Published December 08, 2025 | By Alyx E, Founder of Collectors MD

Several headlines hit the hobby this past week, and together they highlight an important truth about modern collecting—one worth understanding, not fearing. First came the story of a single Pokémon card yielding a record $30,000 buyback at GameStop: a 2003 Skyridge Gengar Holo PSA 10 pulled from a $2,500 digital “Lunar Power Pack”. One graded card. One label. One number. And suddenly—$30,494.70 changes hands. It’s exciting, even historic. But it also reminds us of something many collectors sense but rarely articulate: a grading label isn’t a scientific measurement. It’s an informed opinion.

Today, another story circulated involving a PSA submission where grades appeared differently in the database than initially expected. PSA quickly regraded the entire order once the issue surfaced, and the situation was resolved. But the moment sparked thoughtful conversation across the hobby—not about blame, but about how grading, valuation, and buyback programs intersect. Any time a company both evaluates a collectible and participates in purchasing it, questions naturally arise about transparency, process, and communication. These discussions aren’t indictments; they’re part of a maturing hobby learning how to navigate growth responsibly.

Because the truth is this: grading is often treated like hard science, but in practice, it functions much more like art. It’s subjective. It varies. It evolves. And sometimes, it contradicts itself. I’ve experienced this firsthand. At the 2023 National in Chicago, I watched one of my PSA 8s become a PSA 9 minutes later after a friendly conversation with a PSA rep at their live grading booth. Same card, same corners, same surface, same edges, same centering—just a different opinion applied in real time. And that’s not a sign of malpractice; it’s simply the nature of human-based evaluation.

This was the exact card I had “upgraded” at the PSA booth. Same card. Same cert. Same everything—except the number on the label. What changed? Not the card—just a grader’s individual discretion. And when one person’s perspective can meaningfully influence market value, it’s a reminder that grading is interpretive, not absolute.

Across the hobby, we’ve seen examples of variability: crossovers between grading companies, differences in standards, or cards that look noticeably different despite sharing the same grade. We’ve also seen how techniques like trimming, polishing, or buffing can complicate evaluation further. None of this means grading is bad or dishonest—it simply means it’s imperfect. Like any craft, it reflects human judgment.

Even so, the hobby often treats certain grades—especially PSA 10s—as if they’re objective truth. Premiums rise. Market behavior follows. And when programs, incentives, or buybacks layer on top of this subjectivity, volatility can follow. Not because anyone intends harm, but because the system is built on opinions that carry financial weight.

But here’s the part collectors often forget: if you’re collecting with intention, you don’t need a number to validate your joy. The hobby offers countless ways to store and display cards beautifully—Slab Factory, ALL-TOUCH, M1NT, Ultra PRO one-touches—none of which require a grading label to determine worth. Because worth isn’t dictated by a grade. It’s dictated by the person holding the card. Your nostalgia, your story, your connection—that’s where real value lives.

A grading label can enhance understanding, guide buyers, or offer consistency—but it should never override the meaning a card already holds for you.

Today’s reflection is simple: a number doesn’t make a card special. You do. And when we separate our love for collecting from the illusion of certainty that grading sometimes creates, we reconnect with the healthiest part of the hobby—the part driven by joy, not judgment.

#CollectorsMD
True clarity begins when we stop mistaking a label for truth—and reconnect with the meaning that made us collectors in the first place.

—
Follow us on Instagram: @collectorsmd
Subscribe to our Newsletter & Support Group
Join The Conversation On Mantel
Read More Daily Reflections

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

It's been a strange last month of news / developments in the world of card grading, between SGC's freefall / standstill and the truly bizarre mystery "upgrade" story at PSA.

https://cardhoundvintage.com/a-bad-month-for-collectors-and-collectors/

Unloading most of my Stranger Things cards on ebay. A fun show that will reach its peak between now & New Years. I really hope Topps continues to release great entertainment IP products. Its the area with the most room for growth imo.

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.