Would you rather have a PSA 7(oc) or a 5?

[grundle20]

I thought this might be an interesting question. What would you rather have both for collecting and for resale purposes? Since PSA essentially says that qualifier cards rank the same as an unqualified card two grades beneath it, I then have to ask...what would you RATHER have? A card with excellent corners or surface or edging with some grading imperfection leading to a MC, ST, MK or OC qualifier, or a card two grades below with no qualifiers?

9ST or a 7? 8MC or a 6? 4OC or a 2? etc.

I'm interested in knowing your thoughts both for pure collection purposes, and for reselling.

(I know the anti-graders are going to spit at this question, but I thought it interesting, as I know I have my opinions).

[zljones]

PSA 5. I hate those OC, MC, MK crap that PSA does. I don't want to get a grade then have to do math by subtracting 2 grades or 1.5 grades. I just want a flat grade.

[vintagetoppsguy]

PSA sucks! I would rather have an SGC 60.

[usernamealreadytaken]

I'd rather have a PSA 10.

But seriously, I would pick based on the appearance and appeal of the card - I have seen 2 and 3s present better than 5s, 6s....

[CMIZ5290]

Would much rather have a t206 7oc with sharp corners than a well centered 5 with corner wear all day long....

[mintacular]

I think the majority of collectors would prefer the "5" over one with a qualifier. However, if the price is right I will take a look at one with a qualifier as I think many grading "snobs" turn their nose away immediately...Example, while the centering is bad on this Clemente all the qualities of this card are pack-fresh ...I'm assuming this cards was submitted requesting NQ and got a 6 instead of an 8oc. Point is I would've bought this labeled 8oc or a "6", either way it's the same card.

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/nollpm/66Clementepsa6.jpg

[CMIZ5290]

Also, pertaining your other examples on qualifiers, oc is a more forgiving qualifier than mk for example when it is an ink mark. Oc and mc are qualifiers that are factory and not man made....

[BearBailey]

I would prefer the description to say 7OC over a 5 because I feel it is full disclosure. I personally Do Not buy MC/ST/MK graded cards as I feel they are far more than 2 grades below. If I were putting together a low grade set I have no problem with MK but a 9MK in my opinion is not the equivalent to a 7, it would have to be in the 1-3 range. Just my opinion.

[GasHouseGang]

Patrick, that Clemente is really "pack fresh". I would have no problem if all my cards looked that good! I think OC is so much in the eye of the grader. Here is a 54 Topps Ford I purchased from a board member, and here is a PSA8 from ebay. Which is more OC?

[CMIZ5290]

David- wow! That ford looks like my old card. Did you buy it from me?

[ThoseBackPages]

5

[GasHouseGang]

I did Kevin! And I also bought this other example of a card with an OC qualifier from you. Although this one is more obviously OC.

[FrankWakefield]

I'd prefer the lesser graded card without the qualifier, along with a hammer and screwdriver so that I could bust the card out.

[Matthew H]

A hammer? All I need is a butter knife :)

[okmaybent@aol.com]

Sharp corners are way more important than centering to me. Give me the PSA 9 O/C any day over a PSA 7. However ink is a whole 'nother deal.

[bn2cardz]

I would take the 7oc

Factory based "imperfections" aren't shouldn't be in the same grading standards as after factory blems.

I like the qualifiers for factory related issues. That way it can be graded for after factory blemishes without factoring in production issues. Yet for those who are so picky about production problems that they stay clear of them know that the card does have factory related issues they may not like for the grade it got.

I have never understood how qualifiers of OC, PD, OF, & MC could be in the same category of ST and MK. The last two are affected by after factory (I know some stains are from the factory) problems.

[7nohitter]

Give me the 5...I hate qualifiers...and as others have stated, I'd bust it out of it's plastic tomb.....

[leaflover]

I love "Qualifiers"! Because of them I'm able to have these two cards in my collection.

[glchen]

I would pick a 7OC over a 5. I think in most cases, the card will simply be better looking and have more eye appeal. This is only for higher grades however, since as you go down in grade, the OC can become more and more off center. An 8 OC as shown above is barely noticeable. You can basically equate an 8 OC to a 6 with really sharp corner. I would prefer that. I would not want any of the other qualifiers like MC, MK, PD, ST.

[betafolio2]

I look at PSA grades as advisory only. I say this because I've seen such a ridiculous swing in what various cards of the same grade will actually look like. Case in point: I just bought a 1968 Topps card that was graded a 5, but upon receiving the card and inspecting it closely -- and I mean with a 10X loupe -- I for the life of me could not understand why it didn't get a PSA 7 or 8 instead. It was a little OC, though, so maybe whoever submitted it asked for NQ, so it was bumped down to a 5 instead of getting a 7 OC (I honestly didn't know that an NQ request even existed until reading it in this thread). Anyway, because of the great variation in what PSA-graded cards actually look like -- some 6s and 7s that I've seen up close look more like a 5 to me, while some 5s and even 4s look more like a 6, or better -- I tend to follow the advice of many Net54 members who say, in effect, buy the card and not the holder. That's why I always let my eyes decide what cards I will or won't buy. Sure, I love it when a really attractive card has a lower PSA grade (because then I'll usually get it at a discount), but I've also learned not to assume that a PSA 7 will automatically satisfy my appeals-to-the-eye requirements. So that's why I'll never bid on a PSA-slabbed card sight unseen.

[itjclarke]

I love "Qualifiers"! Because of them I'm able to have these two cards in my collection.

Agree completely, qualifier or not that Aaron is AWESOME. I do also like that most collectors seem not to agree which keeps prices down. As a kid collecting, I only wanted sharp corners, borders, and image and I haven't changed much since. I do agree with the other poster that marks are in a different category though, and I don't want them... unless the MK is an F Scott Fitzgerald stamp:D

[bh3443]

I've just about finished 1/2 the 1969 Topps BB set in PSA. My set averages at around 7. I have a lot of 9 oc's which generally bring it down to a 7.
As for re-sale value of this set, it's in the 8's and 9's although all HOFers sell at pretty much any grade. The qualifyers don't bother me personally, but as for re-sale, in most cases a 7 will out perform a 9 OC.
I'm pleased with all of my cards. Even the 6's are ex-mt nice cards!

[2dueces]

I'd rather pick a nicely centered 5 over an off centered card. I have a few beautiful PSA 4's and 5's with what PSA says has surface wrinkles. I guess if you hold it just right and shine a light on it you can see them. But I can't find them through the holder. I own no cards with an OC qualifier.

[bbsports]

A card that is centered has better eye appeal. However, with PSA's system of using o/c on their qualifiers for their cards, a T206 card that has a 15/85 centering on either side will not get a qualifier of o/c, but if the cut of the card dare touches the bottom type of a T206 card, it will get an o/c. To me, there seems to be a lack of consistancy to their grading system.

[phikappapsi]

I wish they would get rid of the qualifiers altogether... I know it would increase subjectivity a little, but the bottom line is a card grade should be based on eye appeal, and centering has just as much to do with that as mild staining, a pencil mark on the reverse, or a few soft corners.

I don't understand why they add complexity