Sports Cards Live

Part 5 is where the conversation stops being theoretical and gets brutally practical. The group circles back to a key question: if a card is reholdered years later, can a grading company responsibly “honor” the old grade when the card may have changed inside the slab. Sunlight, shifting, cracks, handling, even subtle edge impressions can all alter the card after encapsulation. The windowsill example becomes the perfect shorthand: you cannot blindly stamp the old number without confirming the card is still the same. From there, the show pivots into the eye appeal debate. A chat comment calls I appeal stickers a joke, and the response flips the argument: the sticker is just a physical way of saying what collectors already say every day, strong for the grade, weak for the grade, or average. The deeper issue is that grading compresses endless nuance into a limited scale, and the sticker market exists because grading is inconsistent and the scale is restrictive. Then the segment gets fun. Josh leans into his Purist identity, shows a beautifully ugly off centered vintage card, and the panel celebrates the whole idea of “honest cards” and how vintage should look like it lived a life. That naturally leads into a scorching vintage hot take about high grade 1952 Topps cards and what people are really chasing. Finally, the show lands the plane with a blunt truth: the hobby is a business, there will always be bad actors, and nobody is quitting. The best protection is education, risk awareness, and knowing what you personally can tolerate. Highlights in Part 5 include: Reholder without regrade: why “honor the grade” falls apart in the real world The windowsill problem: the card may not be the same card anymore Why eye appeal stickers exist: not because cards have only 19 conditions Strong for the grade vs weak for the grade, and why a sticker triggers people Beckett’s scale, subgrades, and why nuance still gets flattened in the end Josh calls grading “silly” and compares the hobby to a cult The real “win”: low grade cards with high eye appeal at a fraction of the cost Collecting miscuts, off center cards, and why charm beats perfection The emotional attachment angle: why we keep “our” copy, even if it isn’t perfect The hot take: skepticism around “natural” high grade vintage, especially 1952 Topps “Honest corners” and uniform wear as a collecting preference The closing message: this is a business, bad actors exist, education reduces regret Wrap-up plugs: Fanatics Collect watch party, upcoming Saturday show, Hobby Spectrum waitlist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 4 shifts from merger talk into the part of grading nobody likes to say out loud. It starts with the “I’ve heard stories” framing, then draws a hard line between pre Nat Turner ownership and post Nat Turner, including the point that Collectors inherited liabilities and has paid out on mistakes from earlier eras. From there, the panel gets into why the hobby quietly benefits from inconsistency, even while asking for standardization. And then the episode drops the best real world illustration of the entire debate: a card that graded 5.5 on a Beckett raw card review, then later came back as a BGS 9.5. Same card, same grader ecosystem, wildly different outcome. Highlights in Part 4 include: The “I’ve heard stories” disclaimer and why some things get talked around, not stated Pre Turner vs post Turner: inherited liability, payouts, and where blame actually belongs The uncomfortable truth: if grading was consistent, resubmissions would collapse Is there a tipping point where collectors stop paying for the slab number and start paying for the card The “record sale” culture and why nobody flexes a record low Big money entering the hobby and the moment investors realize how the sausage is made The raw card review story: 5.5 to 9.5, and what that says about grading as a product The ethics question: if you sell a card that jumped grades, what do you owe the buyer Reholder without regrade: should a card be reassessed every time it passes through the facility Old standards vs new standards: should an older PSA 7 stay a 7 even if it would grade lower today The health inspector analogy that nails the point: same item, changed condition, unchanged label Buyer beware vs “protect the hobby”: how those two ideas collide in the content era The practical takeaway: advanced collectors hunt lower grades with stronger eye appeal, not the other way around Part 4 is basically the grading debate in its purest form: what people say they want, what they actually reward, and what happens when reality shows up. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 3 is where the conversation takes a sharp turn into the mechanics of power. We start with Josh asking the uncomfortable question: if PSA can decertify slabs selectively, what happens when they own Beckett too? From there, it spirals into the real stuff collectors argue about behind the scenes but rarely say out loud. This episode is part hobby debate, part reality check, and part rant. It also includes one of the most memorable analogies of the entire emergency stream: PSA upcharges as “insurance premiums” paid by someone else. Highlights in Part 3 include: The decertification question: what PSA can do, what they won’t do, and why it matters The real concern: what happens to Beckett slabs if the brand is sunsetted Why job cuts at Beckett are basically guaranteed if Collectors is building toward an IPO Will submissions slow down, or does demand stay bulletproof no matter what happens A blunt take on phantom POPs, resubmissions, and why pop reports mislead collectors The PSA upcharge rant: who pays, who benefits, and why the buyer wins Whether standardization in grading would help collectors or expose the whole system Registry culture, resale pressure, and why many collectors chase holders over cards The future question: machine-driven grading, consistency, and what it could do to premiums The Black Label premium debate and why some buyers pay like the number is the card The punchline: grading isn’t a scam, but it can still be a sham Part 3 is where the episode stops being about “PSA bought Beckett” and becomes a broader argument about what grading has turned the hobby into. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 2 picks up right where the emergency reaction left off, and the conversation gets more pointed. We dig into actual market share data, what Beckett’s role really was in the ecosystem, and the uncomfortable question nobody wants to answer: is there any scenario where a near-monopoly helps collectors? From there, we move into who benefits next, what alternatives could rise, and why some collectors feel like this is the moment the hobby’s power structure finally shows its hand. Highlights in Part 2 include: Ari’s take on what PSA could strip from Beckett immediately and why flat-fee models may disappear GemRate market share numbers and why “Beckett was irrelevant” is not the full story The Beckett booth reality check: lines at shows despite the online narrative The big question: could monopoly conditions ever produce any consumer upside? “Backhanded positives” and the risk of pushing collectors away from grading entirely Potential winners outside PSA: Mike Baker Authenticated, CGC, and other niche graders The CGC price increase timing and why it looks like a missed opportunity The growing frustration around PSA culture, dealer networks, and perceived unfair advantages Fanatics speculation: liquidity, conflict of interest talk, and why a Fanatics-Collectors deal feels unlikely IPO logic and why removing “future competitors” can matter more than saving brands The closing reminder: don’t let the industry chase you out of the hobby, enjoy cards without needing a slab Part 2 is where the discussion shifts from “what happened” to “what happens next”, and the answers are not comforting. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(As there was no livestrewam on Saturday December 27, this weeks podcasts will be from the previously unreleased emergency episode we recorded on December 15, the day the Beckett acquisition was announced, before the letter was written from congressman Patrick Ryan to the FTC to look into the competitive power of Collectors Holdings.) In this emergency episode of Sports Cards Live, we react in real time to one of the biggest hobby developments of the year: PSA has acquired Beckett. Joined by Graig Miller (Midlife Cards), Ari, Josh Adams, and Mike Petty, the conversation quickly turns intense as we break down what this acquisition could actually mean for collectors, graders, and the future of the hobby. Topics covered in Part 1 include: Why almost nobody wanted PSA to be the buyer Whether this was about grading, talent, or pure market control The Fanatics factor and why keeping Beckett away mattered Lessons learned from the SGC acquisition Monopoly concerns and antitrust realities IPO speculation and why investor optics may matter more than collectors Who this deal actually helps, and who it doesn’t This is raw, unfiltered reaction from people who have lived through multiple hobby cycles and aren’t buying the corporate spin. Part 1 sets the table. The temperature only rises from here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices