Not All Copies Are Equal

One of the biggest grading mistakes newer collectors make is assuming that all raw copies of the same card are basically interchangeable.

At first glance, that assumption makes sense.

So naturally people start thinking: “If this card is worth a lot in a PSA 10, I should just buy a raw copy and grade it.”

But over time — especially after seeing larger quantities of the same cards side by side — you start realizing how wide the quality variance can actually be.

Some copies immediately look clean.

Others have:

• Slightly weak centering
• Surface dimples
• Print lines
• Edge roughness
• Corner wear
• Factory issues you barely notice individually

And what makes grading difficult is that many of these flaws become much easier to recognize comparatively than in isolation.

That shift in perspective changed the way I thought about grading entirely.

Especially after spending time around vendors in the NYC and Jersey card scene who regularly buy large quantities of the same cards for grading submissions.

Once you see:

You realize grading is often less about: “Is this card good?”

And more about: “Is this copy stronger than the average copy entering the grading pool?”

Because the problem usually isn't that a PSA 9 is a bad card. Most PSA 9s are still extremely strong copies.

The problem is that modern grading economics often create massive gaps between PSA 9 and PSA 10 pricing.

So a submission that looked profitable on paper can quickly become break-even or negative after:

• Grading fees
• Shipping
• Taxes
• Marketplace fees
• Opportunity cost

Especially if the submission depended heavily on gem mint outcomes.

Which is why experienced submitters often spend far more time filtering cards than actually submitting them.