Sports card grading is the backbone of the modern collecting hobby. The plastic slab, the coveted numeric grade, the population reports—it all adds up to a market where a single point difference can mean hundreds or thousands of dollars in value. But for all the convenience and trust grading is supposed to bring, there are major problems lurking beneath the surface.

I find myself grading fewer and fewer cards as I get older, and I have been reflecting on why that is. Yes, I do grade most “legacy” cards, for many reasons including insurance and to prepare for eventual sale or inheritance by my kids. The question of whether to grade your cards is both personal and economic, and Cardhound addresses the many issues in this handy guide.

To be clear: this is not an argument against grading. It’s easy to build an case that grading has helped add massive value to the hobby overall–and to your collection. Overall, I believe the true error rate to be very low; consistency to be fairly high; and that in general, grading is an industry full of mostly honest folks doing their best to get it right.

But let’s be honest: card grading is a deeply flawed industry with much room for improvement and a legacy of controversy. Consumers have the power to demand change, but to date, there’s little evidence of forced accountability. While we complain about upcharges, mystery grades, and slow turn times, grading volume continues on an upward trend. From inconsistent grades to lack of transparency and questionable business practices, the cracks in the system are obvious and well-documented.

Here’s a closer look at some of the key issues that every collector should care about:

---

Inconsistency: Same Card, Different Day, Different Grade

If you’ve been in the hobby long enough, you’ve probably heard the stories—or maybe lived them yourself. You send in a card, get a grade back, and something doesn’t sit right. The centering looks solid, the corners are sharp, but the number on the label doesn’t match what your eyes see.

The real kicker? You crack it out and resubmit, only to get a completely different grade. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

This happens across all the big companies—PSA, SGC, Beckett, etc. Dramatic inconsistency within PSA’s or SGC’s own system is both inexcusable and yet unavoidable in any subjective human process. While all grading companies have internal checks and balances in place, there is no large-scale study or evidence to prove internal reliability of grades. AI is likely not a panacea and even if so, is probably not as close as one might think.

These substantial grade differences can occur resubmitting to the same company, or when crossing over to a different one. The latter makes a bit more sense, because different grading companies use different grading scales. That is perhaps a problem in its own right–and one that could be solved easily enough.

Cardhound writes about the crack / resubmit craze here. Here are a couple of crack / resubmit examples from that article (PSA before and SGC after):

The 1989 Griffey Example

This recent video posted by Market Movers details one of the most striking examples of grading inconsistencies I have seen. In this grading experiment, a standard 1989 Upper Deck Griffey goes on the following voyage:

• Beckett 9.5
• SGC Altered / Trimmed
• CGC 9
• PSA 6

SGC is either correct and everyone else got it very wrong, or vice versa. And imagine, if you will, a 1952 Topps Mantle SGC A vs. PSA 6. That’s a lot of money for a varying “opinion.”

Part of the problem is that grading is still, at its core, a human process. Grader experience and fatigue can play huge roles in the outcome. Our look behind the scenes at PSA gives some insight into the sheer volume of cards processed by individual graders.  But when a card can swing from a PSA 7 to a PSA 9 just because it landed on a different grader’s desk, or at a different time, it raises serious questions about what those numbers really mean.

In short: I think we give the numbers way too much credit and validity, both as buyers and sellers. The old saying “buy the card not the grade” has never been more true–but perhaps never has it been any less followed.

---

Lack of Transparency and Accountability

Because grades can swing card values so drastically, grading companies wield enormous influence over the market. That creates the potential for conflicts of interest, whether intentional or not.

Consider this: if a company grades too strictly, they risk angering submitters. If they grade too loosely, they risk eroding the trust in their brand. Both extremes can shift prices in the secondary market, and both can benefit or harm certain players in the industry. In general, the hobby has seen more strict standards enforced from both PSA and SGC in recent years, which casts suspicion on “old grades” from both companies. And PSA recently quietly changed its scale, full stop.

There is no definitive “grading scale” across the hobby, and even PSA’s own stated scale leaves room for interpretation by the individual grader. PSA explains it this way:

         While it’s true that a large part of grading is objective (locating print defects, staining, surface wrinkles, measuring centering, etc.), the other component of grading is somewhat subjective. The best way to define the subjective element is to do so             by posing a question: What will the market accept for this particular issue?

          Again, the vast majority of grading is applied with a basic, objective standard but no one can ignore the small (yet sometimes significant) subjective element. This issue will usually arise when centering and/or eye appeal are in question. For                    example, while most cards fall clearly within the centering guidelines for a particular grade, some cards fall either just within or just outside the printed centering standards. The key point to remember is that the graders reserve the right, based                on the strength or weakness of the eye appeal, to make a judgment call on the grade of a particular card.

The Eye Appeal Problem

Eye appeal is obviously subjective to a degree, and different graders will undoubtedly weight aspects differently. It’s impossible to argue otherwise. And if you disagree with the grade, your options are limited. Most grading companies offer a review service—at another cost to you—but the results are just as subjective. There’s no independent oversight, no standardized appeal process, and no public accountability when graders make mistakes. PSA guarantees its grades–but PSA is the arbiter of any disputes, so winning a claim is not easy, unless they graded a counterfeit.

In any other industry, a service that impacts value so dramatically without clear documentation would raise alarms and prompt oversight. In sports card grading, it’s just business as usual. PSA’s history of grading altered cards began with its very first graded card, the famous / infamous (allegedly) trimmed T206 Wagner. Known card trimmers set up and sell at the National and continue to thrive. It’s almost like no one cares.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is No Standard Catalog for Sports Cards

Currently there is also no standard catalog of sports cards, a need outlined eloquently here by Al Crisafulli of Love of the Game Auctions. Case in point:

          In our Fall, 2023 auction, we highlighted a discovery of 39 cards from the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s set. Previously thought to consist of just 69 or 70 known examples, the new find included six new additions to the checklist, plus 33 cards that are                now 1 of 2 known. Subsequent research shed light on the number of cards produced in the set, along with information about precisely how and when the cards were distributed. This is a major hobby discovery that changes everything we know              about this set. And everything in the last published edition of the Standard Catalog about this set is now wrong.

Where do we report this?

Without a standard catalog, there’s also no real criteria for what constitutes a “card” or a legitimate issue. SGC unilaterally decided to grade Cuban Trinidad y Hno “booklet pages” as cards. They are not remotely cards. PSA for a long time refused to grade these 1949 Aero Service Station cards, but recently reversed course and graded this one:

Hundreds of such examples exist in the hobby.

---

Pop Reports Are A Mess

One marketing point for grading is that it establishes population reports of each card in each grade. This creates the illusion that the buyer / owner knows what they have in relation to what is out there.

Let’s say you have a PSA 7 of your favorite card. That card could have lived past lives as SGC 8 or PSA 6 or BVG 9 or all of the above. I’m personally aware of individual cards that have been graded up to six times each, creating inflated pop reports, unless the re-submitter 1) reports the resubmission to the previous grader and 2) the previous grader takes the old cert number out of commission. This pop inflation actually hurts values by suggesting that rare cards are not so rare after all. In my niche area of Cuban card collecting, I’m aware of a few “pop 10” cards that are likely pop 2 or 3. Big difference. And some of those “highest graded” no longer exist, having been crossed over in hopes of even higher grades, but with negative results.

In addition, some sets and cards are listed multiple times in various pop reports. Here’s an example of one set listed 3 times in SGC’s report:

These errors and inconsistencies lead to misunderstandings for both buyers and sellers and can skew one’s sense of rarity or value. And blatant errors like this would be easy enough to fix, if anyone cared to do so.

---

Grading is a Cultural Shift

Perhaps the most subtle but damaging effect of the current grading climate is the cultural shift it has created. In the pre-grading days, collectors evaluated cards based on eye appeal and personal connection and, of course, a sense of “value” that was flawed in yet different ways. Now, the number on the label often outweighs all those factors and even common sense. In short, I think grading has made collectors dumber.

A PSA 9 that looks fantastic might sell for a fraction of a PSA 10 with weaker centering and eye appeal but a “perfect” technical score. This “10” is visibly off-center left to right but will outsell any 9 just due to the number on the flip:

Cards that are beautiful but slightly off-center get passed over entirely. And the gambling-fueled obsession with chasing modern gems has created the crack-and-resubmit culture outlined above. This fuels the grading industry and keeps cards in circulation rather than in collections. There is actual financial incentive for graders to get it wrong. That gambler’s mindset has trickled down to vintage.

We’ve turned a hobby about stories, players, and history into a market about (subjective) grades and (flawed) population reports. And once you start collecting plastic instead of cardboard, you risk losing the heart of the hobby.

How Grading Can Change

Grading isn’t going away—it’s too ingrained in the market and too useful for authentication and valuation purposes. And to be clear, grading has done lots of “good” to collecting. In my opinion, PSA and SGC get it right way more often than not. The errors we see highlighted are amplified by social media. But they represent a tiny fraction of a percent of grading volume. That said, it can get better.

Since there is no centralized oversight to the industry, it probably lies with collectors and consumers to demand change. As a collector, you have choices. People lobby for subgrades but then continue to use services that do not employ them. Folks want more consistency but aren’t exactly

flocking to AI alternatives.

Among other things, sports card collecting needs a collector’s advocacy group to push for a standard catalog, a standardized grading scale, cleaner and perhaps integrated pop reports, and more public accountability and reliability measures. Who is on board?