This PSA Grade Makes NO SENSE… Is AI the Future of Card Grading?
In this podcast episode, hosts discuss a controversial 1933 Babe Ruth card that received a surprisingly low grade, raising questions about grading consistency and the future of AI in card authentication. The conversation explores PSA's grading standards, alternative grading services, and whether artificial intelligence could disrupt the card grading industry.
Summary
The episode opens with a lively discussion about a 1933 Babe Ruth card from Worldwide Gum that the hosts examine. After establishing the card is authentic with perfect dimensions and no alterations, they attempt to predict its grade. Initial predictions range from 3.5 to 4.5, but the card receives a shockingly low grade of 1.5 from the primary grading company. The hosts compare this grade to numerous other 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4-graded cards in the market, demonstrating that the Ruth card appears substantially better conditioned than many higher-graded examples. This discrepancy leads to heated discussion about grading consistency and whether the grading company engages in population control—artificially restricting the supply of high-graded cards to maintain market values. The hosts debate whether to resubmit the card for regrading or seek alternative grading services, acknowledging the significant cost of resubmission (potentially $1,100-$1,200 with shipping and insurance). They discuss the emerging service of alternative grading companies and whether cards graded as attractive low-grades by one company might fetch higher prices through alternative authenticators. The conversation shifts to artificial intelligence's role in card grading. A listener's question about PSA's future dominance includes discussion of whether AI will replace human graders. The hosts explore how AI could improve consistency and speed but note that introducing AI creates a legal problem: if PSA previously graded a card a 4 and new AI systems grade it a 2.5, PSA may face warranty claims. This potential liability could explain why major graders have been increasingly strict—they may be preemptively lowering grades to avoid future compensation if AI later re-grades cards lower. The hosts discuss whether other grading companies like CGC, TAG, and Sportscard Grading Company can dethrone the market leader despite existing for years and having significant resources. They conclude that PSA's market dominance is likely to persist for at least 5 years, with declining certainty at 10 and 20-year horizons. Throughout the discussion, the hosts share stories about their busy periods, including moving to new spaces and attending trade shows. They field numerous listener questions about card collecting strategy, including whether to grade complete vintage sets, the definition of insert cards versus parallels, and advice about collecting 1990s players. The episode concludes with announcements about attending the Philadelphia trade show and partnership with VCP as a price comparison tool for vintage cards.
About this episode
PSA gave Chris’s 1933 World Wide Gum Babe Ruth a grade that left the guys completely baffled. Is it time to crack it out and submit it again—or is this exactly why sports card grading needs AI? On this episode of the Collector Investor Podcast, Chris, Jeremy and the crew break down the Babe Ruth card, compare it to other PSA-graded examples, and debate what Chris should do next. The conversation then turns to the bigger question: Could AI grading finally bring more consistency to the sports card hobby? We also tackle a bunch of viewer questions, including whether PSA will remain the dominant grading company, whether population control exists, TAG and other grading companies, vintage Panini World Cup stickers, grading 1970s baseball sets, the difference between inserts and parallels, and whether discounted card sales should actually count as comps. Plus, we talk about our favorite players to collect from the 1990s and preview our trip to the Philly Show! 👇 JOIN THE CONVERSATION: What grade would YOU give the Babe Ruth? Would you crack it and resubmit it? And do you think AI will eventually become the standard for sports card grading? If you enjoy vintage sports cards, grading discussions, hobby news, collecting and investing, make sure to LIKE, SUBSCRIBE and COMMENT! ⏱️ Chapters 00:24 Welcome to the Show 03:41 Chris Reveals the 1933 Babe Ruth 09:45 Should Chris Crack & Resubmit It? 17:35 Will PSA Still Dominate in 5, 10 or 20 Years? 21:00 Could AI Create a Problem for PSA? 26:21 Does PSA Control Populations? 28:28 Why Don’t Other Grading Companies Get More Attention? 31:20 Vintage Panini World Cup Stickers 33:22 Should You Grade 1970s Baseball Sets? 36:16 What Exactly Is a Sports Card Insert? 39:09 Should Discounted Card Sales Count as Comps? 44:30 Our Favorite Players to Collect From the ’90s 46:29 We’re Going to the Philly Show If you're interested in reaching out to Chris and Jeremy to sell your collection, you can email them directly at [email protected] If you would like to consign your collection or bid in the next CIA auction, you can visit- https://collectorinvestorauctions.com CIA YouTube Channel- @CollectorInvestorAuctions Check out Chris YouTube Channel- @collectorinvestordealer VCP for 2 Weeks FREE- http://thevcp.com/?promo=CIACARDS Disclaimer: This channel is for entertainment and hobby discussion purposes only. Nothing discussed should be considered financial or investment advice. #SportsCards #CardCollecting #PSA #PSAGrading #CardGrading #AIGrading #BabeRuth #VintageCards #BaseballCards #SportsCardHobby #TradingCards #VintageBaseballCards #CardCollector #SportsCardInvesting #TheHobby #CardMarket #TAGGrading #SGC #CGC #BaseballCardCollector #VintageBaseball #CardInvesting #SportsCardPodcast #CollectorInvestor #CollectorInvestorPodcast
Key Insights
- The hosts observed that a 1933 Babe Ruth card graded 1.5 appears significantly better conditioned than multiple authenticated examples of cards graded 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 in the market, suggesting potential inconsistency in grading standards.
- One host argues PSA may be engaging in population control by being stricter on better cards, citing numerous examples of similarly-conditioned cards receiving inconsistent grades as evidence that it's 'not a coincidence' but deliberate policy.
- The hosts identify a critical legal problem preventing PSA from adopting AI: if a card was graded a 4 in the past and AI now grades it 2.5, PSA would face warranty claims and potential compensation obligations, creating liability they cannot absorb.
- One host theorizes that PSA's recent increase in strictness may be preemptive strategy to lower grades now before implementing AI, to avoid future warranty claims when re-grading cards with the new system.
- Despite CGC's established reputation in comics and 6+ years in the card market with significant resources and funding, their cards sell for substantially less than the leading competitor, demonstrating that legitimacy and capital alone cannot guarantee market dominance.
- Alternative grading services like the 'golden diamond' service fill a niche created by grading inconsistency—a card rated 1.5 by one company but looking premium-quality can fetch higher prices through alternative authentication, which wouldn't exist if grading were consistent.
- One host estimates PSA has approximately 90% probability of remaining the market leader in 5 years, declining to roughly 60% at 10 years, with significant uncertainty at 20 years when AI may become dominant.
- A listener notes that dealer buyback prices (typically 80-85% of market value) are not reported in comparative price analysis tools, which benefits the industry by preventing data that would lower perceived card market values from entering public databases.
Topics
Transcript
[0:00] That's exactly what I would do. I would send it again, open it, send it again. If they gave it a three or higher, I would leave everything as is. But if they gave less than three, I would reveal again and this time go to the SGC. Well, I mean, now we're talking about thousands of dollars that I'm spending on this. I I I I I know, but It's just some kind of joke. You know, you know what would be cool if they did everything right the first time? How are you doing? Jeremy Dawson. What's going on, dude? How are you? Everything is great. [0:30] Everything is great, as always, huh? What do you do?…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to Access