Does PSA Grade the Card or the Player? A Deep Dive into the 1980 Henderson Rookie 

Thanks. A few other people have mentioned this. I hadn't heard it before. But after thinking about it, I don't believe it's a factor. Think about it a second: that assumes there is a print defect or flaw that only affects the 10's. It would be totally okay to be present on the 9's. If that were true, it would be a well-known part of the legend of this card. We'd hear about it from PSA and others. We'd see web pages, magazine articles in the Hobby and videos pointing out this subtle difference. It would be similar to the lore of the '52 Mantles dumped in the ocean. You'd also be able to replicate it. We'd be able to look at 9's all day long and see this supposed flaw, but it would not be present on the 10's. To test the theory, I looked at about 25 other 1980 Topps cards that also have dark backgrounds behind the players or dugout shots. Here are the card numbers: 45, 73, 76, 91, 180, 216, 219, 225, 226, 248, 330, 365, 387, 396, 516, 545, 580, 583, 695 and 701. Some are Padres cards, which have the exact same green and yellow background as the Henderson: 305, 339, 491, 598, 704. (All the data is in the linked spreadsheet in the description box above.) With one exception the 9:10 ratios of these dark background cards are also within the limits we saw for the commons in the video, around 4:1, some up to 5.5. Several of these cards have the same (or more) number of 10's as 9's. The only card that has a ratio over 5.5 is Nolan Ryan with 22:1. Think about that...another HOF card and the 2nd most valuable card in the set, also has a relatively high 9:10 ratio. Too much coincidence. I don't find the dark background theory to have merit. I appreciate your comment CW and wanted to pin it because others have brought this up as well.

@@vintagecardcurator no problem and thanks for more excellent research!

So far the evidence has not disproved your theory Justin. More research is needed here. Thanks for the comment.

It makes sense from a business standpoint for them. It would be interesting to see this same data for cards of similar standing from different sets.

@watchtheirhands You have to factor in every other card they treat the same way. That's hundreds of thousands of submissions a year. That's millions for PSA, potentially.

Fking greed one way or another! They should be sued.

Thanks Blair. I appreciate the comment. The next direction is to look at all the 10's that we know about and see what we can dig up on those. I already have a few leads to pursue. That's the key to answering this...with almost 21,000 submissions you can bet that plenty of everyday collectors have submitted these cards to PSA. How many of the 10's were given to these guys?

It's one of the most important cards in the Hobby to me...it bridges the gap between vintage and modern. Everyone loves it. That's what makes this topic important to me...its grading has a huge impact in the Hobby.

Dude, we need Columbo on this case...there's still too much that is hidden from collectors. Thanks for watching and appreciating the reference!

There a few reasons I could think of why PSA could deliberately withhold 10's. 1) they want to say they have a reputation as the toughest graders, 2) they want to encourage people to resubmit 9's in hopes of getting 10's, increasing sales volume; 3) they feel they are the arbitrators of the Hobby and don't believe there should be that many 10's in circulation, that 10's should be an ultra exclusive commodity and 4) that they are using them to reward their biggest customers. All of those reasons are wrong...a 10 is a 10.

They are a scam and are cheating people out of money, that's why. wake UP!

@@vintagecardcurator Indeed...a 10 is a 10 no matter what.

Or perhaps a few people in the PSA family have a Rickey 10 or two and want to maintain it's scarcity value.

Thanks my friend! Thanks for the support!

While watching this video and considering the wealth of information included, and thinking of the set as a whole...The contrast of the colors in this specific card is the only thing I could think of! I also believe we are dealing with PSA subjectively suppressing the numbers of 10s now simply because the “legend” of the card. They gotta make sure they stay in business 🤣

Thanks for that...I haven't heard that reason before. I should look at the Padres cards. I didn't realize it until I started producing the video, but the Padres cards look to have exactly the same color scheme as the A's. I'm going off what PSA itself says the reasons are for the tough grading.

Thanks Chuck. I didn't realize this kind of analysis could be done either...the prior videos on printing sheet placement helped me understand how that process could be used with other cards too. I hope this work encourages others to do their own research. There's a lot more work that can be done on the Henderson card too. Thanks again!

Thanks John! My next step is exactly that, to follow the money. We can account for 19 of the 24 cards through auction sales. Wouldn't you know: all 19 were first sold through anonymous consigners. You would think somewhere in 21,000 submissions that an average Joe collector like us would get a PSA 10 and decide to sell it on eBay themselves. IDK

Thanks Scott! I appreciate you watching. The evidence is leaning me in the direction that they are unusually tough on blue chip cards. I need to do more research to see if this is a similar pattern with other HOF rookie cards. If it's true, it's horrible for us small time collectors...leads me to think there is a very low chance of any of us getting a 10 for these cards.

Thank man. I can't tell you how much that means to me because I have always struggled with my voice. Basically I can't talk for shit and videos like this involve heavy editing to get it right. I'm glad I'm able to communicate effectively in the videos!

@@vintagecardcurator Your doing great, keep it up! You make quality content videos! Much appreciated!

o there is man SGC

@@Eliteco3 I know this is 2 years old but: you mean the company that was started by a known card trimmer and restorer, Dave Foreman? The company that graded a cracked PSA 6 Bobby Hull that was then trimmed and restored as an 8, boosting it's value 10 fold? Right, right, no obvious fraud or corruption in SGC's history.

Thanks for your comment Brad; I always enjoy reading them. Clearly you think a lot about this stuff as well. I've thought about a possible correction as well and I agree with you. I know most collectors would disagree with us so I don't go around publicly saying it. To me the foundation of the Hobby is on very shaky grounds. What we do know is that a lot of high end vintage cards have been altered and trimmed. And there's likely to be a lot more that we don't know about (yet). We do know that the pops of some of these cards have been increasing at an unnatural rate. We do know that some dealers that do a lot of business with PSA are getting 10's at a rate that defies common sense. But prices have continued to rise and the demand for these cards keeps increasing. That's because there are more collectors returning to the Hobby than leaving. In addition I think many people are so invested in PSA slabs in their own collections that they are willing to rationalize what has happened to protect their significant investments. At some point things will flip and we'll see a correction. I think we are already seeing it for the low pop common cards that the Registry members buy. Those were prime targets for trimming and from what I've seen, prices on those cards are dropping. The results of the FBI investigation should tell us a lot too and we may see more drops there if confidence in the market is reduced. I also think there's a big demographic shift coming. Once baby boomers exit the Hobby there aren't enough collectors in Generation X or Y to make up that difference (BB are a HUGE demographic in terms of numbers). As you say, kids behind us don't collect now and won't in the future. They don't value analog things as much as digital anyway. I don't know much about modern cards but if there is some irrationality to their prices we may see a correction there too. We've seen collapse in the Hobby before. I've started selling off a number of my slabs, things I intended to hold until retirement. I don't want to be holding the bag. I'm keeping some stuff for my personal collection, but I want to divest myself of most of my PSA slabs. The prices are still very strong now, so I won't get killed by selling short.

Raymond Blain I discussed this extensively in the second half of the video. I controlled for those factors and found strong evidence that the Henderson is still graded much differently than any other 1980 card.

@@vintagecardcurator i would take stronger consideration for those market psychologies. In 1980, Rickey Henderson was one of the premier young talents in MLB, and the 1980 Topps product was readily available for purchase. In 1980, Rickeys 2nd year in MLB , he was an All-Star & 10th in MVP Vote. In 1981, he was 2nd in MVP Vote with a scorching 100 Stolen Bases. There must be 10s of thousands of low grade Rickeys that exist just due to wreckless handling from the early 80's. So we should definitely take into account far more wear & tear over time for this particular card compared to any other card from 1980 Topps.

Raymond Blain I look at that factor in the video, comparing only the 9’s and 10’s to the 9’s and 10’s of other 1980 cards and other well known vintage cards that are also graded tough. In the video I freely acknowledge that there are a lot of lower grade Henderson’s out there. But those were controlled for in the analysis.

Do you think a much more desired collectable rookie card, such as the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson, which was also widely available as a new product in it's distribution year, yielded examples with more signs of handling (wear & tear) over time? Do you also think this collectability drove more frequent retail orders from the manufacturer, and as an extension of this, a higher / longer production run, creating more Rickeys to be potentially mishandled? What types of card storage were available in the early 80's? Why is this card still so collectable / liquid in low grades?

I think it's a supply and demand issue. This is a wickedly popular card and regularly shows up as one of the favorite cards of all time. I don't think Topps deliberately printed more of them, but there were certainly millions produced. Of course a lot of those cards were mishandled, brought to school and shown off. That's fine, but the analysis in the video excludes those cards. I only looked at mint cards, to provide an apples-to-apples comparison with the common cards.

Thanks for the comment! This was a tough project, but the importance justified it to me. I still need to dig a little deeper before I make a judgment on PSA, but it's not looking good for them.

Thanks James. I just finished a new project that is launching tonight that takes up these themes in detail on the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Auto card.

Thanks! You bring up an area for future research...do other HOF rookie cards have grading profiles like the Henderson?

It shakes my faith in the graders too. And I'm someone who is heavily invested in them. I don't want this to be true, but I have to ask the questions.

Thank you Randy! I've got more work to do. I smell smoke...

I have attempted this type of analysis in a few videos after the Henderson one. I don't have access to the bar code, only the certification number. You can't tell the submission date from that. (All you can do is see when the card might have first been sold.) Another limiting factor is that the sold data is unreliable after a few years, even on VintageCardPrices. Using the certification numbers I could reconstruct the submission forms of some of the Henderson cards and was able to have some reasonable guesses as to who submitted the cards. Not surprisingly, the same names were on the 10's of Henderson, Murray and Ozzie Smith...the most elusive 10's of that era. The odds that 1-2 people would have gotten 10's on those all 3 of those cards seems too astronomical to be left to coincidence.

Thanks man. I'm surprised no one thought to do it before. One of the biggest things I learned from this experience is that most of us don't question what we are told about these cards by the people running the institutions. I didn't.

Thank you!

Yes, thanks...

Thanks Howie! I appreciate that!

Thanks for watching and commenting. I'm glad other collectors are finding this useful.

What does the Luka look like? (I don't know anything about basketball cards.)

The 9:10 ratio that I use in the video is able to control for that factor. By looking at cards that PSA only grades a 9 or a 10, we eliminate any "well handled" cards from the analysis, since they wouldn't be considered mint. That allows us to directly compare how PSA grades cards like the Henderson with how they grade every other card in the set. I'm working on a video how that applies the 9:10 ratio to a lot of other landmark cards in the Hobby, most of the ones you just mentioned. I think you'll be interested in what I found.

I have to look into this some more Michael. Others have mentioned it too. I haven't heard of that before and PSA doesn't mention it as a factor in their grading. I did see that the San Diego Padres cards have the same color scheme...I'm going to see if I can find an image that is similar to the Henderson to compare. I just think it's odd that a card can have an issue that will be okay with a 9, but not a 10. That is certainly different from the way I've seen other vintage cards graded.

Thank you John! I'm glad people are finding this research helpful and useful in their own collecting.

There can be some reasons why PSA and the other companies would grade this card tough: 1) they want to be seen as the toughest grader in the Hobby, 2) they believe they are the arbitrators and deciders of the Hobby and feel that cards like the Henderson should only be available in very, very limited qualities in a perfect grade, 3) they are trying to create a market for future submissions as people crack and resubmit their Henderson 9's over and over again. There's also the possibility of deliberate market manipulation to reward friends and big customers. It's hard to know what might be going on...I still feel we are not yet able to conclusively prove that the market is being manipulated. I would want to look next at who submitted the 24 cards. If any of the above reasons are the cause, then it's a terrible mark on the Hobby...a huge problem. I believe the card should be graded on its individual merits and not subject to outside factors. A 10 is a 10.

Thanks Todd, much appreciated! I worked hard to get this one right. It was certainly up there as one of my most challenging projects.

@@vintagecardcurator It might be your best video yet and that's saying a lot..

Thanks! In the spreadsheet there is a second tab that contains all the sales records for the PSA 10's. PWCC appears on that list a lot. In other words PWCC was the first public seller of the card. Were they the ones who originally submitted the cards on behalf of a client or card doctor OR was this a private collector sending the card in to PWCC already graded with the intent to sell? We do know that PWCC was a big customer with PSA, submitting hundreds of cards at a time. This will be the next area I focus on.

Thanks for the comment and watching the video!

I could only wish we had Columbo investigating this one. Thanks for the comment!

Thanks...I feel like an objective analysis is so important here.

It's great you got a centered Rickey Henderson. If it was any other card I would say you had a shot at getting a 10, but with that one PSA seems to have turned off the 10's. It's like they feel there are enough in circulation already.

I appreciate your comments and continued support of the channel...it's really helped it to grow in what is a crowded field on RU-vid.

When I posted that card a day or so ago people pointed out how it looked off-center, which it does to me too. Thanks for your support Jim!

The data doesn't lie. PSA is supressing the number of 10s of this card either because insiders hold those copies or big PSA clients hold them. They can keep the price of the 10s high by doing this. The high ratio of 9s to 10s of this card proves that. Great analysis!

Thank you my friend!

Thanks! I appreciate the response the video has gotten from collectors. I'm glad to see people thinking about this issue.

We have looked up the numbers since this video came out and it's astonishing. The 9:10 ratio has doubled. New video coming out.

Thanks so much!

Thanks for watching and commenting! Appreciate it.

Thanks Tom. I took a deep dive into that card in a later video...the one with the 93 SP Jeter in the thumbnail. When I did a similar analysis of that 85 McGwire, I found the same thing: there is no justification for how hard a 10 that card is. It seems like population control. In fact, I did similar analysis on many key cards of the '80's and found the same pattern: the more important the card is to the Hobby, the less likely it is for PSA to award those cards a 10.

Thanks man!

Thanks Mike! Appreciate the support!

It does make those existing 10's so valuable they can be used in marketing material about how PSA can "turn cardboard into gold" by having collectors send their $30 raw Hendersons to Newport Beach with thought of a winning lottery ticket.

Thanks Ron!

Thank you! Wait until you see the next one I do on this issue...working on it now.

Thanks for watching and commenting! Appreciate it!

Thanks...it is a scam to me. I think over the years collectors have at least acknowledged that PSA does this. (Some used to argue with me about this.) But now we get people who rationalize that this is good for the Hobby, which I don't buy at all. Thanks for watching and for the comment.

@@vintagecardcurator Thank YOU for calling it out. Things always seemed a bit fishy, but the whole business with the 1980 Henderson just confirmed it. Scam. And you're right about people rationalizing that this is good for the hobby until the bubble bursts...again. Great research. Great stuff.

Thanks! I think I put more work into this video than nearly any other project I've attempted. There's still more to say on this card and I will likely do that in a future video. I appreciate your support of the channel!

Yea grading squeezed the last little bit of fun out of collecting...sucks

Vintage Card Curator brother I love these, I work with Business Analytics all the time and love your methodology on these vids. I understand the amount of time you take to do these. Educating the hobby, no one is doing what you are currently, and not as deep. Great job!

Thanks Clinton. I appreciate you watching!

Thanks!

"Turn Cardboard into Gold" is PSA's motto, after all. Thanks for watching and for the high praise. Humbled. Stay tuned, I'm going to apply the Henderson analysis to a lot of other sets to see if the pattern is repeated.

Someone else asked that and I did some research on the pop count increases over time: 2012: Pop 10 (11,073 submissions, .09% rate, much lower than now). 2012 was the first year I could find data for. 2015: Pop 13 (13,287 submissions) 2016: Pop 15 2017: Pop 19 July 2018: Pop 21 Sept. 2018: Pop 22 April 2019: Pop 24 It looks like the biggest increase was in the 2 year period between 2015-17 when the Pop went up almost 32%. 10's are seemingly being awarded more frequently now before 2015.

Vintage Card Curator I would almost bet the card trimming scam would have something to do with that in that time period. I still think PSA was complicit in that scandal.

Thank you Bill! I appreciate you watching and commenting on the last video!

Thanks Dave...yes, that is my point is that the evidence is pointing us towards PSA holding back the 10's. Whether it's for favored clients is up for debate. There's no evidence yet to support that, but that's my next avenue to explore.

Thanks for watching the video! I have another one coming next week related.

wow, thanks!

Thanks for that comment...I really appreciate it. I believe that if PSA has so much power in the Hobby that their decisions should be transparent and able to be understood and replicated. I'm concerned that if they are not grading the card for the card, then it has some very serious implications for every day collectors like me.

Thanks! I appreciate that!

Yes, absolutely. Everyone loves this card, which is why I think it's important to explain what is going on.

Thank you my friend. This was a tough one, but I'm really encouraged by the response from collectors. I'm going to use the analysis in this one to take the concept to another level. Stay tuned!

The Dmitri Young Collection is frankly an embarrassment to PSA. I've looked over a number of the cards, like the Rickey, and they have massive gaps in their holders...they look trimmed. One of the guys that worked with Young to acquire the cards shows up on the list of card doctors published on sportscard radio.

I'd love to know who submitted the 24 PSA 10's. All the sales records I've seen for them shows that they were all sold through anonymous consigners. What does that tell you?

Vintage Card Curator there’s no doubt there’s fraud going on in card grading. I will still probably send in but I won’t be surprised when it all blows up and a lot of graded cards become a lot less value able seems like it’s inevitable.

I addressed this extensively in the video...it's in the second half. I anticipated that collectors would offer this argument. What we have to do is compare the Henderson to those commons in the video: focus just on the cards graded 9 or 10.

@@vintagecardcurator I think you are right, that PSA is tougher on cards of value and on this Henderson card. But I watched the whole video and thought when you addressed the part about collectors and dealers being careful to only send in commons that are definite 9's or 10's; I thought that answered the question as to why the % is so skewed. PSA says to be a PSA 10, the centering needs to be 45/55 or at worst 40/60, so I would think only commons are sent in that are at worst 45/55. So perfect commons are sent in, while Hendersons as low as PSA 5 are sent in. Focusing on the Henderson rookies currently graded PSA 8 or 9 on ebay shows some are centered 45/55 but didn't get the 10

oh yeah, I'm sure they are out there. You'd only have to browse the pop reports on PSA to see some ridiculousness with common cards. A quick search shows a PSA 1 Dan Brigges common from 1980 and a PSA 1.5 qualified grade for the A's team card.

@@vintagecardcurator you are the best!

Ah you say that exactly at 8 minutes in lol

ha ha, I read your mind Justin. I appreciate the critical thinking...the Hobby needs some of that. One of the side revelations I had about this project is how reliant we are on the so-called experts and media figures in the Hobby. Did they do their due diligence or are they simply parroting what someone in the industry is telling them? As I know very well, it takes a lot of time and trouble to get to the bottom of some of these questions. But the first step is to ask the question in the first place and very few people in leadership positions in the Hobby seem to be doing that. We saw that with David Seideman from Forbes magazine and his coverage of PWCC.

Thank you my friend. I plan on digging some more and following the money.

I feel pretty confident saying we could test all the cards with similar dark backgrounds and we wouldn't find any of those with a similar 9:10 ratio as the Henderson rookie.

Thanks for that comment...you get it and understand where collectors are at right now. I'm not sure why the Henderson, other than the obvious: it's a very important card in the Hobby, and has always been in high demand with collectors. I do need to look at how other cards, similar to the Henderson, are graded as well. (Thanks for those suggestions on places to start.) The most direct comparison I could make is the 1979 Ozzie Smith. It's similar in that the PSA 9 and 10 numbers are alike. The 9:10 ratio is very similar too. BUT the Smith is a truly condition sensitive card, located on the second row, first column of the printing sheet. I can't reconcile this dichotomy so I didn't include it in the video. What got me interested in this subject was seeing a RU-vid video from a fellow collector who bulk submitted 51 Upper Deck Griffey's to PSA in one order. The cards seemingly looked perfect on camera, yet he only got like one or two PSA 10 grades. That planted the seed with me that PSA may not be grading the card as strictly a card. I would encourage you to find that video if you haven't seen it already. Thanks again for the comment!

Hi Rich, some people have mentioned resubmiting in this and other videos. I'm sure it happens to some degree. For example, that PSA 10 1953 Topps Mantle that is making the news for the percentage share that you can buy in it, was a cracked and resubmitted 9. It's owned by Evan Mathis, to further tarnish its provenance. I've been wondering how this process works. Like you said, there is no way to tell. But let's say you have a PSA 9 Henderson (worth about $1800) and you decide to take a chance, crack it out and send it back to PSA. Does that person then send PSA a $2,000 grading fee because they feel the value is $30,000? And if it grades a 9 or 8 does PSA refund the excess fee? Lots of uncertainty about the process. The other factor is that grading is so subjective it's a huge risk to resubmit, especially if the card has an older grade. PSA seemed to be more lenient with the numbers starting with 0.

Thanks for taking the time to comment...I appreciate it!

Thank you! I appreciate you spreading the word. I would like for other vintage collectors to see and consider this information.

I would think a print defect would bring a card down to an 8 max, but I guess it depends on the defect.

I don't keep track of hours...I should. I would estimate that this video probably took at least 40 hours of research and editing. I have been working on just the editing for the past week...it was brutal. Most of my videos take about 20 hours. I'm grateful to have a few days off before I start the next project. Thanks for noticing and commenting!

so far we've had 8 months or so of these questions and only PSA's stock price has been hurting. Their submissions are high and turn around time long. They seem to be doing just fine.

I have a PSA 8 too. I've had it since I was a kid, pulled out of a pack. That means more to me than the PSA slab.

I saw a PSA 7 at a show yesterday, Beautiful. Need More 10’s. Ow PSA’s buddies own them all. Signed BIG Ricky and A’s Collector.

Thank you my friend, appreciate the comment!

Thanks. So far their response to any questions has been silence. Let's keep pushing for some answers though.

I should have specified that it doesn't have to be conspiracy theory stuff. There are plenty of other reasons this could be happening that don't involve criminal activity. Business-wise there would be incentives to: 1) be seen as the toughest graders in the Hobby and 2) create a market for a steady stream of resubmissions of 9's. There also could be 3) a misguided vision that PSA should be the arbitrator of the flow of these high grade Hendersons into the Hobby. In any case, I believe these are all bad reasons and I suspect most collectors would agree that the card submitted should be judged on its merits not external factors. What troubles me however is the sales data that shows that 100% of all 19 PSA 10 Henderson rookies that were sold, were done so through anonymous consigners. You would think that somewhere over the years we'd see an average collector get this card and sell it themselves. Thanks for the comment Cardi C!

Yes! Definitely sketchy that the big consignment houses have been the ones to get the high grades. Grading is a total pay to play scheme these days.

Thanks for the comment Ryan. I 100% agree with you and the analytical data from PSA's own database proves it too. Population control with this card and others of that era.

@@vintagecardcurator - Well with dark bordered cards like the 62, 70, 71, 75, etc that makes sense to me. Also 78 is one of the TOUGHEST years for centering Topps put out. My Nolan Ryan Topps Master set is #3 currently in the world for PSA's set registry and is slowly creeping up on #2. So I can attest to the 78 Ryan in 10 being near impossible with only three 10's. LOL But with a white border 1980 Topps card and nearly 2000/9's, it makes no logical sense as to why it is such a tough 10. The only possible explanation is holding the pop down let this card reach mythic proportions over time and PSA loves driving the value up. I mean now a 10 is $60K!! But at least 9's are finally getting respect closing in on $2K. It never made any sense to me that a 10 could be $25-30K and a 9 was $450-500.