Trying to collect all the fleer baseball base cards of the junk wax era. You want to help me I would appreciate it.

A recent controversy in the hobby has added fuel to long-standing criticism of PSA’s grading practices.

According to multiple forum posts, a submitter sent 30 cards to PSA and received PSA 9s across the board. PSA later offered to buy back some of those cards at PSA-9 value. Soon after, collectors noticed something unsettling: those same cards appeared in PSA inventory graded PSA 10.

After the issue gained public attention, PSA reportedly contacted the submitter and regraded all 30 cards. The result? 11 of the original PSA 9s were upgraded to PSA 10s.

That’s what many critics find most alarming. Even if PSA insists this was an “honest mistake,” this submission reflects a grading error rate of over 36%. For a company positioned as the gold standard of third-party grading, that level of inaccuracy is difficult to dismiss — especially when the grading error benefits PSA financially.

If those cards deserved PSA 10s all along, why were they graded as 9s in the first place? And why did PSA attempt to buy them at PSA-9 prices before correcting the grades? The timing matters. The correction only came after collectors began asking questions publicly.

Even without proving intent, the optics are deeply troubling. A grading company that also buys, sells, and profits from the same cards it grades introduces a clear conflict of interest — one that undermines confidence in the entire grading ecosystem.

For many collectors, this incident reinforces a hard truth: when grading decisions can change by more than 30% after public scrutiny, it calls into question how consistent — or trustworthy — the slab really is.

🔗 Source links (judge for yourself)

• Original forum post detailing the incident:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1118823/psa-doubles-the-fun

• Reddit discussion on PSA buybacks and grade changes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PokeGrading/comments/1pgaycc/psa_fraud_alert_discussion/

• Video breakdown of the controversy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvDWIZAUJzY

Card grading was created to solve a problem: authenticity, condition consistency, and trust between buyers and sellers. over time, though, grading has become something else entirely — not just a method of evaluation, but a brand-driven marketplace where the slab itself often carries more value than the card inside it.

At its core, this is what frustrates many collectors: the card does not change — only the plastic does. And yet, the market reacts as if it does.

The Illusion of Value in Plastic

Two identical cards. Same centering. Same corners. Same surface. Same grade.

Put one in a PSA slab and one in an SGC slab — and suddenly one may be worth 20%, 50%, sometimes 100% more.

That premium isn’t coming from the cardboard. It’s coming from consumer perception.

Grading companies didn’t just evaluate cards — they built brands. And once brand loyalty enters the conversation, logic often exits.

Why PSA Commands More Money

PSA’s value advantage has very little to do with current grading quality and everything to do with historical momentum.

PSA:

• Was first to scale grading for modern cards

• Became the default registry company

• Built decades of auction records and realized prices

• Is deeply embedded in investor and flipper culture

SGC: The Contradiction

SGC is not a fringe company. It never was.

They have a decades-long reputation, especially in vintage. Their turnaround times are faster. Their holders are clean, consistent, and widely respected. In many areas — particularly pre-war and early post-war cards — seasoned collectors have trusted SGC more than PSA.

And yet, the market still discounts them. That alone should raise eyebrows.

The Ownership Paradox

This is where the argument truly breaks down. PSA and SGC are now owned by the same parent company. Different labels. Different slabs. Different marketing. But ultimately, part of the same corporate structure.

If grading standards and card evaluation were the primary drivers of value, this would begin to converge. It hasn’t.

Which tells us something important:

the market is not pricing grading accuracy — it’s pricing brand recognition.

Collectors aren’t paying more for a card because it’s more accurately graded. They’re paying more because other people agree it’s worth more.

That’s not objective value. That’s social consensus.

So What Are We Actually Valuing?

When we compare PSA to SGC, the uncomfortable truth emerges:

• We are not valuing grading precision

• We are not valuing consistency

• We are not valuing the card itself

The Long-Term Question

If two slabs owned by the same company, grading the same cards, with comparable track records, can produce wildly different values — then perhaps the hobby should ask:

Are we collecting cards…

or

are we collecting logos?

Because until the market re-centers the value back onto the card itself, the slab will continue to distort the hobby — rewarding conformity over appreciation, and branding over substance.

And that’s not grading.

That’s marketing.

In 1996, Topps honored the legacy of Mickey Mantle, who had passed away the year before, by releasing a special 19-card Commemorative Reprint Set. The goal was to celebrate Mantle’s career by revisiting every one of his original Topps cards, from his 1952 Topps rookie through his final issues in the late 1960s.

Each card in the set is a modern reprint, but with a cleaner, sharper 90s production feel. Topps reproduced the classic designs while adding subtle identifiers so collectors could distinguish them from originals. The backs feature uniform 1996 branding and special numbering from 1 to 19, matching the chronological order of Mantle’s original Topps releases.

What made the 1996 set special at the time was its connection to Mantle’s long partnership with Topps—he was the face of the brand’s nostalgia movement in the 80s and 90s—and it helped spark the era of reprint inserts and commemorative runs that Topps is still doing today. Many collectors remember these cards as some of the earliest “historic tribute” inserts they pulled.

The set was seeded in multiple Topps baseball products, and collectors could build the full 19-card run pack-by-pack or buy complete sets. Today, the cards are easily accessible but hold a strong nostalgic pull, especially the chrome versions that followed soon after and added more shine to Mantle’s iconic imagery.

When Grant Hill entered the NBA in 1994, he wasn’t just another highly drafted prospect — he was seen as the league’s next bridge from the Jordan era to whatever came next. Coming out of Duke with two NCAA titles, Hill had a rare mix of polish, maturity, and charisma that made him feel NBA-ready from the moment he shook the commissioner’s hand.

Detroit fans hadn’t seen a true star in the making since the Bad Boys broke up, and suddenly here was Hill: a 6’8” point-forward with smooth handles, highlight-reel finishes, and an off-court presence that sponsors loved. In a league transitioning from bruising 80s physicality to 90s finesse and athleticism, Hill fit perfectly. By midseason, he wasn’t just a standout rookie — he was one of the most popular players in the entire NBA, famously tying Michael Jordan in All-Star fan voting during his first year.

Hill played with an effortless style: gliding more than sprinting, slicing into defenses with maturity well beyond a rookie, and racking up triple-doubles with a calm that almost felt casual. He finished his debut season Co-Rookie of the Year with Jason Kidd and quickly became the Pistons’ franchise centerpiece.

Grant Hill came into the league not just as a great rookie, but as a superstar-in-waiting — the kind of player who made fans feel like the NBA’s future had arrived.