I've often wondered if certain graders at PSA are responsible for certain years/brands/popular cards, etc. Like is there one grader who has every single 1989 Upper Deck KGJ card come across his/her desk to keep it consistent(ly tough)? If this is true, could it be that one grader specialized in OPC cards and has as little more lenient of an eye? Just a thought.
I have a 1975 Topps Mini Jose Cruz that I believe is flawless, 9 at worse, there are no 10's. I got a 7, my LCS has a 8 in their case. We compared the 2 and it wasn't even close. Of course when you talk to PSA they can't / won't tell you why it was graded that way. My suggestion was, if you can take a pic of the card, you can put in a brief note saying what the defect is. But then again it would hold them to standards and not POP control.
Thanks for sharing that Jason. It's so hard to say what grade a card should get...it's subjective and personal. But yes, there is a lack of explanation and accountability from PSA. Then you have the issue of older certifications where the grading standards were looser and those cards would not get that grade today. My friend was pointing out the '54 Banks rookie, PSA 10 that Nat Turner has. That would not be a 10 today with an obvious defect in the corner. But PSA is not going to grade anymore 10's for that card, no matter how perfect they are. So we're stuck in an unfair situation for collectors.
PSA manipulates the market. I would be shocked if they didnt get kickbacks from the major dealers. Let us remember. PSA misgraded the most valuable card in the hobby.
It also piques my curiosity as to who those belong to more than how they were graded?? Sadly the third party grading companies are susceptible to corruption and greed even at low levels. i am glad to see guys like you that see something off and look into it and call things out. Keep up the great work and videos!!!
Thanks! The only 10 that is public is the one in the video. That currently belongs to PSA CEO Nat Turner. I don't believe he got the card graded. It has an older certification number, meaning it was graded many years ago. I did attempt to reconstruct the original submission, but there was nothing out of the ordinary with it. I don't know the certification number of the other OPC Ryan. It doesn't have any public sales.
I went into the PSA submission records of the one 10 that we have the cert number for. I didn't find anything shady, as I often have when these high dollar cards were submitted to PSA. (see the PSA "Only 10's" Club video) My own thought when I first saw it was that these cards were graded a long time ago, the OPC's weren't seen as particularly valuable relative to Topps, so PSA was more willing to grant a 10 to those cards. But the comments in the video suggest there the material of the cards could be a factor. But with PSA I would never discount the behind the scenes rationale of controlling the pop.
Another great video! My belief is that PSA is more flexible with the whiting of the edges of the OPC cards since they are known to have rough cuts. So, if an OPC card has rough edges from the factory or if they are worn from handling, PSA sees them as the same.
Read a piece that quoted Joe Orlando(former PSA Poobah) saying that all card issues were graded contextually in a way that took into account when and how they were manufactured. I thought this made sense at the time, but it's pretty clear that PSA has abandoned that idea of late as several fellow collectors and I are seeing lower grades on vintage cards consistently. A possible counter explanation from a collector who has been at this(in high volume) for a long time is that PSA has always been erratic in applying their standards and the recent increase in business and volume just provides more examples. Thanks for the vid!
Thanks for the comment Ken! I am also hearing/seeing how PSA has gotten a lot tougher in grading vintage over the past year or so. It is frustrating to collectors as these older graded cards are out there, over graded, while it seems PSA has "shut off" the high grades for other deserving cards.
I have always understood that OPC cards were cut by wire versus a guillotine which, in addition to the composition of the stock, is why they are known to have rough edges. Grading companies seem to take this into account as many higher-grade examples have the rough cuts. Those black borders are so delicate that it's not surprising to me at all that a PSA 10 1971 Ryan doesn't exist. Excellent content as always!
Thanks, the consensus from the experts in the comments is that OPC used a different card stock and cutting method that PSA is much more tolerant about.
Thanks, the consensus from the experts in the comments is that OPC used a different card stock and cutting method that PSA is much more tolerant about.
If you're familiar with the type of cardboard that Topps and OPC used back then, the Topps cardboard is actually a little bit thinner and chips much more easily than the OPC cardboard. The OPC cardboard does have a lot rougher edges than Topps, but it looks like PSA didn't take that into consideration based on what that Aaron looks like, with that very rough right side of the card. Topps actually started using lesser quality cardboard in 1971 and finally started using better quality in 1992.
@@vintagecardcurator You're welcome. As a Canadian who bought plenty of Topps and OPC cards during the '70s and '80s and beyond, I'm very familiar with those cards.
I don't know the certification number of the 2nd card...there have been no public sales, or photographs of it. I can't research that one. The one in the video belongs to PSA CEO Nat Turner. I traced the certification number and worked on recreating the original submission form to PSA. I didn't see anything unusual in it. I don't think there is anything shady about it, as I often see with other high grades of important cards. Thanks for the comment Jim!
You present an underlying argument here. Should PSA take into account how they have previously graded versions of the card in question, or grade each card separately.
That's been the theme of a number of my videos about population control of key cards. I would say that issue should be considered in any discussion of how they grade these cards. When I have taken exhaustive looks into the objective data from their pop reports, it's obvious that they are controlling the population of high grade examples of important cards. I have argued that each card should be graded objectively, without consideration to what has been done in the past or the potential value of the grade.
Keith, I always thought PSA went easier on OPC because of how they were cut? It is a very interesting though. I wonder if any of the same holds true for 69 with all of its centering issues? Thanks as always.
That is pretty interesting. Just a guess, but is it possible that there was a lot more left of unopened packs of the Canadian version? Or that it was on a part of the sheet where it got a better cut than the American version? I would love to get a look up close and personal with these 10's. Maybe they have a different grading scale for these than the American ones.
even as a kid, I knew o-pee-chee was a much cheaper product. you could feel it. and theyre a canadian product that explains why its trash. but to have a higher psa 10 rate is mind-boggling, and may be a much larger piece of evidence towards PSA's subjectivity than we realize.
Great content, Keith. I will say, I believe that OPC has superior card stock, better registration, color. This goes all the way back, I believe, to world wide gum. Despite their rough cuts, that they are so known for, I think OPC, generally, is a superior card. Just me.
@@vintagecardcurator I am sure that you can do a lengthy video on graded trading cards that were professionally cut from full sheets. You should contact PSA, BGS, SGC etc about these types of cards.
I feel, because you ultimately have humans being the final vote on grades ... you might have people at PSA that (maybe in the past or now too) been experts in O-pee-chee and those cards sent to that department ... they then being a little less hard on the grades ... being more liberal with the 10's
That's crazy. Everyone knows that OPC had way less QC. The edges were always rough and the centering is constantly atrocious. If you ask me, it sure seems like these grades are intentional.
I have a 1966 O-Pee-Chee Mickey Mantle Graded a 9 mint (OC) ... There is only 2 graded higher.... Any idea what I should ask for it? I bought it through PWCC the same week they were banned from eBay....
Sell it at auction and see what people are willing to pay for it. Put a reserve of whatever minimum price you're willing to take for it. Probably something around what you paid for it, I guess.
It's hard to set a value like that for something that has a low pop. I would look to see if there are any sales figures for '65 and '67 PSA 9 (OC). Also, many consider the OC to be similar to a two grade downgrade. You could also research what the PSA 7 OPC '66 Mantles are going for. May give you a range.
The OPC cards submitted that obtained a PSA 10 were better cards is a simple answer to your question - That is less speculative than the percentage game explained in this video - why should Gem rate be the same, less, or more across OPC vs Topps - ignore brand, cards are graded, not brand - don't use data to imply bias - cards submitted are what is judged, not how good or bad a brand is condition-wise - there may be grading bias, but basically the data says what people know and cherrypicking examples is kind of not helpful to ferret out what is implied😄 - 1971 baseball (OPC or Topss) - damn tough to get a PSA 10
@@sextonskentuckycardboard5435 my point was comparing Topps to OPC 1971 baseball is not definitive to PSA 10 Pop control - unless someone examined each and every card, the percentages are irrelevant - does it appear questionable, maybe, but percentages between A & B do not demonstrate population control - maybe the OPC cards submitted were of better quality - I didn't see any info to indicate what the POP 9 counts between A & B were as a percentage or did I miss that?
I have heard that before years ago that licensing an outsourcing to OPC as typically cards were made on cheaper stock but moreover when PSA offers 10 grades more often than Topps it can surely be attributed to attracting Canadian business from across the border case in point look at Gretzky Topps vs. OPC et, al.
I'm [ SORRY ] , but to ME any O - PEE - CHEE card that [ HAS ] a rough border is NOT a 10 , OR any were close ! It has a flaw on it ! Some of these has ROUGH cuts on 2 to 3 sides to boot ! I just DO NOT get it ! , they will down grade a card at 60 / 40 centering , BUT any card that has a ROUGH border OR more then 1 side , gets a PASS ! NOT , in my book .
But as an OPC collector myself the rough cuts are utterly amazing, even so, the rougher the cut the better. As an example, take a look at 1980 OPC Ozzie Smith.
That’s super interesting. Love your sleuthing on this. I don’t have an expert opinion here. But my best guess is that they randomly established a different standard for o pee chee cards and referred to arbitrary standard that was accidentally established to grade the o pee chee cards 10s at a higher rate. I am very interested to know what you think on this.
After reading the comments here I think that PSA applies a different standard to OPC and you could argue they overgrade them. Dean's mentions PSA's "liberal" grading of OPC, but I wasn't sure what he meant by that when I made the video. It does appear to me now that PSA does not count those issues against the OPC cards as they came that way out of a pack. So I don't think it was an accident or arbitrary. It seems intentional (at the time). But now they are left with this situation, where you have PSA 10 OPC cards that don't look as good as less grade Topps examples. But PSA not explaining this on their website, in their own description of the set, is very curious. It does make me wonder if they are being consistent or even know what they are doing with these cards.
I’m working on a new video. Been researching it for a couple months. I think this one is going to blow a lot of people away. Should be done within a couple weeks. Hang in there and thanks for asking!
Fascinating research. Only explanation is PSA is intentionally keeping the Topps numbers down by being much tougher graders on those over O-Pee-Chee. Personally, I think the backs of the 1971 O-Pee-Chee cards look much better than the Topps.
The OPC Gretzky rookie 10 is a good example, they went easy on it; the rough cut is factored in before grading. The Topps Ryan rookie 10 has an OC back, personally; I'd give it an 8. I have an HGA 8 (cracked to be signed, will see what PSA rates it) with a similar back and a SGC 5 (cracked, signed; being graded now) that is centered front/back and I say should be an 8.5 (only flaw is slight edging on back.) They don't go easy on the 71 Topps because pack fresh in 1971 the cards were sharp and clean.
The same pattern hold true with SGC: 71 OPC (910 total, 4 tens, 70 nines); 71 Topps (18779 total, 7 tens, 6 nine-fives, 415 nines). The submission rate for topps is 20x of opc. The NINE-PLUS rate is over 3.5x higher on the OPC (8.13% versus 2.28%). My order of explanation: (1) Opc roughcut not penalised by graders; (2) Pop control of 1971 Topps; (3) Possibly more unsold product of OPC, resulting in less wear from kids playing with the cards; (4) possibly better OPC paper stock for this year; (5) more interest in grading Topps cards regardless of condition, resulting in a lower average condition of graded cards (i.e, set building).
You said '(3) Possibly more unsold product of OPC, resulting in less wear from kids playing with the cards'. This sums it up. There's NO REASON to expect that two different brands of card should be graded the same, on average. It's a moronic premise to start with.
OPC is given a little leeway due to their poorer quality. For my money, OPC is far more rare and desirable, but I am biased as I heavily collect Gary Carter.
Thanks for the comment. I think that is the explanation in the Dean's article, that PSA is "liberal" with grading those cards. I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but it makes sense now.
PSA gonna PSA. Great video, but...yeah. Just another disappointment in the long line of questionable things we already know about PSA. I enjoy a properly graded vintage card in a nice slab still, but my increasing laundry list of problems I have with the TPG's in theory looms large.
@@vintagecardcurator I will be honest, my disdain for them and slabs of all types is perhaps at an all-time high. I have found myself enjoying raw cards I can inspect first and then buy at my LCS lately. That's my new preference. I will still buy graded over a certain dollar amount if I'm buying online, but I'm over the whole notion of things in my collection "having to" be graded. I understand from an investment perspective those who would disagree with me, but that's where I'm at.
I think your fundamental premise seems backwards. Why would you expect grading stats from two different cards to be the same? They're manufactured differently, I assume were distributed differently... for all I know one brand left the printing presses with bent corners. Hell, some sports trading cards were distributed INSIDE LOAVES OF BREAD, while others were carefully packaged and sold in specialty shops. There can be so much variance between brands. Why don't you start by explaining whether a PSA 10 means 'in absolutely flawless condition', or whether a 10 means 'the best examples of what remains on the market'. I.e. a 10 could be bent in half, if only a dozen cards are known to exist, and 11 of them are wadded up into balls. Instead, you started with the ASSUMPTION that both brands 'should' be graded at approximately the same rates... WHY? What is one single reason that should be the case? Another way of thinking about this misuse of stats would be to compile batting averages for every MLB player with the first name of Brandon. Or whatever. Do every name. Then choose your fantasy team every year, based on a players expected batting average, or ERA, or whatever, due to his first name. Just because you can make a statistic of something doesn't mean you can extrapolate anything useful out of it.
I don't have experience with these cards so I was going off the explanations provided by the experts who do. They don't say these cards are completely different, as you have asserted. I don't think you have presented any evidence that these are different cards. Apparently the paper stock was different, as were the cutting methods. Does that make them completely different cards? No one else is saying that. Do those differences account for the differences in the grades? The experts don't seem to even agree on that. Wouldn't you think PSA would provide an explanation on their website explaining this? It's not a settled issue.
Is that an actual pic of the 1971 OPC Aaron? That right edge looks incredibly ragged, and the corners on both the top and lower right look terrible. I'd give that a PSA 6...at best.
Yes, that is the actual card. The only photo I subbed was the second PSA 10 OPC Ryan. I cannot locate the certification number or a photo of that card. It appears that PSA does not count the rough cut edges against the OPC cards as they came that way from the factory.
Not sure why you are trying to make this scientific. It's either a 10 or it isn't. Who cares about percentages or ratios. They mean nothing. If 100 cards are graded and 1 10 is given, what does that mean. It means out of those 100 cards 1 was a 10. Star cards got touched way more by kids. Out of 100 cards submitted of "Joe Shit TheRag" 75 were 10s. Makes sense. He was a bum player so you touch it once or you clipped it to your bike wheel or used it to flip for cards. Stop trying to make vintage cards scientific. There is absolutely nothing scientific about vintage cards. FFS.
Don't know. Now under nate psa new owner it's going to be interesting and especially fantastic in another year 2023 start printing card's. In my opinion I'm not truly sure about fantastic doing things right and septic about card grading companies working with each other. How much closer do we need to watch out for trimmed vintage baseball, basketball, hockey and football card's plus morden being altered by autograph cleaning or card's leaving by the back door of fantastic and weighing products packs to find the hits. Fantastic controlling the hobby isn't a very good thing for the consumer us.
There is nothing "independent" or "third party" about PSA and other grading companies.
Keith, Great as always!!!!
I've often wondered if certain graders at PSA are responsible for certain years/brands/popular cards, etc. Like is there one grader who has every single 1989 Upper Deck KGJ card come across his/her desk to keep it consistent(ly tough)? If this is true, could it be that one grader specialized in OPC cards and has as little more lenient of an eye? Just a thought.
Bottom line. PSA is corrupt
I have a 1975 Topps Mini Jose Cruz that I believe is flawless, 9 at worse, there are no 10's. I got a 7, my LCS has a 8 in their case. We compared the 2 and it wasn't even close. Of course when you talk to PSA they can't / won't tell you why it was graded that way. My suggestion was, if you can take a pic of the card, you can put in a brief note saying what the defect is. But then again it would hold them to standards and not POP control.
Thanks for sharing that Jason. It's so hard to say what grade a card should get...it's subjective and personal. But yes, there is a lack of explanation and accountability from PSA.
Then you have the issue of older certifications where the grading standards were looser and those cards would not get that grade today. My friend was pointing out the '54 Banks rookie, PSA 10 that Nat Turner has. That would not be a 10 today with an obvious defect in the corner. But PSA is not going to grade anymore 10's for that card, no matter how perfect they are. So we're stuck in an unfair situation for collectors.
modern card in same condition gets a 5 or 6
Exchange rates. Canadian 10 = American 8.
LOL
Oooooo!!! I know! PSA and all other card grading services are dog water.
PSA manipulates the market. I would be shocked if they didnt get kickbacks from the major dealers. Let us remember. PSA misgraded the most valuable card in the hobby.
It also piques my curiosity as to who those belong to more than how they were graded?? Sadly the third party grading companies are susceptible to corruption and greed even at low levels. i am glad to see guys like you that see something off and look into it and call things out. Keep up the great work and videos!!!
Thanks! The only 10 that is public is the one in the video. That currently belongs to PSA CEO Nat Turner. I don't believe he got the card graded. It has an older certification number, meaning it was graded many years ago. I did attempt to reconstruct the original submission, but there was nothing out of the ordinary with it.
I don't know the certification number of the other OPC Ryan. It doesn't have any public sales.
The right person submits get 10s. If a normal person submits we’d get 9s. (Good ole boys club PSA)
I went into the PSA submission records of the one 10 that we have the cert number for. I didn't find anything shady, as I often have when these high dollar cards were submitted to PSA. (see the PSA "Only 10's" Club video)
My own thought when I first saw it was that these cards were graded a long time ago, the OPC's weren't seen as particularly valuable relative to Topps, so PSA was more willing to grant a 10 to those cards. But the comments in the video suggest there the material of the cards could be a factor. But with PSA I would never discount the behind the scenes rationale of controlling the pop.
You continue to educate......and to dazzle with your research and perspective. This is why you are MUST WATCH for me. Thank you for producing.
Thanks Chuck! I appreciate the feedback. I'm working on a cool project now and hope to have it out in a week or two.
We need more videos and more Cards of the week 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Thanks, I am working on some new stuff and just released a video tonight!
Good stuff
this was very interestig thank you
Thanks Ray!
Another great video! My belief is that PSA is more flexible with the whiting of the edges of the OPC cards since they are known to have rough cuts. So, if an OPC card has rough edges from the factory or if they are worn from handling, PSA sees them as the same.
That seems to be what the consensus has been in the comments too. Thanks for the comment!
Read a piece that quoted Joe Orlando(former PSA Poobah) saying that all card issues were graded contextually in a way that took into account when and how they were manufactured. I thought this made sense at the time, but it's pretty clear that PSA has abandoned that idea of late as several fellow collectors and I are seeing lower grades on vintage cards consistently. A possible counter explanation from a collector who has been at this(in high volume) for a long time is that PSA has always been erratic in applying their standards and the recent increase in business and volume just provides more examples. Thanks for the vid!
Thanks for the comment Ken! I am also hearing/seeing how PSA has gotten a lot tougher in grading vintage over the past year or so. It is frustrating to collectors as these older graded cards are out there, over graded, while it seems PSA has "shut off" the high grades for other deserving cards.
I have always understood that OPC cards were cut by wire versus a guillotine which, in addition to the composition of the stock, is why they are known to have rough edges. Grading companies seem to take this into account as many higher-grade examples have the rough cuts. Those black borders are so delicate that it's not surprising to me at all that a PSA 10 1971 Ryan doesn't exist. Excellent content as always!
Thanks for sharing that. Good information to consider.
Wow this is very interesting. I didn't know the numbers on these. Thats crazy. Has to be a card stock factor I would guess. Great video
Thanks, the consensus from the experts in the comments is that OPC used a different card stock and cutting method that PSA is much more tolerant about.
Thanks, the consensus from the experts in the comments is that OPC used a different card stock and cutting method that PSA is much more tolerant about.
If you're familiar with the type of cardboard that Topps and OPC used back then, the Topps cardboard is actually a little bit thinner and chips much more easily than the OPC cardboard. The OPC cardboard does have a lot rougher edges than Topps, but it looks like PSA didn't take that into consideration based on what that Aaron looks like, with that very rough right side of the card. Topps actually started using lesser quality cardboard in 1971 and finally started using better quality in 1992.
Thanks, I couldn't find much online comparing the O-Pee-Chee and Topps cards back in 1971.
@@vintagecardcurator You're welcome. As a Canadian who bought plenty of Topps and OPC cards during the '70s and '80s and beyond, I'm very familiar with those cards.
find out who got the 2 gem mint 10s and there is a very good chance you will have your answer.
I can't find the certification number of the 2nd Ryan. I looked into the first one but didn't see anything unusual in the submission order.
This is interesting. I wonder who submitted those OPC cards that received 10s. I bet it wasn’t a regular guy like you or I. Another great video Keith!
That is an interesting angle that I hadn't initially considered.
First thing that came to my mind is who the submitter was. Betting it was a big time dealer and the card made way through someone like pwcc or prob
I don't know the certification number of the 2nd card...there have been no public sales, or photographs of it. I can't research that one.
The one in the video belongs to PSA CEO Nat Turner. I traced the certification number and worked on recreating the original submission form to PSA. I didn't see anything unusual in it. I don't think there is anything shady about it, as I often see with other high grades of important cards.
Thanks for the comment Jim!
I'm going with the way the black ink adheres to the different cardboard type when comparing the two.
could be, yes. But interesting that the "experts" don't have a consistent answer as to why.
Another fantastic video. Always amazing content.
Thanks!
Queen had a song in 89 called.. "Scandal"! Lol
You present an underlying argument here. Should PSA take into account how they have previously graded versions of the card in question, or grade each card separately.
That's been the theme of a number of my videos about population control of key cards. I would say that issue should be considered in any discussion of how they grade these cards. When I have taken exhaustive looks into the objective data from their pop reports, it's obvious that they are controlling the population of high grade examples of important cards.
I have argued that each card should be graded objectively, without consideration to what has been done in the past or the potential value of the grade.
Maybe Canadian kids didn't play with cards like American kids did.
Keith, I always thought PSA went easier on OPC because of how they were cut? It is a very interesting though. I wonder if any of the same holds true for 69 with all of its centering issues? Thanks as always.
I think this is part of the answer. The OPC "rough cut" is generally not considered a printing defect by PSA.
That could be...the Dean's page mentions PSA is more liberal with OPC...maybe that is what he meant.
That is pretty interesting. Just a guess, but is it possible that there was a lot more left of unopened packs of the Canadian version? Or that it was on a part of the sheet where it got a better cut than the American version? I would love to get a look up close and personal with these 10's. Maybe they have a different grading scale for these than the American ones.
Those are good theories!
even as a kid, I knew o-pee-chee was a much cheaper product. you could feel it.
and theyre a canadian product that explains why its trash. but to have a higher psa 10 rate is mind-boggling, and may be a much larger piece of evidence towards PSA's subjectivity than we realize.
REA is auctioning off the other PSA 10 OPC Ryan tonight (12/3/23)
Great content, Keith. I will say, I believe that OPC has superior card stock, better registration, color. This goes all the way back, I believe, to world wide gum. Despite their rough cuts, that they are so known for, I think OPC, generally, is a superior card. Just me.
Thanks George! Interesting how there's not universal agreement about the card stock and quality of the printing on this set.
Those opcs were cut with cords and have a lot of rough cuts. Psa grades these on a curve and ignores the factory rough cuts.
Yes, thank you Joseph. That seems to be the consensus in the comments too.
Randomness likely.
Maybe they were cut from full OPC sheets?
Maybe?
@@vintagecardcurator I am sure that you can do a lengthy video on graded trading cards that were professionally cut from full sheets. You should contact PSA, BGS, SGC etc about these types of cards.
I feel, because you ultimately have humans being the final vote on grades ... you might have people at PSA that (maybe in the past or now too) been experts in O-pee-chee and those cards sent to that department ... they then being a little less hard on the grades ... being more liberal with the 10's
yes, definitely, could be. I find it weird that we don't really get a solid answer from PSA.
That's crazy. Everyone knows that OPC had way less QC. The edges were always rough and the centering is constantly atrocious. If you ask me, it sure seems like these grades are intentional.
Ask me , sounds like GOOG OLD PSA ! Get a way with murder a few times & just keeps on feeding the pig , all the way to there BANK !
@@robertd.7060 Or to the sheriff like in Fried Green Tomatoes.
I have a 1966 O-Pee-Chee Mickey Mantle Graded a 9 mint (OC) ... There is only 2 graded higher.... Any idea what I should ask for it? I bought it through PWCC the same week they were banned from eBay....
Sell it at auction and see what people are willing to pay for it.
Put a reserve of whatever minimum price you're willing to take for it. Probably something around what you paid for it, I guess.
It's hard to set a value like that for something that has a low pop. I would look to see if there are any sales figures for '65 and '67 PSA 9 (OC). Also, many consider the OC to be similar to a two grade downgrade. You could also research what the PSA 7 OPC '66 Mantles are going for. May give you a range.
The OPC cards submitted that obtained a PSA 10 were better cards is a simple answer to your question - That is less speculative than the percentage game explained in this video - why should Gem rate be the same, less, or more across OPC vs Topps - ignore brand, cards are graded, not brand - don't use data to imply bias - cards submitted are what is judged, not how good or bad a brand is condition-wise - there may be grading bias, but basically the data says what people know and cherrypicking examples is kind of not helpful to ferret out what is implied😄 - 1971 baseball (OPC or Topss) - damn tough to get a PSA 10
So you dont think there is POP control going on? If so then there is bias, Try to get a PSA 10 Griffey Rookie, Rickey Henderson rookie?
@@sextonskentuckycardboard5435 my point was comparing Topps to OPC 1971 baseball is not definitive to PSA 10 Pop control - unless someone examined each and every card, the percentages are irrelevant - does it appear questionable, maybe, but percentages between A & B do not demonstrate population control - maybe the OPC cards submitted were of better quality - I didn't see any info to indicate what the POP 9 counts between A & B were as a percentage or did I miss that?
I have heard that before years ago that licensing an outsourcing to OPC as typically cards were made on cheaper stock but moreover when PSA offers 10 grades more often than Topps it can surely be attributed to attracting Canadian business from across the border case in point look at Gretzky Topps vs. OPC et, al.
I'm [ SORRY ] , but to ME any O - PEE - CHEE card that [ HAS ] a rough border is NOT a 10 , OR any were close ! It has a flaw on it ! Some of these has ROUGH cuts on 2 to 3 sides to boot ! I just DO NOT get it ! , they will down grade a card at 60 / 40 centering , BUT any card that has a ROUGH border OR more then 1 side , gets a PASS ! NOT , in my book .
But as an OPC collector myself the rough cuts are utterly amazing, even so, the rougher the cut the better. As an example, take a look at 1980 OPC Ozzie Smith.
That’s super interesting. Love your sleuthing on this.
I don’t have an expert opinion here. But my best guess is that they randomly established a different standard for o pee chee cards and referred to arbitrary standard that was accidentally established to grade the o pee chee cards 10s at a higher rate.
I am very interested to know what you think on this.
After reading the comments here I think that PSA applies a different standard to OPC and you could argue they overgrade them. Dean's mentions PSA's "liberal" grading of OPC, but I wasn't sure what he meant by that when I made the video. It does appear to me now that PSA does not count those issues against the OPC cards as they came that way out of a pack.
So I don't think it was an accident or arbitrary. It seems intentional (at the time). But now they are left with this situation, where you have PSA 10 OPC cards that don't look as good as less grade Topps examples.
But PSA not explaining this on their website, in their own description of the set, is very curious. It does make me wonder if they are being consistent or even know what they are doing with these cards.
Where you at??
I’m working on a new video. Been researching it for a couple months. I think this one is going to blow a lot of people away. Should be done within a couple weeks.
Hang in there and thanks for asking!
@@vintagecardcurator thanks! You're the best in the business at what you do. Can't wait!
Fascinating research. Only explanation is PSA is intentionally keeping the Topps numbers down by being much tougher graders on those over O-Pee-Chee. Personally, I think the backs of the 1971 O-Pee-Chee cards look much better than the Topps.
The OPC Gretzky rookie 10 is a good example, they went easy on it; the rough cut is factored in before grading. The Topps Ryan rookie 10 has an OC back, personally; I'd give it an 8. I have an HGA 8 (cracked to be signed, will see what PSA rates it) with a similar back and a SGC 5 (cracked, signed; being graded now) that is centered front/back and I say should be an 8.5 (only flaw is slight edging on back.) They don't go easy on the 71 Topps because pack fresh in 1971 the cards were sharp and clean.
Thanks Bob...that's what others are saying too, the rough cuts are not a factor in OPC grading. I didn't realize that.
I bet another OPC 10 doesn't exist for another 5 years.
I would be surprised if they ever gave another one. There seems to be some cards that PSA has decided to "shut off the 10's."
Canadian kids obviously take better care of their cards.
The same pattern hold true with SGC: 71 OPC (910 total, 4 tens, 70 nines); 71 Topps (18779 total, 7 tens, 6 nine-fives, 415 nines). The submission rate for topps is 20x of opc. The NINE-PLUS rate is over 3.5x higher on the OPC (8.13% versus 2.28%).
My order of explanation: (1) Opc roughcut not penalised by graders; (2) Pop control of 1971 Topps; (3) Possibly more unsold product of OPC, resulting in less wear from kids playing with the cards; (4) possibly better OPC paper stock for this year; (5) more interest in grading Topps cards regardless of condition, resulting in a lower average condition of graded cards (i.e, set building).
You said '(3) Possibly more unsold product of OPC, resulting in less wear from kids playing with the cards'.
This sums it up. There's NO REASON to expect that two different brands of card should be graded the same, on average. It's a moronic premise to start with.
OPC is given a little leeway due to their poorer quality. For my money, OPC is far more rare and desirable, but I am biased as I heavily collect Gary Carter.
Thanks for the comment. I think that is the explanation in the Dean's article, that PSA is "liberal" with grading those cards. I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but it makes sense now.
Perhaps a grader with a Canadian preference?
Clearly PSA doesn't hold the rough cuts against OPC cards, just looking at the 71 Aaron in a 10 confirms that.
Great point, thanks!
You need to end these PSA videos with the world famous slogan by the ex CEO of Collector's Universe...."NEVER GET CHEATED!"
ha, I know! His legacy lives on unfortunately.
PSA gonna PSA. Great video, but...yeah. Just another disappointment in the long line of questionable things we already know about PSA. I enjoy a properly graded vintage card in a nice slab still, but my increasing laundry list of problems I have with the TPG's in theory looms large.
I also can't divorce PSA's past behavior from the grading of these cards.
@@vintagecardcurator I will be honest, my disdain for them and slabs of all types is perhaps at an all-time high. I have found myself enjoying raw cards I can inspect first and then buy at my LCS lately. That's my new preference. I will still buy graded over a certain dollar amount if I'm buying online, but I'm over the whole notion of things in my collection "having to" be graded. I understand from an investment perspective those who would disagree with me, but that's where I'm at.
Because they are known to have flaws. Thats why
can you be more specific?
@@vintagecardcurator i can't defend psa and their pop control. But maybe they allow some variance on a known flawed set like opeechee
I think your fundamental premise seems backwards. Why would you expect grading stats from two different cards to be the same? They're manufactured differently, I assume were distributed differently... for all I know one brand left the printing presses with bent corners. Hell, some sports trading cards were distributed INSIDE LOAVES OF BREAD, while others were carefully packaged and sold in specialty shops.
There can be so much variance between brands. Why don't you start by explaining whether a PSA 10 means 'in absolutely flawless condition', or whether a 10 means 'the best examples of what remains on the market'. I.e. a 10 could be bent in half, if only a dozen cards are known to exist, and 11 of them are wadded up into balls.
Instead, you started with the ASSUMPTION that both brands 'should' be graded at approximately the same rates... WHY? What is one single reason that should be the case?
Another way of thinking about this misuse of stats would be to compile batting averages for every MLB player with the first name of Brandon. Or whatever. Do every name. Then choose your fantasy team every year, based on a players expected batting average, or ERA, or whatever, due to his first name. Just because you can make a statistic of something doesn't mean you can extrapolate anything useful out of it.
I don't have experience with these cards so I was going off the explanations provided by the experts who do. They don't say these cards are completely different, as you have asserted. I don't think you have presented any evidence that these are different cards. Apparently the paper stock was different, as were the cutting methods. Does that make them completely different cards? No one else is saying that. Do those differences account for the differences in the grades? The experts don't seem to even agree on that. Wouldn't you think PSA would provide an explanation on their website explaining this? It's not a settled issue.
Is that an actual pic of the 1971 OPC Aaron? That right edge looks incredibly ragged, and the corners on both the top and lower right look terrible. I'd give that a PSA 6...at best.
Yes, that is the actual card. The only photo I subbed was the second PSA 10 OPC Ryan. I cannot locate the certification number or a photo of that card.
It appears that PSA does not count the rough cut edges against the OPC cards as they came that way from the factory.
Not sure why you are trying to make this scientific. It's either a 10 or it isn't. Who cares about percentages or ratios. They mean nothing. If 100 cards are graded and 1 10 is given, what does that mean. It means out of those 100 cards 1 was a 10. Star cards got touched way more by kids. Out of 100 cards submitted of "Joe Shit TheRag" 75 were 10s. Makes sense. He was a bum player so you touch it once or you clipped it to your bike wheel or used it to flip for cards. Stop trying to make vintage cards scientific. There is absolutely nothing scientific about vintage cards. FFS.
Don't know. Now under nate psa new owner it's going to be interesting and especially fantastic in another year 2023 start printing card's.
In my opinion I'm not truly sure about fantastic doing things right and septic about card grading companies working with each other.
How much closer do we need to watch out for trimmed vintage baseball, basketball, hockey and football card's plus morden being altered by autograph cleaning or card's leaving by the back door of fantastic and weighing products packs to find the hits.
Fantastic controlling the hobby isn't a very good thing for the consumer us.
Turns out Nat Turner owns one of the '71 OPC Ryan 10's.
@@vintagecardcurator wow...unreal
i messaged u on ig i think i just found out this weekend about another psa scandal that nobody knows about