Buy the card, not the grade - stories

[jchcollins]

I won't post a pic of it again, because there are already two on here in the Mantle thread and in December Pickups - but I just bought a '62 Mantle PSA 5 that I swear is nicer than the last two or three 6's that I went looking for in eBay sold items.

In looking at several other recent purchases, I found a '61 Berra and a '67 Mays - that are - well, also damn nice for the grade in comparision to other comps when I went out looking just because I was curious.

I know the saying has been around for awhile, but I'm starting to really put more credence into it. Anyone else have other "Buy the card, not the grade" stories worth sharing?

PS - my already shaky opinion on PSA consistency may have taken another hit tonight...:(

[irv]

I purchased these 3 cards 2 years ago and played a guess the grade game.

All who replied chose the Smalley as the highest grade, as they should have, but he was the lowest of the 3 graded. Personally, I don't have a lot of faith in PSA as they are inconsistent and there has been far too many other stories on here about their grading. The washed out Dimaggio comes to mind, let alone the Wagner.

[jchcollins]

All who replied chose the Smalley as the highest grade, as they should have, but he was the lowest of the 3 graded.

Wow. That Smalley has 6 or 7 corners. Yeah, I agree - just too many examples even recently where it's like what? In '60s and '70s cards, I have a few 5's that look better than some of my other 6's, and at least one 6 that probably could have been a 7. I understand that at least in some cases, technicalities can be resonsible for a card that looks better getting the lesser grade, but I also have slabs where that does not appear to be the case and I'm stumped.

[Big Six]

Just picked up this Mays which I think looks a lot better than the grade...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181208/b02516165799cfa9583b16c094b610bd.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Just picked up this Mays which I think looks a lot better than the grade...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181208/b02516165799cfa9583b16c094b610bd.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Indeed. Not sure what earned that a 5, but it wasn’t the corners...here’s another Willie that fits into that category:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181208/d87c6dd098b283f53279a4e8c6a44153.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VintageVinnie]

Wow! That 54 Mays is sweet. Nice pick up!!

[JollyElm]

Speaking of the Say Hey Kid, I grabbed this Mays donning my favorite uniform (qualifier be damned!!) a while back at a substantial discount. Nothing but a hair O/C...

336735

[Big Six]

Sweet card...one of my favorite Mays cards!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[irv]

Wow. That Smalley has 6 or 7 corners. Yeah, I agree - just too many examples even recently where it's like what? In '60s and '70s cards, I have a few 5's that look better than some of my other 6's, and at least one 6 that probably could have been a 7. I understand that at least in some cases, technicalities can be resonsible for a card that looks better getting the lesser grade, but I also have slabs where that does not appear to be the case and I'm stumped.

When I joined the site back in 2016, I asked a lot of questions about grading and what some of my cards would grade out as. One member told me to do it myself, learn, look, read, quit asking questions, and get at it, to which I did.
I thought I was getting there and thought I had a pretty good idea/understanding but then I started noticing cards/grades, anomalies, threads and pics here and elsewhere, and all was thrown out the window! The inconsistencies I seen/noted, like the 3 cards I posted above, made it almost impossible for me to even considered myself an amateur grader!

Needless to say I gave up on PSA and I no longer consider them as a possible TPA if and when I choose to get my cards graded.

I found SGC far more consistent, and also a tad meaner, if you will, with their grading standards, but now, reading how many forged sigs slipped past them, I think I am now done considering getting any of them to grade/encapsulate my cards. :(

[jchcollins]

When I joined the site back in 2016, I asked a lot of questions about grading and what some of my cards would grade out as. One member told me to do it myself, learn, look, read, quit asking questions, and get at it, to which I did.
I thought I was getting there and thought I had a pretty good idea/understanding but then I started noticing cards/grades, anomalies, threads and pics here and elsewhere, and all was thrown out the window! The inconsistencies I seen/noted, like the 3 cards I posted above, made it almost impossible for me to even considered myself an amateur grader!

Needless to say I gave up on PSA and I no longer consider them as a possible TPA if and when I choose to get my cards graded.

I found SGC far more consistent, and also a tad meaner, if you will, with their grading standards, but now, reading how many forged sigs slipped past them, I think I am now done considering getting any of them to grade/encapsulate my cards. :(

Grading in theory is nice. In reality, the "expertise" has proven to be fraudulent, far too many times. Learn how to grade yourself, as we did as kids in the 1980's; it's worth it. It's tougher today buying sight-unseen, but still possible to maintain some of your own personal accuracy over the long run if you learn what to look for. I'm not saying to buy raw cards only necessarily, but I'm starting to realize with decent scans, I can tell the difference between high end for the grade, and mediocre slabbed material.

[jchcollins]

Speaking of the Say Hey Kid, I grabbed this Mays donning my favorite uniform (qualifier be damned!!) a while back at a substantial discount. Nothing but a hair O/C...

336735

IMHO, qualifiers on high grade (> PSA 7) vintage cards are a bargain for the most part if you are looking to add a decent card to your collection and not just to flip it for $$.

Cards on the upper end can retain a lot of eye appeal and still be slightly OC, but the centering standards get a lot tougher in that territory. If a card has super sharp corners but got an 8 (OC) because it was 70/30 one way...is that really a deal breaker if the discount is steep enough? The same card could be a nice 6 or potentially even a 7 and would still be considered sharp. I guess with the OC qualifier in particular, it depends on your tolerances. I'm not a centering freak, but would agree beyond a certain point bad centering starts to destroy eye appeal. I'd rather have a centered 5 over an 8 (OC) that was 85/15. But I collect mostly PSA 5 and 6 range cards for "nice" vintage, so again at times centering is not a chief concern if it's 70/30 or better. I digress...at a high level I don't mind OC cards, but I dislike egregiously OC cards. Does that make sense?

Nice '73 Mays...

[JollyElm]

IMHO, qualifiers on high grade (> PSA 7) vintage cards are a bargain for the most part if you are looking to add a decent card to your collection and not just to flip it for $$.

Cards on the upper end can retain a lot of eye appeal and still be slightly OC, but the centering standards get a lot tougher in that territory. If a card has super sharp corners but got an 8 (OC) because it was 70/30 one way...is that really a deal breaker if the discount is steep enough? The same card could be a nice 6 or potentially even a 7 and would still be considered sharp. I guess with the OC qualifier in particular, it depends on your tolerances. I'm not a centering freak, but would agree beyond a certain point bad centering starts to destroy eye appeal. I'd rather have a centered 5 over an 8 (OC) that was 85/15. But I collect mostly PSA 5 and 6 range cards for "nice" vintage, so again at times centering is not a chief concern if it's 70/30 or better. I digress...at a high level I don't mind OC cards, but I dislike egregiously OC cards. Does that make sense?

Nice '73 Mays...

It sure does, and many of us are the same way. If a card is just a bit off-center (but gets a qualifier due to the official grading parameters), I'll happily buy it for a fraction of the price of a straight grade and be psyched I got it, because it still looks beautiful. There are a couple of exceptions (Mantle and whatnot), but when an O/C card just looks woefully and painfully unbalanced, on the other hand, I won't go anywhere near it even at a huge discount. Just hurts my eyes too much to look at it.

[irv]

Grading in theory is nice. In reality, the "expertise" has proven to be fraudulent, far too many times. Learn how to grade yourself, as we did as kids in the 1980's; it's worth it. It's tougher today buying sight-unseen, but still possible to maintain some of your own personal accuracy over the long run if you learn what to look for. I'm not saying to buy raw cards only necessarily, but I'm starting to realize with decent scans, I can tell the difference between high end for the grade, and mediocre slabbed material.

That is why I also purchase the majority of my raw cards through a reputable dealer.
I have looked at, inquired about other raw cards from other sellers but when I have looked at their feedback or don't hear anything back or see reverse scans that I have asked for, I quickly scratch them from my list.
Doing that over the last couple years is why I am at 91% bid activity with my current preferred seller in GM cards. Their shipping fees can't be beat either, especially for us Canucks!

[irv]

I just noticed these 2 cards from a FB seller. I know scans don't always show/tell the whole picture, but how did Roe receive a 6 and Schmitz only a 5?

It looks like Schmitz is deserving of the 5, maybe even higher, but the Roe, imo, looks like a 4, at best, to me.

[KCRfan1]

I just noticed these 2 cards from a FB seller. I know scans don't always show/tell the whole picture, but how did Roe receive a 6 and Schmitz only a 5?

It looks like Schmitz is deserving of the 5, maybe even higher, but the Roe, imo, looks like a 4, at best, to me.

Is the Roe an older grade? Perhaps a beholder? I wonder how the back of the cards look as that may also affect the grade.

Nice cards, however Schmitz is clearly the nicer card from the front. On the surface, as said on the Forum, buy the card not the grade. Something we all do.

[irv]

Is the Roe an older grade? Perhaps a beholder? I wonder how the back of the cards look as that may also affect the grade.

Nice cards, however Schmitz is clearly the nicer card from the front. On the surface, as said on the Forum, buy the card not the grade. Something we all do.

Is there anyway to tell, Lou, via the number or something else, if the card is a reholder?

I am not a 100% convinced that is the case based on what I have seen before, but it does make the most sense.

[jchcollins]

Is there anyway to tell, Lou, via the number or something else, if the card is a reholder?



I don’t believe there is. When a card is sent in for reholder, I believe it keeps the same cert #.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

That is why I also purchase the majority of my raw cards through a reputable dealer.


Agreed. With PSA I just look for 100% feedback, but for raw cards it helps to go to a trusted dealer. I’ve used Kit Young a lot in the past. His prices are reasonable and he negotiates on some eBay sales. With him I know if the card is advertised as “VG-EX” I’m going to at least get something in the ballpark. Not like with some other unknown sellers who sometimes don’t know what they are talking about.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[irv]

I don’t believe there is. When a card is sent in for reholder, I believe it keeps the same cert #.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's unfortunate. I am sure the card, being in a newer flip would fool some into thinking the card is a true 6 and will always grade/be a 6 not knowing, if it were to be graded today with today's standards, that it mostly likely, at best, is a 3-4 now.

[jchcollins]

That's unfortunate. I am sure the card, being in a newer flip would fool some into thinking the card is a true 6 and will always grade/be a 6 not knowing, if it were to be graded today with today's standards, that it mostly likely, at best, is a 3-4 now.

There are a lot of things about TPG's which are unfortunate. :D

[Puckettfan]

To me this is a beautiful card regardless of its technical grade.

[pokerplyr80]

Here are a few that I feel look nicer than their technical grade.

[jchcollins]

Here are a few that I feel look nicer than their technical grade.



Gorgeous cards!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

To me this is a beautiful card regardless of its technical grade.



I had that Mantle as a kid in the 1980’s. Mine had a big ugly crease through the lower left corner. I was totally in love with it regardless. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pokerplyr80]

Is there anyway to tell, Lou, via the number or something else, if the card is a reholder?

I am not a 100% convinced that is the case based on what I have seen before, but it does make the most sense.

I believe some know how to tell how old a cert number is. Old cert number plus new holder means it's been reholdered.

My preference is to reholder anything of a decent value before selling.

[jb67]

Here are a few that I feel look nicer than their technical grade.

Wow! That 57 Mantle is off the charts.

Here are a couple of Wille that I think present very well the grades given.

https://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/JBrules/willie-mays-collection-large/57868/1953-willie-mays-psa-3https://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/JBrules/willie-mays-collection-large/43955/1963-willie-mays-psa-6.5-x

[DeanH3]

Great cards everyone. Jesse - That Mantle is off the charts.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=813&pictureid=22862http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=813&pictureid=20468

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=813&pictureid=22528http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=813&pictureid=24248

[MattyC]

That PSA 6 ‘57 Mick is near the top of the long list of cards I deeply regret selling to Jesse over the years! One of many reasons I recently resolved never to sell a card again.

[pokerplyr80]

I'm sorry to hear that Matt, it's much easier to find a dead centered Mantle by waiting for you to upgrade than to search through 100s of Ebay and AH listings. I certainly understand your decision though.

[jb67]

[QUOTE=DeanH3;1834960]Great cards everyone. Jesse - That Mantle is off the charts.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=813&pictureid=20468

DeanH3,

I can't imagine there is a better looking PSA 1 of a 53 Mick than this. That Mick is beyond belief.

[DeanH3]

[QUOTE=DeanH3;1834960]Great cards everyone. Jesse - That Mantle is off the charts.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=813&pictureid=20468

DeanH3,

I can't imagine there is a better looking PSA 1 of a 53 Mick than this. That Mick is beyond belief.

Thank you David. Amazing how much a little back damage will save you.

[Exhibitman]

I bought this in a 2 holder

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/dropins/websize/1954%20Bowman%20Maglie.jpg

Cracked out and resubmitted it.

[GasHouseGang]

Wow Adam, that's crazy. It jumped from a 2 to a 7? That's ridiculous.

[irv]

I bought this in a 2 holder

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/dropins/websize/1954%20Bowman%20Maglie.jpg

Cracked out and resubmitted it.

I remember that jump in grades, I just couldn't remember who posted it a couple years ago.
That one was an eye opener for me!

[sb1]

Here's one I believe. Nicer looking than most 3's and many 4's, no back damage either.

[irv]

Here's one I believe. Nicer looking than most 3's and many 4's, no back damage either.

Wow! Very nice (undergraded, imo, as well) card.

I've posted this one a bunch too. Way undergraded, imo, but it worked out good for me as I got it at 3 prices. :)

I've always said/believe SGC grades harsher than PSA. My Crandall card being one them that only graded out a 5.

[jchcollins]

Interesting responses, thanks again all.

I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of PSA's grading consistency especially with mid-grade vintage. I looked at several recent examples of my '53 Topps Satchel Paige in the PSA Auction Prices Realized site last night. I know that grading when it comes down to technical brass tacks is more than just eye appeal alone, but still: My card is a PSA 5; I saw many 6's that didn't look as good, and many 5's that looked way worse. If you take into consideration the age of the slab / flip as well - then it gets even worse. I saw some older 5's that I doubt would be 4's today with the corners they had. Oy...

[MattyC]

Interesting responses, thanks again all.

I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of PSA's grading consistency especially with mid-grade vintage.

You are spot on with this. The subjectivity involved in parsing some grades, be it a 4 thru 6 or a 9 from a 10, it allows for a massive amount of disagreement with the graders.

And when we begin to look at cards graded in past years, or decades, things really go haywire.

I focus primarily on Mantle, and I see PSA 8s and PSA 9s of his basic issue cards in old grades/slabs that would be lucky to merit 7s today.

Just browse some of the "high grade" Registry sets or VCP, and what becomes clear as day is that some cards awarded a PSA 9 many years ago are simply total head scratchers. And as humans often do, PSA seems to have made the mistake of overcorrecting; now you can submit a lights-out 8 that blows away every 9 viewable on VCP past sales, and they will give you a sticky note pointing to some minor flaw as cause for the card not even getting a half point bump. So what we have in the market are some of today's cards in lower grade, destroying higher grade cards from yesteryear on both the eye appeal and even technical grade fronts. The upshot is it gets even more important to shop with our eyes and in effect police the flips.

[MattyC]

Wow! That 57 Mantle is off the charts.

Here are a couple of Wille that I think present very well the grades given.

https://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/JBrules/willie-mays-collection-large/57868/1953-willie-mays-psa-3https://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/JBrules/willie-mays-collection-large/43955/1963-willie-mays-psa-6.5-x

Awesome Mays cards. The 63 hits the eye like a mint card!

[jchcollins]

You are spot on with this. The subjectivity involved in parsing some grades, be it a 4 thru 6 or a 9 from a 10, it allows for a massive amount of disagreement with the graders.

And when we begin to look at cards graded in past years, or decades, things really go haywire.

I focus primarily on Mantle, and I see PSA 8s and PSA 9s of his basic issue cards in old grades/slabs that would be lucky to merit 7s today.

Just browse some of the "high grade" Registry sets or VCP, and what becomes clear as day is that some cards awarded a PSA 9 many years ago are simply total head scratchers. And as humans often do, PSA seems to have made the mistake of overcorrecting; now you can submit a lights-out 8 that blows away every 9 viewable on VCP past sales, and they will give you a sticky note pointing to some minor flaw as cause for the card not even getting a half point bump. So what we have in the market are some of today's cards in lower grade, destroying higher grade cards from yesteryear on both the eye appeal and even technical grade fronts. The upshot is it gets even more important to shop with our eyes and in effect police the flips.

"Buy the card, not the grade" I think today is more important than ever. To me this goes to a core reputation problem - in addition to being found wanting in the "expertise" area (what expertise? how do we know since they don't routinely prove that "experts" are grading cards over and above middle school kids...) there is the problem with consistency over time which at least as this year has gone by has proven to be more and more obvious that the PSA 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9's of yesteryear are not necessarily on par with those graded in 2017 or 2018. How they continue to get away with this - to say nothing of wildly inaccurate promised turn times - increasingly feels like a bubble to me. I'm just wondering how long before it bursts.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

"Buy the card, not the grade" I think today is more important than ever. To me this goes to a core reputation problem - in addition to being found wanting in the "expertise" area (what expertise? how do we know since they don't routinely prove that "experts" are grading cards over and above middle school kids...) there is the problem with consistency over time which at least as this year has gone by has proven to be more and more obvious that the PSA 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9's of yesteryear are not necessarily on par with those graded in 2017 or 2018. How they continue to get away with this - to say nothing of wildly inaccurate promised turn times - increasingly feels like a bubble to me. I'm just wondering how long before it bursts.

Not only that but over time standards seem to change at SGC and PSA, and the flips sometimes change with them. Now it isn't even enough to have a card with a particular grade given by a particular TPG because that TPG could go through a big change, like SGC has recently. Then, collectors look at slabbed cards from a certain era and think they really aren't as good as the slab might say they are, depending on the era in which the card was graded. Right now, there is a thread on the prewar side discussing a collector's SGC results from a recent submission and how that collector was shocked at how tough SGC graded his cards versus some examples of SGC graded cards with old flips. Increasingly, I am quite happy with ungraded cards that meet my requirements. I am not above cracking out a graded card for a set either.

[jchcollins]

Not only that but over time standards seem to change at SGC and PSA, and the flips sometimes change with them. Now it isn't even enough to have a card with a particular grade given by a particular TPG because that TPG could go through a big change, like SGC has recently. Then, collectors look at slabbed cards from a certain era and think they really aren't as good as the slab might say they are, depending on the era in which the card was graded. Right now, there is a thread on the prewar side discussing a collector's SGC results from a recent submission and how that collector was shocked at how tough SGC graded his cards versus some examples of SGC graded cards with old flips. Increasingly, I am quite happy with ungraded cards that meet my requirements. I am not above cracking out a graded card for a set either.

Yeah pretty soon we'll have vintage (era) listed along with slab type (era) and there will be a cross reference to value. Let's see this is a PSA 8 from the early 00's, so it's worth less than the PSA 8 from the early 10's...:eek:

[KendallCat]

Here are a few of my examples for the thread.

[bswhiten]

Last weeks pickup. Not sure what made it a 1 since there isn’t a pinhole but looks great to me :)

[Sportscards1086]

I have one...here is a nice 61. Any reason why it's a 5 is beyond me.

https://i.postimg.cc/JhwK0k9N/20190105-184013.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/CKj7qKgW/20190105-183935.jpg

[jchcollins]

I have one...here is a nice 61. Any it's a 5 is beyond me.

https://i.postimg.cc/JhwK0k9N/20190105-184013.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/CKj7qKgW/20190105-183935.jpg


Agreed. It’s not centered outside of 6 range either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mq711]

PSA has gotten so inconsistent (or faulty QC) lately I've had to returned two eBay purchases because of "bad grades." A PSA 8 had two bent lower corners and edge damage and another was so out of focus that the faces weren't under the player's hats on a team card (neither of which was observable on the post). TPG claim they issue opinions but they have guidelines that should create a somewhat known standard. I think all collectors should refuse to keep cards that another collector/dealer got a "lucky" grade on; don't be the last one holding the 5 in an 8 holder.

[jchcollins]

PSA has gotten so inconsistent (or faulty QC) lately I've had to returned two eBay purchases because of "bad grades." A PSA 8 had two bent lower corners and edge damage and another was so out of focus that the faces weren't under the player's hats on a team card (neither of which was observable on the post). TPG claim they issue opinions but they have guidelines that should create a somewhat known standard. I think all collectors should refuse to keep cards that another collector/dealer got a "lucky" grade on; don't be the last one holding the 5 in an 8 holder.

If you do that, better find a seller that accepts returns unconditionally. When I am selling the grade is the grade, whether you agree with it or not.

Will agree with you the inconsistency is rampant. That's why anymore I try to take the TPG's literally as an "opinion" when buying online. It's too frustrating to try to make sense anymore of vintage 6's that look better than some 7's, 5's that look better than some 6's - 5's that look way better than other 5.5's...and on and on and on. At the end of the day I take PSA's word that the card is authentic, and then beyond that all that matters is am I personally happy with the card for the price? It's too confusing to keep us with their nuances and discrepancies outside of that.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Not a bad 3...

[Sportscards1086]

Not a bad 3...

Not bad at all!!!!

[Sportscards1086]

Here is a nicely centered 4

https://i.postimg.cc/k4hBjDHY/20190111-133928.jpg

[jb67]

Can't believe this card is just a PSA 5. Not complaining as I got it for a very good price and it looks mint to me.

https://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/JBrules/johnny-bench-opc-collection/58287/1978-johnny-bench-opc-psa-5

[Sportscards1086]

Can't believe this card is just a PSA 5. Not complaining as I got it for a very good price and it looks mint to me.

https://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/JBrules/johnny-bench-opc-collection/58287/1978-johnny-bench-opc-psa-5


Wow...

[jchcollins]

Which would you take? You tell me...my card is the straight 5.

[jchcollins]

Or this? Wow...

[jb67]

Or this? Wow...

I'm going with the PSA 5 all day. That PSA 6 comes in last of the 3 for me.

[jchcollins]

I'm going with the PSA 5 all day. That PSA 6 comes in last of the 3 for me.

The 6 (the card, not PSA...) gets a bit of a pass because that's an old slab. But isn't part of the point of using a TPG consistency? That's proof that a 6 in 2005 is not a 6 in 2018...:mad:

[Econteachert205]

Here is what someone should do:

Create a new grading company that employs the following process:

1. Create an ultra detailed MRI type card grading machine that does the highest res. Scanning of all surface attributes.

2. Have scan fed into a computer program that matches it with condition similar exemplars to generate a number grade.

3. Have a human take a good look to verify.

The human should only verify that the process worked correctly (i.e. No obvious flaws or computer malfunctions). The human does not contribute to the actual grade itself. This would make getting a consistent grade from inception much more possible.

The only thing I am not sure of is whether the initial cost would be too great currently. If so it shouldn't be for much longer.

[Sportscards1086]

Here is what someone should do:

Create a new grading company that employs the following process:

1. Create an ultra detailed MRI type card grading machine that does the highest res. Scanning of all surface attributes.

2. Have scan fed into a computer program that matches it with condition similar exemplars to generate a number grade.

3. Have a human take a good look to verify.

The human should only verify that the process worked correctly (i.e. No obvious flaws or computer malfunctions). The human does not contribute to the actual grade itself. This would make getting a consistent grade from inception much more possible.

The only thing I am not sure of is whether the initial cost would be too great currently. If so it shouldn't be for much longer.


Agree to this COOL IDEA.

Human evaluation is so subjective and controversial.

[leaflover]

I have owned the Drysdale PD for 10 years and have not found the defect.
Hegan on the other hand has no PD or OF qualifier. If I had opened Leaf
packs in 1948 half of them would have gone in the trash.

[Peter_Spaeth]

.Maybe it's the print specks, but in hand they are barely visible.

[jb67]

.Maybe it's the print specks, but in hand they are barely visible.

Wow!! Best looking 7 I have seen.

[MikeGarcia]

About the Drysdale , in my eyes , if the ''snow'' is obvious immediately upon first glance , then at the "8" level it gets a PD . It is visible in your scan , but maybe not so bad in hand ?

..

[jchcollins]

I have owned the Drysdale PD for 10 years and have not found the defect.

The Drysdale looks like it has some light print snow to the left...but that could just be the scan. More proof of PSA's inconsistency Yawn...

[MarcosCards]

Wow, this is an excellent thread. Although enlightening, it is also a frustrating and discouraging commentary on the current state of third party grading.

I still consider myself a newbie on this forum. After posting photos of my childhood card collection (1960s Topps) last year, some of you Net54baseball veterans strongly suggested that I submit my star cards to PSA for grading. I was going to - but life got busy - and so I put it off. Maybe it was for the best. I think I can enjoy my cards just fine without them being encased in hard plastic.:)
Marcos

[jchcollins]

I think I can enjoy my cards just fine without them being encased in hard plastic.:)
Marcos

And there is nothing wrong with doing precisely that. Life was a lot simpler with my collection as a kid when the cards just were what they were and didn't have judgment passed and hanging over them in a slab. I know in my day I cherished quite a few lower grade vintage cards and thought a lot less about grading, or at least the minutiae that goes into it. A card was either in pretty good shape...or it wasn't. Grading today obviously has become a subculture unto itself. I find TPG's useful when buying cards that I can't hold in my hands first (i.e. 99% of the time...), and yes if there is a card that really pops in a slab that can be nice sometimes as well - but it's certainly not a hard requirement for me to enjoy whatever baseball card is in question. Just this weekend I busted out a not-very-cheap 1956 Topps card from a BVG slab - not because I disagreed with the grade, but because there was lint or dust or something trapped between the inner sleeve and the hard plastic that made it look like there was print snow on the player's face. Voila, problem solved and now I have a much nicer looking card. If I'm not immediately planning to try to flip a card (that's rare for me anyway) I'll often liberate it from it's slab over something minor like that. I've always been that way.

[BLongley]

I saw this on eBay the other week and had to grab it... in hand there is light corner wear and a little ding on the top boarder you can only see at the right angle...but definitely the best PSA 5 I’ve owned... it’s even better centered than the PSA 8 I used to have...

And none of you can probably see this because I seem to have trouble getting normal sized scans :confused:

[Sportscards1086]

Got this today in a trade/cash deal...


https://i.postimg.cc/x8WSH8d7/20181011-110924.jpg

[KendallCat]

Picked up this Ryan about 2 years ago and cannot figure why it is not an 8/8.5. Have looked with a loupe several times and nothing. No reason to buy an 8 when it appears this one looks like one but for $700.

The 58 Mantle is about as close to centered as I have been able to find and I usually don’t buy 7’s.

[jchcollins]

I’ve had this card for about a year and have always thought it very sharp for the grade. OC, and with slight tilt and a rough cut, but at least 3 of those corners look like they were made by Gillette...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190126/7990e51386e3a3368951880e3a9c85fc.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cgreat14]

PSA is all over the place. Had a "6" on a non-sports card and resubmitted(hate playing that game) and it received a "9". Had some beautiful "8's" that came back 4's & 5's. Can't figure it out. Their inconsistency has gotten worse and customers are going to keep or sell more "raw" cards if this keeps up. The customer is #1 not the TPG's. Once the customer gets fed up and stops submitting so many cards( PSA prices have just increased as well), then maybe PSA will revisit their long term marketing strategy. And they don't give you any explanation on why the card receives the grade that it does so you have no idea. All bad teams have to change if they want people in the seats. All monopolies fall at some point if they don't change.

[Suitntieguy]

PSA is all over the place. Had a "6" on a non-sports card and resubmitted(hate playing that game) and it received a "9". Had some beautiful "8's" that came back 4's & 5's. Can't figure it out. Their inconsistency has gotten worse and customers are going to keep or sell more "raw" cards if this keeps up. The customer is #1 not the TPG's. Once the customer gets fed up and stops submitting so many cards( PSA prices have just increased as well), then maybe PSA will revisit their long term marketing strategy. And they don't give you any explanation on why the card receives the grade that it does so you have no idea. All bad teams have to change if they want people in the seats. All monopolies fall at some point if they don't change.

I disagree with none of this. I will ad that some point along that road, we may see the realized price discrepancy between PSA and SGC narrow. I hope so.

[JollyElm]

I’ve had this card for about a year and have always thought it very sharp for the grade. OC, and with slight tilt and a rough cut, but at least 3 of those corners look like they were made by Gillette...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190126/7990e51386e3a3368951880e3a9c85fc.jpg

Your Berra reminded me of the one I bought last year at a really nice price due to the O/C. The back is basically miscut, but that doesn't bother me at all. Of course, looking at the scan now, the card appears to have some hazy print defects. Sure hope that's a problem with the scan or it's on the slab and not the card...

342254

[leaflover]

Very affordable. Because this NM-MT example of Yogi was given the "authentic/altered" label I was able to add it to my collection.
I believe it to be nothing more than a factory "rough cut".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Even though supposedly none of them were, this looks like it could be factory to me.

[leaflover]

Nice looking Campy.

[jchcollins]

Your Berra reminded me of the one I bought last year at a really nice price due to the O/C. The back is basically miscut, but that doesn't bother me at all. Of course, looking at the scan now, the card appears to have some hazy print defects. Sure hope that's a problem with the scan or it's on the slab and not the card...

342254

Miscut on the back and they ignore their own guidelines a lot, from what I've seen. Your Berra is nice too, that one is hard to find without print snow on the dark background.

I don't know, within the past 2 years I've had PSA 5's that are nicer than other 6's, and some 6.5's that I would have topped out at 5.5 after seeing them in-hand. I cannot give them a high grade on recent consistency.

[jchcollins]

Dupe post.

[jchcollins]

And gosh, in looking at my '61 Berra again, I wonder if it is a PSA 6 that really should have been an 8 (OC). I never even considered that.

[JollyElm]

And gosh, in looking at my '61 Berra again, I wonder if it is a PSA 6 that really should have been an 8 (OC). I never even considered that.

It's quite possible, because your corners look very sharp, but the centering is nothing to be concerned about at all...so it's a mystery.

Edited to add: The centering on mine (similar to yours, but probably just a tad worse) looks relatively decent, so I assume the reason mine is OC is because of the back. The green is basically touching the border.

[jchcollins]

Not a bad 3...

Robert, very nice card. Not sure how I missed this when you originally posted it.

[jchcollins]

Will post this again here; was also in the pickups yesterday - but seems very appropriate.

In scouring this one with a fine-toothed comb, I can find enough stuff to where a picky grader probably could have justified the 3. But overall eye-appeal blows that out of the water. Again, I try to buy “high-end” for the grade and just try to be happy with the merits of the actual card and not the slab, but the discrepancy between not considering all factors of eye-appeal with the technical grade is a slippery slope for PSA, I think. (Someone pointed out to me yesterday also that you're kidding yourself if you don't think they treat Mantle differently). This one fits as well as any. Corners are 6-7 quality and many 5’s I looked at on eBay weren’t centered this well. The beginnings of a corner crease and some other nearly indistinguishable surface wear brought it down, though.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190226/8b844c86c4c2b101c0491163e5ab8d7f.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190226/50d83c3795336a5cccb867d0f216b9c4.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ToddW.]

Obviously this thread is filled with tons of examples of what appear to be cards that have eye-appeal that substantially surpasses the technical grade. The question is how much of a premium are you willing to pay to get those cards that have great eye-appeal? Of course the easy answer if you can get them in the range of a 3 when it looks like a 5 or 6 it is a no brainer. But are you willing to pay almost 5/6 graded price level for the 3? Its a dilemma I've faced a number of times. I try to look at all recent graded purchases to compare the actual cards, but at the end of the day (assuming new slab) you still have a 3 you paid 5/6 pricing for, even if you like it (and other like it). If you keep track of purchases or sales vs. market, those cards put you significantly underwater, even if the optics are impressive to those who appreciate the card itself. Is there a rule of thumb people generally use?

[jchcollins]

Obviously this thread is filled with tons of examples of what appear to be cards that have eye-appeal that substantially surpasses the technical grade. The question is how much of a premium are you willing to pay to get those cards that have great eye-appeal? Of course the easy answer if you can get them in the range of a 3 when it looks like a 5 or 6 it is a no brainer. But are you willing to pay almost 5/6 graded price level for the 3? Its a dilemma I've faced a number of times. I try to look at all recent graded purchases to compare the actual cards, but at the end of the day (assuming new slab) you still have a 3 you paid 5/6 pricing for, even if you like it (and other like it). If you keep track of purchases or sales vs. market, those cards put you significantly underwater, even if the optics are impressive to those who appreciate the card itself. Is there a rule of thumb people generally use?


Your point is valid. I weigh each decision on the particular card and what my situation dictates I think should be paid for it within my limits. There are times I’m willing to overpay for something that I think won’t come around again for a while, and then times I’m really, really not willing to do that. Yes sometimes it simply comes down to "how bad do I want it?" There are a number of ways to look at it, and it depends where you put what value. In the case of my ‘65 Mantle - I believe I paid around $100 more than what a “normal” nicer 3 (noticeable rounded corners) - but still a card with eye appeal - should go for. But my card looks like a 6, and to get a true 6 centered as well as the card I bought, I would be looking at spending anywhere from $500 to north of $800 based on recent sales. So I would prefer to look at it as yes, I paid a steep price for a 3 - but it’s an anomaly because the card looks nothing like a 3. If resale or trying to flip entered the equation - that would make things more difficult - but in this case it’s just a card I want to add to my PC. Same deal with a higher-end centered ‘62 Mantle 200 PSA 5 I snagged right before Christmas. I paid well more than VCP for a 5, but a hell of a lot less than a 6 - and my card looks better than half of the 6’s out there I compared it to.

It is difficult to buy nice examples of “the card and not the grade” consistently, and that’s an understatement with a player like Mantle - perhaps the single most difficult postwar player to get any kind of deal on, simply because he is so popular and if you are buying online he’s everywhere - if an undergraded or strong-for-the-grade card is out there, people are going to see it and pay attention. You are right in that the value for cards in lower grade that still retain a lot of eye appeal is ostensibly that you can get them at bargain bin prices. I think sometimes yes, and sometimes maybe not for so much of a bargain - but still in many cases you can get a card for cheaper than the card could be had for otherwise without some small hidden flaw.

Here's another way of looking at it - I paid maybe close to a "Dean's Card" price for a PSA 3 '65 Mantle. But if you spent that money with Dean you will get a PSA 3 that looks like a 3; doing it my way I got a card that looks more like a 6.

I do see your point. Sometimes I'm willing to go for this kind of thing, other times not. I'm not sure there is any grand rhyme or reason behind it for me personally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk