This isn’t exactly breaking news, but PSA made some under-the-radar changes to its grading standards recently. In particular, PSA tightened up its centering criteria, which lagged against other major graders. A consideration of the implications of this major change is called for, so let’s get to it.
No More 60 / 40 PSA Gem 10
The easiest gem in the industry belongs to PSA due to its too-generous 60/40 gem centering criteria. But the most common response from collectors was that “PSA can’t change its standards–that would invalidate every old grade!” Well, here we are.
The tighter centering requirement trickles down the PSA grading scale: a 9 now requires 60/40 (previous gem criteria); an 8 requires 65/35, and so on.
It’s interesting that they slow-rolled this change. The language used to just state 60/40, period. Then for a while they stated that gem centering was a “range” of 55/45 to 60/40. Then, “approximately 55/45.” And now, they apparently have made the full leap to 55/45.
Obviously, this roll-out was carefully planned. No press release is forthcoming. In contrast, they were very public about other enhancements this past year, as we documented here.
Major Graders Now Aligned
As stated earlier, this change now aligns centering criteria with other major graders. Here is SGC’s “10” criteria with the same 55/45 centering guidelines:
CGC goes with “approximately 55/45” for its language.
So, what about previous grades?
Remember, this isn’t just a change to the PSA 10 standards. It trickles down the scale. So, what impact will this have on previously graded cards–all 100 million of them?? Will the market accept these changes just as quietly as they were rolled out? Only time will tell, but PSA loyalists are historically . . . very loyal. Trimming scandals and backlogs did not phase them, so this likely won’t either.
PSA’s Explanation
I have no first-hand knowledge on this front. There is no official statement to date that I can find. But I have seen plenty of text message screen shots where Collectors CEO Nat Turner explains that this change represents “no change in day-to-day” because “that’s how we’ve been operating for a very long time.” Basically, they are selling this as a language clean-up.
If accurate, this is a shrewd yet shifty response. It answers the “what about previous grades?” question by implying that that standard has been changed in practice for a very long time. No worries folks! At that same time, this claim makes explicit that PSA’s stated criteria, then, have been inaccurate for . . . a very long time. It takes a few minutes to edit a web site. So, why wait “a very long time” to update the criteria to your current standards?
What’s Next?
I have no idea where this goes from here. For example, when is the last time you saw a PSA 4 with a crease? Is this another area where practice and standard are not aligned? Will PSA continue to slow-roll other changes, and if so, how many? What resulting impact will we see on “old grade” slabs? Will the change be similar to the old label / new label slab value trend that struck around COVID-era tightening of standards? Should all graders share a single standard? What is gained by these differences? And how much silent change will the market tolerate?
