Are BGS 9.5s Ever Surpassing PSA 10s?
Dec 28, 2020 18:32:17 GMT -5
charetard and getthegreg like this
Post by Ghezzi_TCG on Dec 28, 2020 18:32:17 GMT -5
The answer is objectively no and the reason why is (of course) extremely complicated but comes down to one thing in particular (and its painfully obvious looking at people in denial): People want things that say 10 more than they want the hair splitting grade 9.5.
That isn't to say having a 9.5 on your grading scale is bad, it is really irrelevant. What matters is a company's consistency of grading and what submitting parties really want is to know how to get a 10. People neither submit a card hoping for less than a 10, nor would turn one away, ever.
Of course casing and aesthetics are extremely important, and whole collections are predicated on OCD things like having all of the same cases, however I think what drives value (or what collector's derive value in) is not just that aesthetic quality but also a company's market appeal (driven by vanity/envy) and their consistency (quality/condition). So when you buy a PSA 10 is it really a PSA 10? How many times out of 100 is it 'weak'? This extends to every company... BGS, CGC, WATA, etc.. How many times is the condition poorly assessed and on either end of the spectrum?
You can be a BGS guy. You can be a PSA guy. This is not the substantive argument, and arguing the dogma is really poor logic since each suffers from some unique problems and all from much of the same. The biggest issue is simple.. Humans grade cards. Humans program robots to grade cards. Humans run the world. Humans are imperfect. The world is imperfect. By transitive property, everything is imperfect. Oh well. Thanks Kant.
So there is a bit more here to dig up for everyone. Why are things structured this way: BGS 10 > PSA 10 > BGS 9.5++ > BGS 9.5+ > Quad 9.5 > 9.5 no subs....
This is not an attempt to be counterculture, or to stand in line like a pedestrian lacking creativity. The math has already been done for you. It is obvious and should be (painfully so). But for those of you still in disbelief I can explain further.
Let's put the BGS 10 at the center of the world. It is quantifiably better than a PSA 10 in most ways simply because a PSA 10 is like a BGS card with no subs. You simply don't know how good of a 10 is was when the grader looked at it. That doesn't mean that some could cross (or not) to BGS 10. It doesn't mean anything circumstantially. It simply means that the card was assessed across four areas and that it came back a 10 in at least three of those four areas. People like this and again its a 10. It is nice, orderly and nearly perfect. PSA 10s are the same way, and the only reason they rank below is because PSA's metrics aren't intrinsically printed on the holder. If they were, could it not be the exact same? Possibly. But in the real world things are not that way.
9.5s are by the same logic inferior to PSA 10s. People prefer strong grades obviously, and obviously all cards are different. This is self evident and requires no explanation. There are good grades and bad grades all over the market across all grading services. To quantify the entire population into a mean number and assess each grading company objectively is impossible, so why are we really trying? Well, because we are all stubborn fucks.
That aside, 9.5s are simply put not 10s and should be generally treated as such. Yes there are always exceptions. This is a pedestrian argument. We know graders are imperfect - they are human. This was already explored above. If there is a stronger 9.5 it should be treated as such. Like with all things, cards and grades fall on a spectrum that (like a ruler) is infinitely complex but allows us glimpses of insanely complicated and infinitely complex metrics with these wild things called integers in mathematics (e.g. 9 or 9.5 or 10.) That 9.5 simply means that the card fell beneath 10 and ahead of 9.
So by what faulty logic should any 9.5 ever be treated as a superior specimen to a 10? Of course aesthetics is one thing, but to leverage logical fallacies and unquantifiable averages to reach a conclusion that falls short of even the most basic analysis belies the fact that PSA 10s are 10s and BGS 9.5s are not. Were it possible to cross every 9.5 to a PSA 10 only the most stubborn collectors would resist on the basis of dogma alone.
And so, regardless of circumstance, people would choose to have 10s as pristine or gem examples rather than cards that are not.
Disclaimer: I am not responsible for your hurt feelings.
That isn't to say having a 9.5 on your grading scale is bad, it is really irrelevant. What matters is a company's consistency of grading and what submitting parties really want is to know how to get a 10. People neither submit a card hoping for less than a 10, nor would turn one away, ever.
Of course casing and aesthetics are extremely important, and whole collections are predicated on OCD things like having all of the same cases, however I think what drives value (or what collector's derive value in) is not just that aesthetic quality but also a company's market appeal (driven by vanity/envy) and their consistency (quality/condition). So when you buy a PSA 10 is it really a PSA 10? How many times out of 100 is it 'weak'? This extends to every company... BGS, CGC, WATA, etc.. How many times is the condition poorly assessed and on either end of the spectrum?
You can be a BGS guy. You can be a PSA guy. This is not the substantive argument, and arguing the dogma is really poor logic since each suffers from some unique problems and all from much of the same. The biggest issue is simple.. Humans grade cards. Humans program robots to grade cards. Humans run the world. Humans are imperfect. The world is imperfect. By transitive property, everything is imperfect. Oh well. Thanks Kant.
So there is a bit more here to dig up for everyone. Why are things structured this way: BGS 10 > PSA 10 > BGS 9.5++ > BGS 9.5+ > Quad 9.5 > 9.5 no subs....
This is not an attempt to be counterculture, or to stand in line like a pedestrian lacking creativity. The math has already been done for you. It is obvious and should be (painfully so). But for those of you still in disbelief I can explain further.
Let's put the BGS 10 at the center of the world. It is quantifiably better than a PSA 10 in most ways simply because a PSA 10 is like a BGS card with no subs. You simply don't know how good of a 10 is was when the grader looked at it. That doesn't mean that some could cross (or not) to BGS 10. It doesn't mean anything circumstantially. It simply means that the card was assessed across four areas and that it came back a 10 in at least three of those four areas. People like this and again its a 10. It is nice, orderly and nearly perfect. PSA 10s are the same way, and the only reason they rank below is because PSA's metrics aren't intrinsically printed on the holder. If they were, could it not be the exact same? Possibly. But in the real world things are not that way.
9.5s are by the same logic inferior to PSA 10s. People prefer strong grades obviously, and obviously all cards are different. This is self evident and requires no explanation. There are good grades and bad grades all over the market across all grading services. To quantify the entire population into a mean number and assess each grading company objectively is impossible, so why are we really trying? Well, because we are all stubborn fucks.
That aside, 9.5s are simply put not 10s and should be generally treated as such. Yes there are always exceptions. This is a pedestrian argument. We know graders are imperfect - they are human. This was already explored above. If there is a stronger 9.5 it should be treated as such. Like with all things, cards and grades fall on a spectrum that (like a ruler) is infinitely complex but allows us glimpses of insanely complicated and infinitely complex metrics with these wild things called integers in mathematics (e.g. 9 or 9.5 or 10.) That 9.5 simply means that the card fell beneath 10 and ahead of 9.
So by what faulty logic should any 9.5 ever be treated as a superior specimen to a 10? Of course aesthetics is one thing, but to leverage logical fallacies and unquantifiable averages to reach a conclusion that falls short of even the most basic analysis belies the fact that PSA 10s are 10s and BGS 9.5s are not. Were it possible to cross every 9.5 to a PSA 10 only the most stubborn collectors would resist on the basis of dogma alone.
And so, regardless of circumstance, people would choose to have 10s as pristine or gem examples rather than cards that are not.
Disclaimer: I am not responsible for your hurt feelings.