What percentage of 4th print cards are in PSA 9 condition is not a single universally published figure; instead it depends on the specific card issue, the sport or trading-card game, the year and print run, the set population submitted for grading, and marketplace- and grader-specific practices that shift over time. Below I explain how to interpret and estimate PSA 9 rates for “4th print” cards, what data sources and methods collectors use, typical ranges you should expect, key drivers that make a card more or less likely to be PSA 9, how grading population reports and third‑party analytics can be used (and their limits), and practical guidance for collectors who want an evidence‑based estimate for a particular 4th print card. I cite the publicly available industry data and reporting used by collectors and analysts; where gaps exist I explain reasonable inference and where you should seek primary data.
Short direct answer (one line)
There is no single published percentage for “4th print” cards in PSA 9—PSA’s published population reports and independent trackers let you compute grade distributions for a given card or set, and for many modern mass‑print issues PSA 9s commonly represent a mid‑to‑high single‑digit to low double‑digit percentage of graded population, but the actual rate for any particular 4th print can vary widely depending on the card and submission pool[3][1].
What people mean by “4th print” and why that matters
– “4th print” usually refers to the fourth printing of a specific card design within a set or within a product’s lifecycle (for example, a fourth reprint, fourth variant, or a fourth run in a TCG release). The physical characteristics (paper stock, centering tolerances, and production quality) can change between printings, and those production differences directly affect achievable grades such as PSA 9[1].
– If a user instead means “4th print” as a particular numbered insert or parallel from a set, treat it similarly: production rarity, centering, and print-run quality are the primary determinants of grade distribution.
Primary data sources used to estimate PSA grade distributions
– PSA Population Report: PSA publishes population data (counts by grade) for specific cards and sets within its PSA Cert Verification/population system; collectors use these counts to compute the share in each grade directly from PSA’s reported totals[3].
– Third‑party aggregators (GemRate, Universal Pop Report, other graders’ trend services): these provide broader grading volume context, trends over time, and sometimes per‑card or per‑set analytics that make it easier to interpret how common a PSA 9 is for recently graded runs[3].
– Marketplaces and sale records: sale histories (auction results and marketplace listings) can provide empirical evidence of how many graded examples trade at PSA 9 versus other grades, which helps validate population-derived rates when some grades are underrepresented in PSA’s public tools.
– Hobby reporting and investigative pieces: industry reporting (e.g., analysis of grading practices, market shifts, or controversies) provides context about grader behavior, turnaround and policy changes that can influence grade distributions over time[2][4].
Caveat: PSA population counts reflect the pool of cards submitted and graded—not the entire print run in collectors’ hands—so PSA 9 percentage among PSA‑graded examples is conditional on submission bias (collectors more likely to submit perceived high‑quality or potentially high‑value examples). Use PSA’s counts to measure grade distribution among graded submissions, not to infer a card’s absolute chance of being PSA 9 in an unsubmitted sample without correction for submission bias[3].
Typical ranges and why they vary
– Modern high‑volume mass‑print cards (common base cards, mainstream modern sets): PSA 9 often forms a single‑digit to low‑teens percentage of graded population (for many modern commons and lightly sought base cards, PSA 9 may be, for instance, roughly 5–15% of graded examples). This reflects that PSA 9 denotes “Mint” — very strong but not flawless — so while attainable, many perfectly centered/surface cards score PSA 10 and many with minor flaws fall to PSA 8 or below[1][3].
– Short prints, inserts, or early vintage reprints: percentages can shift dramatically—scarcer printings or hobby‑favored issues often have higher submission standards and different centering tolerances among graders and submitters, which can increase the share of PSA 9s or PSA 10s among the graded pool (or conversely, if the print run has production defects, you may see a higher share of PSA 8/NC grades).
– Vintage issues and early printings: for older cards that suffer from centering, edge wear, or surface problems, PSA 9 percentages are typically lower; many surviving vintage cards that are well centered and have clean surfaces are rare and more likely to be PSA 10 or withheld from submission. Submission bias here is strong: only better survivors get submitted, so grade distribution among graded examples can skew higher than the entire surviving population.
– Trading card games (e.g., Pokémon, Magic) and serially printed chase cards: production quality control differs, and print runs for reprints or later runs (e.g., 2nd/3rd/4th prints) can have distinct conditions that shift achievable grade distribution.
How to compute the PSA 9 percentage for a specific 4th print card
1. Lookup the specific card’s PSA population counts in PSA’s population report (counts for PSA 10, PSA 9, PSA 8, etc.) and compute PSA9% = PSA9_count / total_count among PSA‑graded examples[3].
2. Use third‑party trackers (GemRate or similar) to see grading volume for that card or set and to compare the card’s distribution to category norms (sports vs. TCG vs. vintage) and recent grading trends[3].
3. Adjust for submission bias when estimating the probability that a random ungraded example will grade PSA 9: collectors typically submit better condition cards, so observed PSA9% among submissions overstates the underlying population’s PSA9 probability unless you have data on submission selection. PSA’s publicly posted numbers must be interpreted as conditional on submission and are not a random sample of all printed cards[3].
4. For sets with variants or multiple print runs, confirm the PSA population entry corresponds to the exact 4th print variant (by year, set code, issue identifier) because PSA often catalogs variations separately and mixing variants will misstate percentages.
Interpreting PSA population data and common mistakes
– Mistake: treating PSA population percentages as the chance a raw ungraded card will be PSA 9. PSA’s population is conditional on submission and influenced by selection effects; it is not a random sample of all printed cards[3].
– Mistake: ignoring variant identifiers and set codes when looking up population counts—PSA entries can list several near‑identical variants separately, and print sequence (4th print) may be recorded differently or not clearly labeled.
– Mistake: assuming the PSA 9 percentage is stable over time—grading standards, grader staff, and company
