seem to be the case. At least for examples that I have statistically significant data on. Look at the Zion Mosaic, it's the same gem rate in the last 3 months as it was over the same period a year ago when "grading was easy."

[QUOTE=KD35Russ0;17606418]^^^ Exactly this - and it's anecdotes like this that made me want to dive in on individual cards. Do I think grading in some areas has gotten a little harder? Maybe marginally. But certainly not to the "I'm getting half the gems I would've gotten a year ago" levels that people are talking about.





These cards are definitely interesting. The images/data take a bit for me to create and don't have a baseball template built yet so just giving you Luka for now...

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2mjgPAL][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51402611636_2dffd899ff_b.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2mjgPAL]Luka 8.25[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/161174335@N05/]JB123 Cards[/url], on Flickr[/QUOTE]

There could be the aspect of "aging" of the cards. Means the older they get, the harder it will be to find some gems.
Another thing is, and i always state this in such discussions:
People with zero or minimum grading experience have send in tons of cards withou giving them a close review of condition. I do this always and i did not change my way of checking the cards. My gem rate did not change, in new cards it is slightly higher even now.
So for me it is already cards which are not gem getting are sent to grading companies in general and because people have no experience, they start to complain withou a reason.

But I agree with some earlier statements, that some unexperienced graders with harsh criteria have maybe caused some low gem rate submissions. In addition to this they did not have enough experienced people to review.

At BGS I had a grader which was very good a present and newer cards, but just tiny experience about 90ties or earlier as he graded perfekt metal surface as around 6.... this was ridicoulus. But as well this changed

[QUOTE=mc1;17605951]The problem with that statement is that weve been hearing for years now that PSA grades very hard and is actively trying to control pops.

It wasnt reserved to just the past quarter or two.[/QUOTE]

I don't buy into the pop control theory either, however, there were far too many reports of low percent gem subs from long time submitters in Q2 this year to not question consistency.

[QUOTE=chiefroc;17607403]There could be the aspect of "aging" of the cards. Means the older they get, the harder it will be to find some gems.
Another thing is, and i always state this in such discussions:
People with zero or minimum grading experience have send in tons of cards withou giving them a close review of condition. I do this always and i did not change my way of checking the cards. My gem rate did not change, in new cards it is slightly higher even now.
So for me it is already cards which are not gem getting are sent to grading companies in general and because people have no experience, they start to complain withou a reason.

But I agree with some earlier statements, that some unexperienced graders with harsh criteria have maybe caused some low gem rate submissions. In addition to this they did not have enough experienced people to review.

At BGS I had a grader which was very good a present and newer cards, but just tiny experience about 90ties or earlier as he graded perfekt metal surface as around 6.... this was ridicoulus. But as well this changed[/QUOTE]



Completely agree with your statements about new submitters.

Most of the complaints I see about gem rates comes from the PCsportscards thread where everyone is complaining about 30% gem rates. In my opinion, that is likely due to one of three things:
1. Tons of new submitters are making up a large portion of these submissions,
2. PSA may be cracking down on PCsportscards submissions due to the sheer volume they sent in to diminish demand (unlikely, but theoretically possible), or
3. PSA has become extremely tough on grading (least likely)

I think a comparison that spans 5-10 years would show more accurate info on swings

The 2018 Topps Chrome Update HMT55 Juan Soto has a PSA 10 population, as of today, of 10,225.

10K+ gem mint slabbed copies... with a Gem Rate of 90%

But, yeah, let's have another thread about pop control ([I]or one that will devolve into that[/I])

:doh:

I cracker a prizm zion orange ice psa8.5 and it cam back a 10
i also cracked a prizm morant purple wave 8.5 and it came back a 10
so not sure

Remember, perhaps not all people submitting (modern) cards are honestly expecting Gem's out of all of them - hence affecting the talked about Gem Rate. I have submitted knowing full well not to expect a 10, but rather seeking a 9 - pretty much to fill out a minimum submission quantity.

[QUOTE=Above the Rim;17611230]Remember, perhaps not all people submitting (modern) cards are honestly expecting Gem's out of all of them - hence affecting the talked about Gem Rate. I have submitted knowing full well not to expect a 10, but rather seeking a 9 - pretty much to fill out a minimum submission quantity.[/QUOTE]


I've done the same, especially on cards that even in a 9 will still easily clear my original cost and grade fee.

Here's the population of 1968 Topps both prior to August 2021 and for the past month. Previously, two thirds of all cards were graded 8/9/10. This past month, two thirds of all cards were graded at a 6 or lower.


We can argue all day long about the reason for the grading result differences, but we can't argue that the grades coming out are significantly lower.