A lot of collectors resent PSA because they see inconsistency, high prices, and “corporate” behavior—but at the same time they keep feeding PSA slabs into the market and chasing PSA 10 premiums, which is where the hypocrisy creeps in.

 

 

Why the hate often looks hypocritical

Here’s the twist: the same people who drag PSA still tend to rely on PSA slabs, PSA comps, and PSA premiums when it benefits them. That’s where the hypocrisy angle comes in.

PSA is still the liquidity king

Even critics admit PSA is where the liquidity is.

  • The Reddit user blasting PSA’s inconsistency also admits “the solution is clearly money or liquidity”—people use PSA “despite knowing how inconsistent PSA’s grading can be” because there is “no real competition.”

  • High‑visibility platforms, auction houses, and price guides still primarily anchor around PSA grades and population reports.

So you’ll see patterns like:

  • Complaining on forums that PSA 10 standards are random.

  • Then using PSA 10 comps to justify a big asking price on eBay.

  • Then complaining again when a personal submission doesn’t hit the number.

On a rational level, it makes sense: PSA slabs really do sell faster and for more in many segments. On an emotional level, it can look like, “PSA is trash… but I need them when it’s my turn to sell.”

Cracking and resubmitting while calling PSA a scam

The crack‑and‑resub loop is another clear example.

  • People share viral stories and videos of 9s becoming 10s and call it proof PSA is inconsistent or a “lottery.”

  • But those same people (or their viewers) then crack their own slabs and resub anyway, hoping to exploit that inconsistency for profit.

The Athletic’s profile of Pokemon Steven highlights this paradox perfectly:

  • He spent roughly $40 per card to resubmit 189 cards, knowing the process was “reckless and a waste of funds,” but did it anyway in pursuit of PSA 10s he felt the cards “deserved.”

  • Roughly 43% of the resubmitted cards got upgraded from 9 to 10.

On one hand, that’s ammo for “PSA is inconsistent.” On the other hand, it reinforces PSA’s power: people are willing to spend big money to move from one PSA label to another because the market pays for that label.

If you’re publicly saying “grading is a scam” while privately trying to extract a PSA 10 premium, it’s hard not to see some hypocrisy.

Calling PSA greedy while chasing PSA premiums

Collectors also slam PSA for price hikes and “cash‑grab” behavior—but when the math works in their favor, they are happy to play.

  • The EliteFourum poster admits that “grading is so ridiculously profitable for flippers that it’s always worth it to them,” even while calling PSA “greedy” and “slimy.”

  • On the flip side, when markets cool and a PSA 9 doesn’t cover grading plus shipping, those same people often blame PSA rather than accepting that their card or play wasn’t strong enough.

In other words: PSA is wrong for charging high prices, but if I can turn a $30 raw into a $200 PSA 10, then grading is genius. That selective outrage—angry on the downside, silent on the upside—is what makes the criticism feel one‑sided.

Saying “I don’t trust PSA” while letting PSA set the standard

A lot of anti‑PSA commentary ends with some version of “I’ll still buy PSA slabs when it makes sense.”

  • The EliteFourum user who swore off submitting to PSA still acknowledges they’ll “buy a few graded cards” and respects the slab when they agree with the grade.

  • That Reddit thread criticizing PSA’s trustworthiness includes replies from heavy PSA users saying they grade a thousand‑plus cards a year with PSA and find the results “fairly reliable” overall, with a few misses they accept as part of the process.

This creates a strange equilibrium:

  • PSA is said to be untrustworthy, but PSA slabs are still the default standard in most buying, selling, and trading conversations.

  • People loudly reject PSA when it clashes with their personal expectations but quietly lean on PSA when they want a quick answer about someone else’s card.

That’s not necessarily malicious, but it does look inconsistent: “PSA’s grade doesn’t matter when I disagree; PSA’s grade is gospel when I’m shopping or comping.”

Expecting machine‑level consistency from a human process

There’s also a softer hypocrisy: holding PSA to an impossible standard while accepting human error elsewhere.

  • The Reddit thread pointing out PSA’s inconsistency includes a commenter who’s graded over 2,000 cards and says their PSA results “match my expectations” most of the time—but that people “skip magnification,” don’t clean cards, and assume every pack‑fresh card must be a 10.

  • PSA itself points out that people often ignore context in viral “9 to 10” crack videos and that some content creators may even resubmit different copies for drama.

At some level, collectors know grading is subjective. No one truly expects zero variance in any human‑judged system. But when it’s their card and their money, they suddenly expect machine‑level repeatability—and if they don’t get it, “PSA is a joke.”

Yet those same people will:

  • Trust their own eyes (another human) over PSA when buying raw.

  • Accept that set registries, pop reports, and comps built on PSA grades are useful tools.

That doesn’t make the frustration invalid—but it does mean some of the criticism is based on a standard no grading company could realistically meet.

How to think about it without going crazy

Zooming out, the tension around PSA comes from a simple reality: PSA is both a business and an infrastructure layer of the hobby.

  • As a business, it’s trying to maximize profit: higher volume, higher fees, efficient operations.

  • As infrastructure, it’s supposed to be a neutral arbiter of condition and a store of trust.

Collectors want the second thing, but they feel like they are seeing too much of the first.

The hypocrisy shows up when:

  • Collectors rely on PSA’s infrastructure (liquidity, premiums, pop data) while attacking the business side as if they are totally separate.

  • They condemn the system for someone else’s bad grade while leveraging the system for their own gain.

  • They expect a human process to be perfect when it hurts them, but are happy that it’s imperfect when a 9 magically becomes a 10.

None of that means PSA is beyond criticism—far from it. The stories about damaged cards, poor communication, and uneven service are real and worth talking about. But if you want to critique PSA in a way that doesn’t come off as hypocritical, the cleanest position is:

  • Admit that PSA is currently the market standard and a useful tool,

  • Be honest about when you personally benefit from that, and

  • Push for better consistency, transparency, and customer service without pretending you’re totally outside the system.

Posted in Videos and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,