Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[JollyElm]

Here are six different PSA graded 1961 high numbered #554 Pirates Team cards from ebay...

342637

All other things being equal, they are pretty similar to each other in the fact that they are all pretty far off-centered, nearly hitting the bottom border (except for card #1 which instead nearly hits the top), and having a large amount of white space on the right side. Rule of thumb says a PSA 8 OC (with some exceptions, of course) would be/could be called a straight PSA 6 if the submitter asked for no qualifiers. I have no idea if the sixes here were regularly PSA graded cards that received 6's or if they were, in fact, 8 OC's that got 'demoted.'

If centering isn't a big factor with you, I'm pretty sure each of these cards would be close enough that any one of them would fit into your collection or 1961 set. But...and it's a BIG BUT...only one of these six cards has a qualifier on the label, the last one. In all fairness, it is a hair closer to the edge than the others. On the positive side, its number grade is the highest of the lot. So let's look at the ask prices. Would you take...
the first card (PSA 6) for $125
the second card (PSA 7) for $185
the third card (PSA 6) for $145
the fourth card (PSA 7) for $79.99
the fifth card (PSA 6) for $110
...or the sixth card (PSA 8 OC), the only one with a qualifier, for a measly $30?????????

Some people need everything perfectly centered, and that's fine, but for the rest of us, does the very minor difference in centering on the card with the qualifier make you consider paying a ton more (up to six times as much) for a card with a lower number grade, simply because it doesn't have The Scarlet Letters OC on the slab?????

I happily jumped on card #6.

[sfh24]

Without question I would take the PSA 8. I do not consider "OC" as a major factor on vintage (especially from 60s and back). Main detractors for me are corners, creases and spots. I want the card to look as close as possible to how it was coming out of the pack. **I do draw the line at "MC".

Card would happily come out of the slab and go into it's spot in my binder.

[silvor]

Are these BIN asks? Or Dean's prices? :)

The last straight 6 went for $32

https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1961-topps/pirates-team/auction/2291503

To me I look at a 8OC as a 6, so it's not out of line.

[sfh24]

Are these BIN asks? Or Dean's prices? :)

The last straight 6 went for $32

https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1961-topps/pirates-team/auction/2291503

To me I look at a 8OC as a 6, so it's not out of line.

I have found that an accurate method for determining "real market" value is to take a "Dean's" price and divide by 4.

[JollyElm]

I used the cards I did in the example because they all looked very similar to each other (with one side coming close to touching the border). On a side note, if I was buying a PSA 6, I would have grabbed one that had decent centering. My point was that all of the cards shown were nearly identical, but none had qualifiers (although they all 'deserved' them) except for the one that was listed for only a fraction of the price of the others...and it had a higher overall number, too, a frickin' 8!!! I don't think there's any doubt that the OC qualifier alone sent that card's price to the basement.

[midmo]

http://www.collectingbrooklyn.com/net54/dot.jpg

[JollyElm]

Um...that is why I specifically said, "Rule of thumb says a PSA 8 OC (with some exceptions, of course) would be/could be called a straight PSA 6 if the submitter asked for no qualifiers."

[bnorth]

Darren, with the thread title I though it would be about how you recently got into graded cards.:D

[avalanche2006]

I do agree with the thread title.
It seems that everyone is so focused on getting their beautiful vintage cards in plastic and for someone, somewhere, to put a number on the card to say how nice it is. I always have and always will appreciate that feel of cardboard in my hand while enjoying my hobby and the memories from my childhood.

[mrmopar]

How about which one does your eye like the best? I think, based only on what I can see from the small photos, that card 1 would be my pick.

[JollyElm]

I am definitely a relatively new convert to the graded world. When I saw what ebay prices were for ungraded cards as compared to their graded counterparts, the switch was made. Why pay $25 for an ungraded card that looks pretty decent, when I can find a PSA 8 for only a little more?? This gives me peace of mind and allows me to have a good idea of what I can sell the card for if the need arose.

It's unfortunate that the TPG's handle 'problems' so weirdly, though. If a card is an 8 and is OC, just call it what it is, PSA 8 OC. Why give the option of making it a straight 6???? It's the same off-centered card. It would've been marvelous if all graded cards were given the suitable qualifiers they deserved (everyone who grew up collecting cards before the 1990's/2000's knew that centering and quality control was not Topps' strong point) from the very beginning. No tweaking things. That would have made cards without qualifiers even more desirable, because no funny business would be involved. A PSA 7 would truly be a PSA 7, and not a PSA 9 OC that was sent in to be graded 'without qualifiers,' for example (I know, I know, you can see the centering with your own eyes, but that's besides the point). Unfortunately, it's too late to unring the grading bell.

[JollyElm]

How about which one does your eye like the best? I think, based only on what I can see from the small photos, that card 1 would be my pick.

For my eye, card #4 would probably be the best of the OC's. And it has/had the added benefit of being the lowest priced of all except for the vaunted #6.

[jchcollins]

I am definitely a relatively new convert to the graded world. When I saw what ebay prices were for ungraded cards as compared to their graded counterparts, the switch was made. Why pay $25 for an ungraded card that looks pretty decent, when I can find a PSA 8 for only a little more?? This gives me peace of mind and allows me to have a good idea of what I can sell the card for if the need arose.

It's unfortunate that the TPG's handle 'problems' so weirdly, though. If a card is an 8 and is OC, just call it what it is, PSA 8 OC. Why give the option of making it a straight 6???? It's the same off-centered card. It would've been marvelous if all graded cards were given the suitable qualifiers they deserved (everyone who grew up collecting cards before the 1990's/2000's knew that centering and quality control was not Topps' strong point) from the very beginning. No tweaking things. That would have made cards without qualifiers even more desirable, because no funny business would be involved. A PSA 7 would truly be a PSA 7, and not a PSA 9 OC that was sent in to be graded 'without qualifiers,' for example (I know, I know, you can see the centering with your own eyes, but that's besides the point). Unfortunately, it's too late to unring the grading bell.

I agree with you. If I ruled the world, the centering qualifer would not be optional. Like for MC, if the card is OC you get it no matter what. This would be helpful in determining more with situations like today sometimes and you can't tell which cards are a PSA 5 because they have 5 corners and surface attributes, and which ones are really 7's but got a 5 because the centering was too poor and they requested no qualifier. There almost should be the inverse of the "OC" qualifier and call it the "ONLY" centering qualifier. This card is a PSA 6, ONLY because of the centering. Otherwise it's an 8 all day long...that would be fun to look at on a slab. PSA 6 EX-MT (ONLY) :-)

[Empty77]

It's unfortunate that the TPG's handle 'problems' so weirdly, though. If a card is an 8 and is OC, just call it what it is, PSA 8 OC.

I understand your point of view and where you're coming from, but I have to take the opportunity to make the case for the other side of the debate and say that I just fundamentally disagree with how you're thinking about the qualifiers and rather think it's the other way around.

To me, calling it "what it is" as you phrased it, would in fact be calling it a 6 in your example---since the grading standards were written before the concept of permitting voluntary qualifiers, if something has centering worse than is permitted for 8s, then it's not an 8. End of story. There can be no such thing as "this is an 8 except for this one thing that makes it not an 8", to me, that's what adds all the frustrating confusions.

For instance, almost nothing is more annoying in my mind than someone advertising a 9oc card with the description something like "It's like a 9! Only one graded higher", meanwhile in my head I'm saying, 'No, you have what would be a straight 7, which is bested by a hundred or so straight 8s, a dozen straight 9s, and one GEM, and it is very, very much not "like" as good as any of those'...

Whatever its original intent, the whole voluntary qualifier thing seems now in practice like a gimmick to draw different people in and perpetuate the nuisance of resubmitting and re-slabbing. If my power to dictate, I would end the practice entirely (well, with ultimate power I would go back in time and undo all that had been done and never let that door open in the first place)--and be left saying to someone, 'look, you've got a card that has a variety of characteristics that make it a 6, and that's that.'

[jchcollins]

--since the grading standards were written before the concept of permitting voluntary qualifiers...

I can see this side of it as well. In 1990 there was no PSA. I probably would have thought the concept of qualifiers was absurd. No, that card is not NM because it's too far O/C. Instead it's Excellent...

[Fuddjcal]

For my eye, card #4 would probably be the best of the OC's. And it has/had the added benefit of being the lowest priced of all except for the vaunted #6.

I agree, if these were Mantle's and you added a couple zero's to your example, I would buy #4 with the grade. Nobody want's those OC's. They are graded kryptonite. worthless. Nobody like em. AND HOW DO WE CRACK THE SGC & PSA cases. I only ruin cards when I try.

[jchcollins]

I agree, if these were Mantle's and you added a couple zero's to your example, I would buy #4 with the grade. Nobody want's those OC's. They are graded kryptonite. worthless. Nobody like em. AND HOW DO WE CRACK THE SGC & PSA cases. I only ruin cards when I try.

With both you just have to be careful. PSA is easier; use some pliers or a cutting tool to snip off a corner of the case. Then you will see the exposed thicker two layers of hermetically sealed plastic that you can slowly (and this is the careful part) work a flathead screwdriver around to separate. At some point you will have enough of it done to just pull the two halves apart. If you've done it right, you will have a naked raw card just sitting there waiting to be carefully picked up and put into a penny sleeve.

IMO, SGC cases are tougher than PSA to bust because the plastic I think is weaker. I damaged a card last month for the first time in busting probably at least 100 TPG slabs. The rub was that the face of the case itself started to shatter (this does not normally happen...) and the resulting little pieces which broke off were razor sharp and unfortunately pressed directly into the cardboard beneath. About a $250 mistake in 30 seconds. Oh well at least no women, children or animals were harmed...

[Fuddjcal]

Thanks so much for the tutorial! Much appreciated!

[jchcollins]

Thanks so much for the tutorial! Much appreciated!

No problem. There are also more than a few Youtube videos out there which can show you how to do it.

[JollyElm]

This may be a bit long-winded, but I fear some people simply don't seem to understand the very basic point here.

- A card graded a PSA 8 OC has all the attributes of an 8 (yes, according to fallible human beings), BUT the centering if far enough off to warrant an explanation, the OC qualifier. In other words, the card is an 8 in all ways (corners, focus, gloss, etc.) save for the centering. Very straightforward and there is nothing to question about the specific grade (opinions of people who disagree with the grade assessment aside). In a word, definitive.

- A straight PSA 6 that is obviously way off-center (as the examples shown in the OP are) doesn't give you straightforward information at all. Is the card truly a 6, with what the grader thinks are the proper attributes of a PSA 6, or is it actually a PSA 8 OC that became a PSA 6 because someone checked a box on the submission form?? You can see the card is terribly OC, so why isn't that accounted for (yes, everyone understands that centering requirements differ the higher the grade goes)?? Shouldn't it be a PSA 6 OC? There is no definitive answer. In a word, baffling.

If you're holding the PSA 8 OC in your hand, you know EXACTLY what you have. If you're holding the PSA 6, you have questions, because it is anything but definitive.

Let's quickly take it in another direction to further illustrate the point. Say you have a card that is a PSA 8, but has a bit of gum residue on the front to merit an ST qualifier. So (I'm not sure if you can specifically do this, but let's say for our purposes here you can) since the 'stain' is very minor, you check "no qualifiers" on the submission form and the card comes back a straight 6. Is that a definitive answer to, "What does this card grade?" Of course not. It's fairy dust. If you crack open the card in the PSA 8 ST slab, gently (and easily) wipe away the gum/wax, and resubmit it, you get the exact same grade MINUS the erstwhile qualifier, a PSA 8. If you wipe away the wax from the same card, but it's in the straight PSA 6 slab, some kind of magical transformation happens and it somehow skyrockets up to a PSA 8!!! Simply put, the original grade wasn't 'truthful.'

[Fuddjcal]

No problem. There are also more than a few Youtube videos out there which can show you how to do it.

those "how to" you tube video's have already cost me 1000's, but I'm willing to try.:D

[JollyElm]

All right, (if you're on your phone these might be too small to see) anyone want to have a little fun and play a guessing game?? These screenshots show 4 different East Hills Clemente cards (blank backed), all of which are a bit off-centered top to bottom. I chose them because they are very similar to each other in that regard. You obviously can't examine them too closely, so it's a bit of a crapshoot, but here are the facts. Two of these cards are straight PSA 7's, one is a PSA 9 and one is a PSA 9 OC. There's no way to tell, but I'm sort of assuming that at least one of the two 7's would have been a PSA 9 OC, but the submitter checked the 'no qualifiers' box and it became a straight 7...but that's just a guess.

So which is which?
(Again, your choices are PSA 7, PSA 7, PSA 9, PSA 9 OC.)

Card 1 - ??
Card 2 - ??
Card 3 - ??
Card 4 - ??

343048

[Vintagevault13]

1. 9oc
2. 7
3. 7
4. 9

[Nick55]

I'm sort of assuming that at least one of the two 7's would have been a PSA 9 OC, but the submitter checked the 'no qualifiers' box and it became a straight 7...but that's just a guess.

The explanation for the two 7's could also be that there is a surface issue that can't be detected in these scans. In my view, the best comparison here is between the 9 and 9oc under the assumption that a 9 has no surface issue regardless of the presence of a qualifier. Here are my guesses:


1. 9oc

2. 9

3 and 4. 7's

[jb67]

1) 9 oc

2) 7

3) 7

4) 9

[OlderTheBetter]

I won't make any guesses here but you've hit on one of the many reasons that I dislike PSA in particular and TPG generally.

A card's attributes are observed by the grader. If the card has centering issues, then it is what it is. That should not be changeable per the PSA slab.

If a card is indeed a 9OC then why should it be able to get a straight 7 instead?

A card should grade what it is and allowing a customer to reomove the centering flaw based on preference makes PSA lose credibility in my eyes.

It obviously makes them more money if people will submit an off-center card and will not have to get the dreaded OC qualifier. But it would be better if they dropped the OC qualifier completely than to let a customer "choose" and I wish they'd completely eliminate OC qualifiers.

[MikeGarcia]

I won't make any guesses here but you've hit on one of the many reasons that I dislike PSA in particular and TPG generally.

A card's attributes are observed by the grader. If the card has centering issues, then it is what it is. That should not be changeable per the PSA slab.

If a card is indeed a 9OC then why should it be able to get a straight 7 instead?

A card should grade what it is and allowing a customer to reomove the centering flaw based on preference makes PSA lose credibility in my eyes.

It obviously makes them more money if people will submit an off-center card and will not have to get the dreaded OC qualifier. But it would be better if they dropped the OC qualifier completely than to let a customer "choose" and I wish they'd completely eliminate OC qualifiers.
http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/1953SGCBOWMANS_NEW.JPG

..way back in the early days of TPG I always sent my OC/MC stuff to SGC ; it seemed they didn't punish centering but would let the eye of the beholder observe or ignore that aspect. Plus the '53 Bowman Color looked quite nice in their old original holders..

..

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

But if a card would otherwise be mint, but its less than perfect centering makes it something less...whether it is nm, exmt, or whatever, it is what it is. Whether it is 9oc or a 6 or a 7 according to a TPG doesn't change the fact that it is still the same card. It is just semantics and part of why I care less and less about TPGing. I do own graded cards, but my collection is increasingly ungraded.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[OlderTheBetter]

But if a card would otherwise be mint, but its less than perfect centering makes it something less...whether it is nm, exmt, or whatever, it is what it is. Whether it is 9oc or a 6 or a 7 according to a TPG doesn't change the fact that it is still the same card. It is just semantics and part of why I care less and less about TPGing. I do own graded cards, but my collection is increasingly ungraded.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Is it a 9OC or a 7? A 9OC is not a 7 and this is not just semantics.

I wish they would pick one or the other and stick with it.

My point which will most likely be missed by some readers unless I bring out the sledgehammer is that letting a customer choose seems to me a sham. You should not be able to pick anything when a card is graded and slabbed, except perhaps a min grade to have it slabbed.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Is it a 9OC or a 7? A 9OC is not a 7 and this is not just semantics.



I wish they would pick one or the other and srick with it.



My point which will most likely be missed by some readers unless I bring out the sledgehammer is that letting a customer choose seems to me a sham. You should not be able to pick anything when a card is graded and slabbed, except perhaps a min grade to have it slabbed.You are missing my original point, which I could have made more clear. I don't submit cards for professional grading and haven't for several years. I agree people shouldn't be able to pick. However, at the end of the day, it is the same card whether the plastic slab says 9oc or 7. For people who care about TPGing, there does need to be consistency If it is going to be a 9oc, it should always be a 9oc and not have the option of having it slabbed a 7. All the TPGers offer is an OPINION. If a card meets my specifications, I will purchase it for a set and probably crack it anyway, if I couldn't have found it ungraded to begin with.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Empty77]

This may be a bit long-winded, but I fear some people simply don't seem to understand the very basic point here.

- A card graded a PSA 8 OC has all the attributes of an 8 (yes, according to fallible human beings), BUT the centering if far enough off to warrant an explanation, the OC qualifier.

I for one think I understand your basic point, it’s just that your interpretation of their grading process is wrong, which I’ll explain my sense of below, but first want to also point out that I agree with your feeling that more information is better, and having the brief/coded notes of why the experienced person who actually handled a card face to face scored it the way they did is good. (if those aren’t going to be listed on the flip, since as you mentioned it’s sort of a curse, then it would be excellent if they bothered to have a mechanism to key in such qualifier codes to the cert verification system so at least looking the item up online would provide that clarification, but I sense that ship has sailed).

It is not that an 8OC gets the OC added as “an explanation” b/c it’s “far enough off to warrant” some helpful extra information, which is the impression that your wording seems to give.

It gets the OC b/c, as PSA itself states, “the centering of the card falls below the minimum standard for that grade”, ergo, it can’t be that grade since it doesn’t meet even the “minimum standard” to be considered so. It’s not that it would be suitable to say: it’s an 8 but pretty badly off-centered, so let’s mention that for clarity; it’s that it is manifestly not an 8 at all and is something else entirely…

What exactly it is depends on the numbers, and here’s where I can also correct your thoughts from an earlier post about the “2-grade rule of thumb” thing (and others who referred to it in follow-up). The reason that always comes to everyone’s mind is b/c that’s how the registry handles qualified cards for the purpose of the registry calculations---since it can’t know exactly what a qualified card should be graded, it uses the 2 grade demotion as a sort of standard average, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to accept cards like that at all b/c it would be too messy to judge what is what.

But that has absolutely nothing (well, very little, it is an average of course) to do with what a qualified card would grade if it were straight; that would be based solely on the numbers in the case of OC, which at least is somewhat objective, compared to say, corners.

So, for instance, an 8 has to be 70/30 (or better) on front and a 7 has to be 75/25 on front, and a 6, 80/20. So if an 8OC is 75/25, then converted to straight, it would come out a 7, not a 6. It’s only the need of the registry to assign an average that the 2-grade concept has seemed to become a rule-of-thumb.

(I think that knowledge would be particularly valuable to anyone comparing items for the purpose like in your original post, both as a pro and a con, whereby a really good 8OC might actually be a 7, but alternatively, it may also be only a 5 [85/15, or I suppose even lower, depending on how it measured out]---and that, as much as anything, might explain why it went for the lowest price of the bunch…)

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I think it was in this thread somewhere (though now I can't find it) where someone said they had relaxed on centering and concentrated more on corners, registration, and the like...the qualities the card came out of the pack with. I have recently come around to this. Basically, I am not willing to pay super high grade prices for 8s and 9s on a regular basis. Therefore, I am going to have to give in on condition issues somewhere, sometimes. There are times when I luck out and find an ex+ or exmt card that has the centering and eye appeal and sharp enough corners to satisfy me. The rest of the time, I have to choose.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

And by popular demand...well, if popular demand means just a couple of PM's...here are the EARTH SHATTERING, STUNNING results...

343224

Yes, the card with perfect side-to-side centering and 'Bob Clemente' the farthest from the bottom border of the quartet is the only one to receive a dreaded OC qualifier. Yowza!! Well, smack me in the butt and call me Lucy!!! I bought it anyway and am awaiting its arrival.

People will say the straight 9 is in an old holder, so it enjoyed the benefits of lower standards. That's probably true. (Yes, it's a small, cherry-picked sample size, etc., etc. I get it.) But wow!! Both 7's are closer to the bottom than the 9 OC, and one is even in a new holder. I assume that one got the ole 'no qualifiers for me!' treatment and was lowered to a straight 7...but, if neither of them were the result of checking the 'no qualifiers' box, why aren't they both PSA 7 OC???????

And once again we're right back to my point. (I'll ignore the straight 9, because with Roberto's name nearly grazing the bottom border, the assumption is the grader just messed up. Nothing else, unless the standards were lax at the time or changed in the interim, explains it.) The PSA 9 OC is the only 'honest' card of the bunch. It is seemingly perfect in every way, shape or form, except the centering is off (although it may be tough to accept that 'fact') and that's 'explained' on the slab.

Now...
- Are the 7's truly 7's that the grader mistakenly didn't deem OC?
- Are they actually 7's that somehow fit into the parameters of centering for a 7?
- Or are they 9 OC's that were turned into straight 7's by the flick of a pen?

There are no definitive answers to these simple questions and that specific aspect of grading is ridiculously frustrating when you're buying cards online and don't have them in hand. Buying a 9, with or without qualifiers, tells you exactly what you have. Buying a 7 with no qualifiers tells you close to nothing, because it may have the attributes of a 7 or the attributes of a card two grades higher!

***On a side note, something else comes to light. If you look at the PSA 7 on the far right, his name is obviously very close to the bottom border...but if you look at the words "East Hills," they are much closer to the top border than at least two of the other cards. Since the white space between the words/names and photographs is pretty uniform across all four cards, something doesn't make sense. Logically speaking, they can't all be the same size top to bottom. Were these cards NOT a fixed size?? Does anyone know if that is the case??***

[Nick55]

That's crazy for sure! Congrats on picking up a nice looking version of that card regardless of the label.

[irv]

Great thread, JollyElm. Just reaffirms my dislike for PSA. Consistency is definitely not one of their strong points.

[Empty77]

***On a side note, something else comes to light. If you look at the PSA 7 on the far right, his name is obviously very close to the bottom border...but if you look at the words "East Hills," they are much closer to the top border than at least two of the other cards. Since the white space between the words/names and photographs is pretty uniform across all four cards, something doesn't make sense. Logically speaking, they can't all be the same size top to bottom. Were these cards NOT a fixed size?? Does anyone know if that is the case??***

I noticed that when you posted the side-by-sides, and I think that is a big piece of the puzzle here and the difficulty of trying to make an example of them. The little regional issues like this would not have had processes or controls better than the big boys with all the experience, and presumably less good. Since the bottom border on that issue is slim even in the best of circumstances, it isn't too surprising if graders struggle with expectations. I suspect they give more leeway with total size wherever they have knowledge that the issued range was wider than might otherwise be seen with regular brands.

[jchcollins]

I think it was in this thread somewhere (though now I can't find it) where someone said they had relaxed on centering and concentrated more on corners, registration, and the like...the qualities the card came out of the pack with.

I think that was Adam's (Exhibitman) sentiment, which makes good sense as that is how more 70's cards than not came out of the pack. Things had not improved so much when I started collecting in 1986.

[Empty77]

Since everyone seems to like pics, I'll try to make the point that way, and by re-comparing the original card of interest: the following three '61 Topps team cards are all fresh certs, each sold for $30, via eBay, within the past two weeks, so they are as perfect a comparison as conceivable. It suggests that the marketplace is pricing the 8OC not as a straight 6 necessarily, but even as a straight 4.

-the easiest thing to recognize first is that the 6 sold for the same as the 4 b/c the 6's centering is not great whereas the 4 looks pretty good; any better attributes the 6 has in other categories were offset by market interests.

-now, if the 8OC was equally off-center as the 6, then it should have sold for more on account of its better attributes in other categories, but that's not what happened; it sold for the exact same.

-this suggests that it is being valued as a straight 4, plausibly b/c others (i.e., the market overall) is recognizing that if it were graded without qualifiers, it would grade out a straight 4 on account of the centering being so poor.

The card market seems to work not dissimilarly to an equity market, where items are rewarded for good qualities and penalized equally in price for poor qualities. That is not a bad thing for the wallet for the buyer if what traditionally counts as "poor" doesn't bother you, then its a buying opportunity, just like beat-up stocks sometimes.

But it does mean that the "2 grade" demotion "rule-of-thumb" is not a real thing, as I explained in another post above.

[JollyElm]

Round 2.

Although they all look amazingly similar to each other, three of these cards are straight PSA 9's, but one of them is a PSA 9 OC...

343358

[Empty77]

That's easy, the 9OC is the off-centered one.

[JollyElm]

And the winner (I mean loser) is card #1...

343654

...but I got it very cheaply.

[Promethius88]

I think you also need to take into consideration when the cards were graded by the cert #'s. In the op, as if the 8oc and 6 are newer grades while the others are older. It's not an exact science, of course, but imo PSA is more strict on cards these days compared to several years ago.

[BruceinGa]

AND HOW DO WE CRACK THE SGC & PSA cases. I only ruin cards when I try.

I haven't cracked open any but have always wondered if an inexpensive band saw from Harbor Freight would be the safest/easiest way to open a case.:confused:

[avalanche2006]

I haven't cracked open any but have always wondered if an inexpensive band saw from Harbor Freight would be the safest/easiest way to open a case.:confused:

I have opened many cards from psa, bvg, and sgc.
All you need is a sharp knife and a hammer or something similar.
I use a pair of pliers to hit the knife. You just need to locate where the 2 slabs come together. Put the sharp blade there, hit it and it will crack a small piece out.
Then put the point of the blade in position to separate the 2 halves. Hit it again to separate.
Get the point in there and twist the blade. Work until you get the case evenly opens enough to let gravity lower the card.

Beckett cases are the hardest to open. SGC the easiest. The cases come right open. I have opened about 100 cards for my sets and have no damaged cards.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I understand your point of view and where you're coming from, but I have to take the opportunity to make the case for the other side of the debate and say that I just fundamentally disagree with how you're thinking about the qualifiers and rather think it's the other way around.

To me, calling it "what it is" as you phrased it, would in fact be calling it a 6 in your example---since the grading standards were written before the concept of permitting voluntary qualifiers, if something has centering worse than is permitted for 8s, then it's not an 8. End of story. There can be no such thing as "this is an 8 except for this one thing that makes it not an 8", to me, that's what adds all the frustrating confusions.

For instance, almost nothing is more annoying in my mind than someone advertising a 9oc card with the description something like "It's like a 9! Only one graded higher", meanwhile in my head I'm saying, 'No, you have what would be a straight 7, which is bested by a hundred or so straight 8s, a dozen straight 9s, and one GEM, and it is very, very much not "like" as good as any of those'...

Whatever its original intent, the whole voluntary qualifier thing seems now in practice like a gimmick to draw different people in and perpetuate the nuisance of resubmitting and re-slabbing. If my power to dictate, I would end the practice entirely (well, with ultimate power I would go back in time and undo all that had been done and never let that door open in the first place)--and be left saying to someone, 'look, you've got a card that has a variety of characteristics that make it a 6, and that's that.'

For the record, while the two grade drop is a decent rule of thumb I have occasionally only dropped one grade on a regrade with no qualifier request. Remember there's a centering standard for each grade. If one just barely misses for the "8" for instance, it my be within tolerance for a "7"

[cesarcap]

@ Darren, As the owner of that 61 pirates team PSA 4, I would be happy to trade you for your 8OC and pay you $1 more. Good deal on your side.

Now, look at the 55's (sorry about the bad/ small pix). But Mays (4MC) and Roberto (6OC) are IMHO closer that the technical grades suggest. But I was happy to purchase them for significant discounts to the straight grades. Same goes for Teddy Ball Game (2), which b/c of a tiny red dot gets knocked down to what in the PAST (2 holders ago) could have been a 3 or maybe 4.

[JollyElm]

Although the team picture doesn't have a dead horse in the shot, I thought I'd resuscitate this thread... :cool:

I wonder if either of these would've been a PSA 9 OC, but a box was checked:
351301
351305

[Empty77]

Looking technically, there could be a soft corner or two in those specific examples that would withhold 9 grades, but be that as it may, I concur with the point you're getting at, which is that those are the sorts of cards that may not be straight 9s only due to centering, and therefore are candidates for being slabbed however the submitter prefers, either straight or with the "OC"...

But my personal opinion is still that the "OC" label is more gimmicky and problem causing than it is useful. Maybe this is best illustrated by musing: why just OC, why stop there? They could have a "9DC", which would mean, 'this would be a 9 except for the several dinged corners', or worse is getting hit with the dreaded "9RC", which would be the same but accounts for having rounded corners!

To me if something doesn't meet the grade definition, then it doesn't meet it. There's no sense in having an endless serious of "this is the number we would give it, except for this [fill in the blank flaw] that makes it absolutely and definitely not that number". That's what those sorts of qualifiers are, and my opinion is that that's a goofy way to approach the issue of formal grading.

[JollyElm]

It's been awhile, so maybe it's time to play another little game, this time involving the dreaded 'PD' qualifier. Whereas centering is/should be based on math, 'print defects' seem to be utterly subjective.

These eight 1961 Topps Aaron MVPs are all graded PSA 8, and each one of them has a decent amount of snowy dots affecting and pockmarking the beautiful, blue front...but here's the twist...just one of them was given a PD qualifier, just one. So which one of these cards is the only PSA 8 (PD) of the group???

For those of you guessing, let's say the top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4, and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8. So which one is it?? Which one of these semi-identical cards is worth significantly less than the other seven, simply due to two letters, PD, appearing on the label??

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48203370292_fb0ca71cd5_k.jpg

FYI: Some of these are in older slabs and some are in newer slabs.

No cheating!!!

[swarmee]

I'm going to guess #5 based on the black printing on the right border. #6 seems to have the most fisheyes/hickeys.
These different Aarons also illustrate how nice a properly registered card can be. #3 looks so clear it's photograph quality, Hank pops off the card. All the odds ones seem nicer than their even numbered counterparts in terms of registration/clarity.

[jchcollins]

I'll guess #6.

[MrPosadas]

#1 seems to have some light surface damage along with some fish eyes but #6 is the one screaming PD the most to me.

[jchcollins]

I may revise my guess to #5. Just looked at a bunch of graded '61 MVP's on eBay, and it seems that PSA takes the white fish eyes as a given - whether or not there are a few of them or a ton of them. The only ones I saw get the PD qualifier had black ink smudges on them in addition to the fish eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

5

[steve B]

Number 2 seems to have the fewest print defects. So I'll go with that one.

[JollyElm]

And the loser is...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48217420242_a1a47a01d4_k.jpg

Each and every one of the other seven cards coulda/shoulda had the PD qualifier, too, or none of the eight should've had it at all. SMH.

[swarmee]

#1 and #3 have the oldest cert numbers. So it could have been something they originally downgraded for, and then changed their assessment before grading the others. It definitely has a minimal amount of PD compared to some of the others, although seems to have one directly on Hank's forehead.

They are still giving PD qualifiers away. I got one on a 1980 Topps variant with a hard to see fisheye in "Red Sox" that dropped it from an 8 to an 8(PD).

[jchcollins]

My only ‘61 MVP card at the moment. Looks like someone off shot is washing dishes next to Willie with all those bubbles. Never considered it a super egregious problem I don’t guess...
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190708/96b4211f3319d20918467cb209c159af.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LeftHandedDane]

I've never understood why the TPG's don't scan every card that they grade, and then when a new submission is received, once they have completed their assessment and have a preliminary grade in mind, the grader can call up scans of prior versions of the same card that were given the same grade, as well as ones given the next grade (or half grade) up or down, which can be used as to test the consistency of grading across individuals and over time. It would also improve the consistency in the application of PD, OC and other qualifiers. Just one more example of the lack of "P" in "PSA".

[jchcollins]

I've never understood why the TPG's don't scan every card that they grade, and then when a new submission is received, once they have completed their assessment and have a preliminary grade in mind, the grader can call up scans of prior versions of the same card that were given the same grade, as well as ones given the next grade (or half grade) up or down, which can be used as to test the consistency of grading across individuals and over time. It would also improve the consistency in the application of PD, OC and other qualifiers. Just one more example of the lack of "P" in "PSA".

They don't have anywhere near the time to do something like that. Most graders I believe spend less than 60 seconds on each card. And look how behind turn-times already are for PSA...

[JollyElm]

Okay, let's keep the 1961 Topps MVP train a-rollin'...

(I randomly placed these cards in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout.) The card on the lower left is graded PSA 7. How in heck it doesn't have a PD qualifier is beyond me. Was this card a PSA 8 PD or 9 PD, but the 'no qualifiers' box was checked and it magically became a straight 7????? Who the freak knows, because it looks like Mr. Cub was using a snowblower.

Here's the contest. I pointed out which card is the PSA 7, so of the remaining five cards, two are PSA 8, two are PSA 9 and one, only one, is a PSA 9 PD. Which is it?? (The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48235496256_ca3d65bdd8_k.jpg

[Empty77]

Here's the contest. I pointed out which card is the PSA 7, so of the remaining five cards, two are PSA 8, two are PSA 9 and one, only one, is a PSA 9 PD. Which is it?? (The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)


Ok, at the risk of being shown very wrong, I'll play it:
#'s 2 & 6 are the 8s on account of the corners
#'s 3 & 5 are the 9s as the sharpest and least fish eyes (although the top L corner of #5 looks like a problem)

That leaves #1 as the 9PD (which could fit as it has the most bubbles aside from the 7, and they're placed worse: one near his face, and big ones in all the readable areas of the card (big ones at his name, at 'MVP' and 'National'). I agree with swarmee above that they are tougher on marks that subjectively take more away from the overall appeal, and I think anywhere that the eye is naturally drawn to is the default reference point for that, so face and text areas).

[chalupacollects]

Me I have:
1 - 9D
2 - 8
3 - 9
4 - 7 - the gimme
5 - 9
6 - 8

[JollyElm]

And the curtain falls...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48244971836_e827adabcc_h.jpg


Here's a clear as day shot of the 'terrible' card in question. The back has nothing of note on it, and after extreme scrutiny, the only anomalies I can see on the front are a few obvious white spots and a hair-thin bluish 'print line' running across the bridge of his nose (as close to invisible as you can get). None of this stuff appears even remotely close to making the card PD-worthy, so I'm at a loss...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48245055197_2bbd966f7b_b.jpg


It's strange, but no matter how many times I scan the card, that bottom left corner looks like there's a blatant problem there, but it's not the case at all. It wouldn't cause an ebullient ebay seller to scream "Razor Sharp!!!," but it is pretty darn good. Perhaps the way the overly bright light is hitting the (not perfectly flat?) corner in the scanner is creating an optical illusion? I dunno. Here's an un-retouched, close-up cell phone shot of what the corner truly looks like...

358997

[Empty77]

And the curtain falls...

the only anomalies I can see on the front are a few obvious white spots and a hair-thin bluish 'print line' running across the bridge of his nose



You know, although it seems easy for us to fixate on fisheyes (happens to me b/c I despise them) what if it really is the odd issues like the blue line thing that is the difference maker for PDs? Note also that the PD card in your earlier example of the Aarons had unusual dark markings in the blue on the left side that look in the scan like 'scuffs', and also what appears as some sort of odd printing defect 'spots' below the left eye and also nose...both these examples could also validate the concept that they grade hardest on things that affect the face area.

[Empty77]

It's strange, but no matter how many times I scan the card, that bottom left corner looks like there's a blatant problem there, but it's not the case at all. It wouldn't cause an ebullient ebay seller to scream "Razor Sharp!!!," but it is pretty darn good. Perhaps the way the overly bright light is hitting the (not perfectly flat?) corner in the scanner is creating an optical illusion? I dunno. Here's an un-retouched, close-up cell phone shot of what the corner truly looks like...



That is weird and totally fooled me. On the scan I was like 'that ain't no 9', but the phone pic does look much sharper.

[JollyElm]

***

[JollyElm]

Tonight's contest...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

I selected six cards that have (at least) one side (with apologies to Yes) close to the edge, and all are graded PSA 8...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which card is the PSA 8 OC??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48492108182_b64156670e_b.jpg

[Hxcmilkshake]

#3!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

Another vote for #3


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Just.Rachel]

#6 ?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

3 is too obvious so I will go with 5.

[rats60]

They are all too far o/c to be eights. I am going to say 4 because it looks nice but is o/c top to bottom.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Daring to be different.......#1.

[JunkyJoe]

#3

(if not #3, then #4)

[JollyElm]

And the winner is...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48516648712_6f05283f86_b.jpg

Which again brings me back to the same old place. If card #4 is considered off-center, then shouldn't all of these cards (save for maybe one of them) be PSA 8 OC's???? I'm assuming that the 'no qualifiers' box was not checked, because if the rule of thumb of a 2 grade drop was in play, then the cards in question would have originally been PSA 10 OC's...which makes no sense. (Yes, I know the 2 grade drop isn't always the case. Sometimes it might be just a 1 number drop.) Of all of these cards, the only one with a qualifier looks by far the best to me, and it's not even close.

[jchcollins]

Ouch. #3 definitely should have the qualifier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Harford20]

Ouch. #3 definitely should have the qualifier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And my biggest concern is that this card is the "newest" of the grades.

Dave

[JollyElm]

With apologies to Joshua from "WarGames," shall we play a game?

Here is an octet of (random screengrabs) 1962 Topps Mickey Mantle cards. Seven of them are graded PSA 3, and one, only one, is a PSA 5. Which one is it?

(Usual rules apply. No cheating. Top row has cards #1, 2, 3, 4, bottom row has #5, 6, 7, 8.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48342156721_7381c5d297_h.jpg

[Just.Rachel]

I'm gonna guess #7....but idk

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

#6, which I am certain is wrong because I never get these correct!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MrPosadas]

I am not the best at this game either but it’s fun to take a stab at getting it right. Going to say #5

[jchcollins]

Based just on the pics, I would guess #5 as well as it has less corner wear than the others - but will acknowledge particularly with this issue - it’s a crapshoot. I used to have a copy of this card that was perfectly centered, and looked like it could have been a 7 candidate - that was only graded a 5 in the new lighthouse slab.

Especially over the years, depending on how old the slab is and when it was graded - I would not be surprised if any of those cards was perhaps a 5 - or more recently, if all got 3’s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I would also guess #5 is the PSA5

[hammer]

Ill try 5

[jchcollins]

Ok...how long does the suspense last?!?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Whoops!! Ha ha!! I totally forgot...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48637951068_ce779fd961_h.jpg

[Just.Rachel]

Wow...crazy. bottom left corner on that 5 looks pretty jacked! I'm kinda surprised that's the 5, but I guess consistency from PSA is asking a lot these days.

Thanks to the OP for doing this. It was fun.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Just goes to show, grading is a freaking scam. Thank you, Darren, for starting this thread and posting these kinds of things. If this is not case in point why people should not spend money on a slab label, I don't know what is. Collectors should be over the days of paying others money to judge what is or is not supposed to look like a good card to us.

[JollyElm]

To temporarily bring this thread full circle, here's another 1961 #554 Pirates Team PSA 8OC (the card that initiated the thread) that I recently picked up pretty cheaply...

364381

[JollyElm]

Let's call today's contest The Brooklyn Dodgers Challenge...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

I've selected five 1957 Johnny Podres cards (random screenshots that are pretty similar to each other) that are all graded either a PSA 8 or PSA 9...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which one has the scarlet letter(s) OC??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48905512693_e878bd16e4_h.jpg

Disclaimer: Sorry, winners will not receive a lifetime supply of Rice-a-roni.

[GasHouseGang]

I'd have to guess #2. They all look pretty darn good.

[Hxcmilkshake]

4! I bet I'm wrong though

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

And the winner lies behind Door #1...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48925141033_257b34829f_b.jpg

In this case, the thread title says it all. Although the Podres is (most likely) mathematically O/C according to PSA's corporate standards, what kid opening a pack back in 1957 (or in any year for that matter) would have ever thought, "Rats, this card is really off center. Into my bicycle spokes it goes!!"???

Plus, the top border seemingly matches (or comes within a hair of) 3 or 4 of the other cards' 'worst' borders...yet, no qualifiers for them.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Rats. There goes my career in grading

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Let's call today's contest a challenging episode of Carew's the Boss?...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

I've selected an octet of tough 1972 high numbered #695 Rod Carew cards (random screenshots that are very similar to each other) that are all graded either PSA 8 or PSA 9...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which of these 8 nearly identical Carews is the only one with an OC black cloud hanging over it??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

Take a swing. The winner will be the envy of the entire collecting community...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48951949641_03e6421568_b.jpg

[Prof_Plum]

#7 ???

[Rascal1010]

# 2

[Mark70Z]

I’d go with more than one, but since it’s only one I’d go with #7.

[jchcollins]

Take a swing. The winner will be the envy of the entire collecting community...



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48951949641_03e6421568_b.jpg


Ooh, this is a good one. That card is very tough, not just because of regular centering - but also because it’s so notorious for tilt problems. I had a straight PSA 8 once that looked like it had 6 edges, the tilt was so bad. I eventually “downgraded” to a PSA 7 that is much easier on the eyes.

For this contest, I will guess #2 based on the T/B centering.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Surprisingly (well, to me at least), it's card #2. Funny thing is, the last 3 cards on the bottom row all seem to be closer to the top than the winner...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48965004226_d46ffd069d_b.jpg


But the good news is I bought it for significantly less than a tenth of what straight 9's regularly go for, so I am very happy to have picked it up. Here it is without the tilted scan...

370819

[JollyElm]

Today's episode is called What About Bob?...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Here are eight 1961 #388 'Bob' Clemente cards (random screenshots) that all have at least one side pretty close (marginally close?) to the border. All are graded PSA 8...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which of these 8 very similar (all within a hair of each other as far as nearness to a border is concerned) Clementes is the only one with an OC designation cursing it??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48977069721_94173ed52a_b.jpg

[Hxcmilkshake]

6. If not 6 I give up

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Jstottlemire1]

Card 5 is my guess.

[Baseballcrazy62]

I would say #6 as well.

[Thecafewha]

My guess is #4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I'll guess #1.

[Mark70Z]

It’s #1...:D

[Prof_Plum]

guess #5

at least we seem to have narrowed it down to 1, 4, 5, or 6

[JollyElm]

Happy Halloween. It's 10/31, which obviously points to today's winner (loser). Of course, I mean 10 minus (3+1) equals six. Okay, that's an awful streeeeetch. Oh well.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48992638321_c6c883ff7e_b.jpg


It's spooky (get it?) that although the distance from the border seems pretty universal across most of these cards, the one that's closer to the bottom gets tricked, while the ones closer to the top get treated to a whole bagful of candy. Here's a comparison of five of them...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48992094323_02f371aa6a_b.jpg

[jchcollins]

Sheesh, that's really splitting hairs. Centering minutiae on cards that are in high grade to start with I think is part of the slightly fraud-tinged aspect of professional grading that we all put up with. 80/20 vs. 55/45 is one thing; clearly most people can tell the difference there, but in this example, card 5 looks to have worse centering to me than card 6. I guess it could be the angle of the scan, but the difference here is a few points, not like 20 or 30. To me on a card that is decently centered to start with, but you can tell it's not perfect or "dead nuts" centered - it's all just antimatter. What if the "o/c" card has better color or registration? This to me leads to a card selling for more online because of a slab, where in a shop or at a show that wouldn't be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I value professional grading - especially for buying cards I cannot hold in my hands first - but for the "o/c" card in that example to likely be worth half or less than the non qualified card in a marketplace like eBay makes no sense.

[JollyElm]

Curious.
With other things being pretty much equal, the 'problem' area is the right border, but the PSA 9 OC has a bit more room there than the straight 8 does...

https://i.imgur.com/FNa6kiA.gif

...and I won't even mention how significantly wider the left side white area is on the 8.

From PSA:
MINT 9
Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

NM-MT 8
Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

[jchcollins]

Curious.
With other things being pretty much equal, the 'problem' area is the right border, but the PSA 9 OC has a bit more room there than the straight 8 does...



...and I won't even mention how significantly wider the left side white area is on the 8.

From PSA:
MINT 9
Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

NM-MT 8
Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

This to me is the "expertise" of professional grading which occasionally smacks of fraud. There is materially no difference in those cards, and had they been graded side by side, I bet would have received the same grade.

[JollyElm]

In keeping with the season, today's episode is called Eight graders a-gradin'...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Here's an octet of 1972 #255 Julius Ervings (random screenshots of his 'Rookie Light' card) that all have at least one side pretty close to a border. All are graded either PSA 8 or PSA 9...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which of these 8 relatively similar cards is NOT what the Doctor J ordered? Which one has an OC designation cursing it??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49270829117_8d14fda34b_h.jpg

[cardsagain74]

I've never understood their need for the "OC' qualifier anyway. It's interesting to have beckett break down the four main qualities of a card together, but I don't know why PSA only points out typical poor centering out of those four basics. Why that, but not a nicely centered 3 being "5 RC" instead (for rounded corners) too?

Just doesn't seem to be needed, especially since it's fairly obvious why a card with all other aspects like an 8 (except for some 85/15 centering) is being graded a 6

[Vintagevault13]

I never get these right, but here goes nothing. I vote #6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hxcmilkshake]

Going for 2 in a row. 7.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I would have to guess the third one in row one. It even looks like a bit of a diamond cut.

[bnorth]

First card in row 2.

[deweyinthehall]

#4?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

2nd card from left on top. It's O/C in two directions.

[perezfan]

Why do these professional idiots downgrade so severely for centering...

But make no such deductions for poor focus, bad registration, or cards being cut short?

All of these are original attributes of the card, as it was manufactured (and not anything remotely related to condition or “wear and tear”).

Yet they only care about centering. In today’s environment, I’d much rather own a card that’s off-centered than an unfocused image, or one that’s cut short and moves around in the Holder.

Odds are the “maraca card” was trimmed, just to improve the illusion of centering. Seems so pointless and dumb to rely on these “impartial” fools when our eyes are just as good or better than theirs. Sorry to derail the fun and games. :o

[JollyElm]

And the winner/loser is #2...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49284918093_5738152c5a_h.jpg

...but I got it at a great price, and it looks beautiful to my eyes. (Stringent PSA 9 guidelines aside) I would never consider this type of centering to be anything but 'fine and normal.' Love it!!!

378480

[JollyElm]

Today's episode (a tough one at that) is called Print Defect or Grader Defect...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Here is a sextet of 1957 Topps tough series #293 Ted Abernathy cards. All are graded PSA 9 (There are only 4 different examples at the PSA Auction Prices Realized site, one for sale on ebay, and one recently sold on ebay, so these six represent all of the 9's readily available for easy viewing, so I didn't purposefully grab pics to throw anyone off the scent. These are the 'only' ones out there.). The 'negative' similarities of the group include most are a tiny bit short side to side and there are usually some tiny bluish 'gnats' buzzing around the pics. No back print issues come into play. Here's where it gets tough...only one of them has a PD (print defect) qualifier, just one. Which of these 6 virtually identical PSA 9 cards is cursed by the PD designation??

You can take a wild guess if you want to (go for it!), but I'd love to hear why you think your selection deserved the qualifier.

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49441567757_d7e75a8fe4_h.jpg

[todeen]

For the Ted Abernathy, I am guessing top row middle. It appears the blue gnats around Ted and Wash are more frequent, and the "P." is blurry/imperfect.

[Hxcmilkshake]

5. Has some discoloring in the borders.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Prof_Plum]

#5, bottom row, middle - only because the dark shadow stripe to the left of his face and neck, (running top to bottom) seems a bit more pronounced

[bnorth]

#5 also. The print spot to the left of the W on his hat.

[JollyElm]

And the winner/loser is #4. Truly mind blowing...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49465589953_f59ffbffa7_h.jpg

[jchcollins]

And the winner/loser is #4. Truly mind blowing...



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49465589953_f59ffbffa7_h.jpg


Herein lies the fallacy of professional grading. Anyone who argues for 2 seconds that grade is somehow objective is out of their mind...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Let's call tonight's episode Reds SCARE...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

This time it's a little bit different. Five of these cards are graded PSA 9 and one is graded PSA 8...but all of them have the dreaded OC qualifier...that is, except for one. Which of these six cards is the only one NOT cursed by the OC designation??

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49576374936_4f6c50b043_h.jpg

[Mark70Z]

#4... Now, what’s my prize?

[Hxcmilkshake]

5

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

With every new thing like this that involves ‘72 Topps, the more convinced I become that it just might be the worst centered set of all time. Also the tilt issues! Last year I gave up a better centered copy of the Bench card in question here for one that was slightly worse off centered, but had better color and image. I suppose this means at heart I’m not a total centering freak...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

The one I kept. For purposes of this contest, I will guess number 5 is the one with the OC designation; although in truth we all know it could be any of them.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200223/172b5d993596c05f650932f054297d8c.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deweyinthehall]

4

[JollyElm]

Words fail me, so simply get a frickin' load of the 'winner' of this one...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49593961177_9a9c3209d9_h.jpg

[Mark70Z]

Words fail me, so simply get a frickin' load of the 'winner' of this one...

Man, thought for sure I had that one. Maybe one of these times I’ll get ONE right.

[JollyElm]

This one isn't a guessing game, but just another example to show how grading has clouded some of our minds. I grabbed up a 1973 Schmidt RC in PSA 8 OC, and it was basically half the price (or less) of what a bunch of PSA 7s on ebay (I obscured the cert numbers) are listed for (obviously, it's not a perfect comparison, because these aren't sold prices). The centering on most of these is pretty damn similar (especially with regard to that left side) to one another. A lot of graded card people don't want to have qualifiers on their slabs, so they insist on having 'straight' grades...but at what cost? A 'lower' grade straight 7 that is centered the same way as the 8 OC, AND at twice the price???? Crazy town.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49656464936_d6ac0cde6e_h.jpg

[jchcollins]

This becomes where grading is only an opinion, and treating it as more than that is them taking your money for fraud. That 8 (OC) is not centered demonstrably worse than several of those 7’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Today's episode is called Whitey as the Driven Snow...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

This is all about eights. All 8 of these cards are graded PSA 8, but only one of them has a PD (print defect) qualifier, just one. But I don't want you to guess which one it is. Your job this time is to look at this octet of Fords and simply decide which one or two of the 8 cards you would take if you were allowed to walk away with one for free. That's it. In other words, which card or cards do you consider to be the best of the bunch??

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

These cards come from 8 different sources and there's a bunch of snowfall in the backgrounds, but I didn't adjust anything too much. Just a little contrast here and there to make them a bit more consistent across the (Chairman of the) Board.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49734555912_0f217eb450_k.jpg

[Hxcmilkshake]

3

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Hxcmilkshake]

I mean 6

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[NYYFan63]

7


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nick55]

5

[irv]

#1

[MarcosCards]

I like #6. No fish eyes or white specks — with decent centering corners.

[GeoPoto]

5


Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

The 'rules' have been updated a bit to provide a little more flexibility. Instead of choosing one card, you can select the two cards you feel are the best 8's from the group.

[hcv123]

1st choice #6
2nd choice #1

[mq711]

1 and 6

[irv]

#1

The 'rules' have been updated a bit to provide a little more flexibility. Instead of choosing one card, you can select the two cards you feel are the best 8's from the group.

As per the rule update, I am now including card #6 as well.

[JollyElm]

The only contestant with a PD qualifier is (drum roll, please) lucky card number 6...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49745872722_c1837a6b30_k.jpg


Pretty wild. The picture in the auction actually made it seem like there was a decent flurry of snow in the dark areas (tantamount to card #3 or #5, but my guess is the seller's scanner has a bunch of dust on it), but that isn't the case at all in hand. I have no idea what the print defect is. No way, no how. The only 'defect' is the white dot on the border above his hat (the back is clean), but it's nothing at all. Take a look at how many white dots interrupt the top border of card #8.

For a comparison, I took a pair of random PSA 8 PD cards I ran across online and put them next to the one (first card) I bought. A drastic difference...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49745547926_fe4ff841a1_h.jpg

[JollyElm]

What a difference a hair makes...

The 1971 Topps Greatest Moments #24 Bob Gibson is a tough card to find. No doubt about it. On the auction prices realized site, there are only 15 sales of any grade recorded since 2006. And of those, there are only four straight PSA 8's (the only PSA 8 I see on ebay right now is priced at $975 or BO).

Pictured here are three cards, with a pair of said 8's. Look how close to the border the top left-hand corners of the white boxes come. Very, very close. Now look at the PSA 8 OC. It is only but a hair closer to the border than the other two, a nearly indistinguishable difference and nothing to fret about. Here's the good news. The straight 8's both sold for over $400 apiece...but I was immediately able to (picture David Lee Roth) jump on the OC one the other night for less than a quarter of that price.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49795048801_50cdc007c0_h.jpg

[JollyElm]

Today's episode is called Ellis in Wonderland...

(These cards were randomly placed in three rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

The very lesser known 1972 Topps John Ellis IA card is part of the ridiculously-hard-to-find-centered grouping of In Action cards from the set that includes (among others) Willie Mays and Harmon Killebrew (who, coincidentally enough, appears right on the Ellis card). To actually find any of those cards nicely centered and sans tilt is a feat that requires the likes of Indiana Jones traversing the globe to accomplish. Be that as it may, pictured here are a bunch of straight PSA 8 cards that all look remarkably similar to each other, except one - only one - is a PSA 9 OC. Which one is it, and/or which of these cards would you prefer over the others?

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, the middle row #3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49907042031_e93818dd10_b.jpg

[Hxcmilkshake]

5 is the O/C, I dig the 3

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

On a side note, I ran across this PSA 7 Topps 1973 'Broadway Joe' on ebay today. The rule of thumb is a PSA 9 card that is off-centered could be magically turned into a straight PSA 7 if the 'no qualifiers' box is checked on the submission form. (Have no way of knowing whether or not this occurred in regard to the grading of the card here) I mean, coloring problems in the graphic on the 7 aside, wouldn't virtually everyone immediately prefer the PSA 9 OC card (although it's a little worse top to bottom), since they have nearly identical features???

400509

[jchcollins]

...wouldn't virtually everyone immediately prefer the PSA 9 OC card (although it's a little worse top to bottom), since they have nearly identical features???

400509

Yeah the 9 OC is the better card here.

Whenever it was that centering as a key feature rose to prominence 20 years ago or whatever, it made grading a lot tougher. You continue to see changes today, with SGC suddenly getting tougher than PSA on centering even within the last year or so. Often a borderline card with them will get the lower grade, and I've seen some cases where it would appear that professional graders simply don't know how to compute centering ratios properly, or are bad at eyeballing. They obviously don't measure all of them. Some people will penalize a 70/30 card as if it's 90/10, which is wrong.

[jchcollins]

The only contestant with a PD qualifier is (drum roll, please) lucky card number 6...

Insanity. Another reason why it makes little sense to hang your hat only on a grader's opinion. The '61 Topps cards with black backgrounds are damn near impossible though. Even Mantles in high grade usually have something going on back there.

[JollyElm]

Okay, to be clear, this isn't a complaint or anything of the sort, but I have to say I am rather confounded (don't think I've ever actually used that particular word before) by this card's grading. For my fellow variations-chasing brethren, this is the hardest to find of the 1966 Topps #432 Bob Heffner cards. There is the regular version, the purple tree version, and what I call the purple tree 'lens flare' variation found here (I'm happy it's an 8). There is nothing subjective about it. An explosion of magenta ink lays waste to the background foliage. But here's where it gets interesting. These variations are in no way officially recognized cards in the PSA master set registry...so why in heck isn't my card downgraded with a horrible 'PD' pronouncement??? There is clearly and obviously a print defect that is as plain as day to anyone looking at the card, yet no designation is made...

403745

...yet for the love of criminy, my 1961 Topps #485 Banks MVP card got the Scarlet Letters 'PD' attached to it, although for the life of me I will never understand why. There are no explosions. In fact, it seem Topps was in a state of detente at the time...

403746

I have a couple of Schmidt rookie cards with a decent amount of snow floating around, and they were both correctly PD'ed. Are the PSA graders collectors who know about this variation, so they ignore the fact that said variation IS a print defect?? Strange. Again, not complaining, just wondering what the logic is here.

[jchcollins]

These variations are in no way officially recognized cards in the PSA master set registry...so why in heck isn't my card downgraded with a horrible 'PD' pronouncement??? There is clearly and obviously a print defect that is as plain as day to anyone looking at the card, yet no designation is made...

403745

...yet for the love of criminy, my 1961 Topps #485 Banks MVP card got the Scarlet Letters 'PD' attached to it, although for the life of me I will never understand why. There are no explosions. In fact, it seem Topps was in a state of detente at the time...


This is typical PSA inconsistency that has never really been corrected. Not that it's an excuse, but the Banks is in an old slab. Back in the day they were very tough with the PD qualifier, and at some point that suddenly changed. I had the Willie Mays MVP from that same set, and it was riddled with snow, way worse than your Banks. But it was in a (newer) straight PSA 7 case. These kind of things added up is why the consensus still points to professional grading being very inconsistent, and something that should be considered as only one opinion and not the end-all, be-all, as far as I'm concerned. You could bust the slabs and send both of those cards back in tomorrow and they could come back with totally different grades.

[bb66]

1st choice #1
2nd choice #6

[JollyElm]

Whoops, I neglected to resolve Ellis in Wonderland...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49985910337_4a1e6bac06_b.jpg

[GasHouseGang]

.

[JollyElm]

Let's call tonight's brand new episode What the Eck is Going on Here??!!...
(A Quinn Martin Production)

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here is a group of very nearly identical 1976 Topps Dennis Eckersley rookie cards (and I won't even ask what the Eck is going on with that weird long lock of matted hair covering most of his ear). Each and every one of them has been graded as a straight PSA 9, except one - only one - which was callously deemed a PSA 9 OC. Which one is it? Which one is the terrible outcast who has been exiled to the Island of Misfit Cards??

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50109668776_e2880d3dbe_h.jpg

[deweyinthehall]

#3

[Hxcmilkshake]

6!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[hcv123]

#4 and #8. I'm gonna pick #4

[jchcollins]

I am going to guess #7, but again could be any of them. Classic PSA randomness. I am going to guess that whichever one it is is an older slab.

[JollyElm]

And the very puzzling winner/loser is...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50164295352_6f2eed66cc_h.jpg

As Shaggy would say, "Yoinks!!!!"

[NiceDocter]

This may have been addressed here before but I am still a novice at the graded card game. I have seen a lot of cards that are pretty decently centered on the front but not at all on the back...... couldn’t this account for some of these grades or is that not the way they operate?

[JollyElm]

This may have been addressed here before but I am still a novice at the graded card game. I have seen a lot of cards that are pretty decently centered on the front but not at all on the back...... couldn’t this account for some of these grades or is that not the way they operate?

Yup, it sure can. No question. The cards I've featured in this thread, though, are (usually) my own, so I always make sure the backs aren't the reason for the qualification when I present a new 'episode.'

[RayBShotz]

Great thread.

I agree totally with the idea that an O?C card should be graded and slabbed as O/C if that's what the PSA standards call for.

To grade a MINT card NRMT (9 to a 7) is disingenuous and flat out incorrect.
I wish they never allowed "no qualifiers" selectability by the customer.
RayB

[jchcollins]

Great thread.

I agree totally with the idea that an O?C card should be graded and slabbed as O/C if that's what the PSA standards call for.

To grade a MINT card NRMT (9 to a 7) is disingenuous and flat out incorrect.
I wish they never allowed "no qualifiers" selectability by the customer.
RayB

Yeah, but remember grading standards for Mint - Poor in somewhat decent detail existed before professional grading. It was less precise then, but it is logical that bad centering being the "only" problem with a card will lower the grade. It stands to reason then, that an otherwise Mint 9 card with centering slightly outside the 65/35 standard would be NM-MT. This is how grading worked for at least 2 decades (by those who did it properly...) before PSA decided to invent qualifiers. It's not "incorrect."

[JollyElm]

I found myself looking through some 1972 high numbers and realized an odd pattern was seeming to emerge, so here's a brand new episode. Let's call it Biting Off Morgan You Can Chew...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here is an octet of 1972 Joe Morgan Traded cards. Each and every one of them has (at least) one side getting pretty chummy with a border. They are quite similar in that specific regard, and all of them have been graded as either a straight PSA 8 or PSA 9, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier. Which one is it?

Which card is NOT a part of a Well-Oiled (Big Red) Machine??


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50193611462_833c2b9bc8_h.jpg

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

Chime in. Let's have some fun!!

[Hxcmilkshake]

Let's see if I can make it 2 in a row....4!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[deweyinthehall]

I haven't gotten one of these right yet, so like George Costanza I'm going to dp the opposite, go against my instincts and pick not the one which appears most OC to me, but the one that appears the least. I'm going with #8...Serenity Now!!

[GasHouseGang]

I haven't gotten one either. I'll guess #7. But it never seems to be based on what the card actually looks like!:D

[JollyElm]

I gotta say, it's a little depressing that more people aren't participating in this thread. Oh well, what can you do.

The winner/loser (by a mere hair??) is good ole contestant number 1...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50223690192_c5f1553a6c_h.jpg

No discernible tilt and pretty acceptable side-to-side centering for a tough HOF'er high number, so I'll take it!

[JollyElm]

For my money, this is one of the best cards of the 70's. A horizontal layout with the crowd wonderfully blurred in the background (Dave Kingman has a similar looking card), coupled with the fact that the hairy-armed Garvey captured the MVP award that year, makes it a quintessential piece of 1974 cardboard. With apologies to Billy Crystal, let's call tonight's episode You Look Garv-uh-lous...

(These cards were randomly placed in three rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)


Pictured here is a sextet of 1974 Topps Steve Garvey cards. Each one of them has been graded as a straight PSA 9, except one - only one - which was deemed PSA 9 OC. In looking at the entire group, they all seem perfectly fine for those of us in the non-OCD crowd. Really marvelous. None jump out as OFF CENTER!!!!!!

So, which one got the OC qualifier?

(The top row contains cards #1 and 2, the second row 3 and 4 and the bottom row has cards 5 and 6.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50292249196_e95b3d22fc_b.jpg

(On a side note, the average price of the five straight PSA 9's pictured here is almost six times as much as what the one with the OC on the label cost. Six times as much!!! Truly stunning.)

[martingale]

My vote is for #4 getting the OC, with #6 as a close second choice.

[HRBAKER]

I think that a lot of people are just tired of talking about the obvious inadequacies of TPG as it is currently constituted. Most people know, many don't care and certainly quite a few would rather the conversations go away.

As long as it helps people trade in the internet age and most importantly line their pockets it really doesn't matter how good (or bad) they are apparently.

[Gorditadogg]

#4 is off center obviously. The others are fine.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I should stumble across the right one sometime. I'll guess #2.

[Hxcmilkshake]

4!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

I guess sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Number 4 is the winner/loser...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50299619247_2194e85b4b_b.jpg


But the good news is it only cost me $36, so I jumped at it. The cards pictured sold for (in no particular order) $203.15, $171.50, $190.01, $151.50, and $305.00, so I'm quite happy to have the 'cheap' one.

Here's what it looks like in hand, by its lonesome. Beautiful. Although technically accurate for the grade, what pack-opening baseball card collector would ever immediately describe it as off-center??

416669

[Gorditadogg]

That was a nice pickup for $36, Jolly. I came in late to this thread, what do we win for guessing right?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I guess sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Number 4 is the winner/loser...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50299619247_2194e85b4b_b.jpg


But the good news is it only cost me $36, so I jumped at it. The cards pictured sold for (in no particular order) $203.15, $171.50, $190.01, $151.50, and $305.00, so I'm quite happy to have the 'cheap' one.

Here's what it looks like in hand, by its lonesome. Beautiful. Although technically accurate for the grade, what pack-opening baseball card collector would ever immediately describe it as off-center??

416669

You're absolutely right. No one would describe that as OC. I'm going to only have OC's in my 1974 set if that's the standard.

[JollyElm]

That was a nice pickup for $36, Jolly. I came in late to this thread, what do we win for guessing right?

You get a jar full of angry wasps...with an ill fitted lid.

[Gorditadogg]

You get a jar full of angry wasps...with an ill fitted lid.

Haha, I will let it ride- double or nothing on the next one.

[Oscar_Stanage]

What a great thread!
I was not able to guess any of the pictures correctly, lol.

I would not buy a slabbed card with a qualifier unless i planned to remove it. It seems silly, but I just don't want a special designation, even though it's only optics.

the best advice i have gotten withe respect to TPG is to "buy the card, not the grade". So if the market gives me a discount because of what is stamped (arbitrarily) on a label, then so be it! I primarily buy raw cards, saves me from all the hassle.

[JollyElm]

It's time for another episode of everyone's favorite game show. Let's call this one Ep, Ep and Away...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here are eight different 1972 Topps #715 Mike Epstein cards, a tough high number that is notorious for it's image virtually always floating up towards the top border with the result being an excess amount of white at the bottom. Each and every one of them here has that very same (nearly identical) deviation. All have been graded as either a straight PSA 8 or a straight PSA 9, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier. Which one is it?

Which card got the Mike drop??

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50646707342_9d008a5185_b.jpg

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

Put down the cranberry sauce and make your choice!!

[rsdill2]

I guess #1

[Nunzio11]

I’ll reluctantly say #3

[Hxcmilkshake]

This one is particularly brutal. I'll say #8

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

So Jolly, I am not well versed on the 72s. What is ideal top to bottom centering? Should the distance from the top of the card to the top of the arch match the distance from the bottom of the name box to the bottom of the card?

In any event the best centering is on card #4.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Kevin]

I do agree with the thread title.
It seems that everyone is so focused on getting their beautiful vintage cards in plastic and for someone, somewhere, to put a number on the card to say how nice it is. I always have and always will appreciate that feel of cardboard in my hand while enjoying my hobby and the memories from my childhood.

Preach, brother. I am about to crack open four T206's: Burns, Flick, Bresnahan and Dolly Miller. I like to smell my tobacco cards. Touch them. Connect to the people that owned the card so long ago.

Anyway, glad to read this thread.

[Gorditadogg]

Oh the OC is #5.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Kevin]

I agree, if these were Mantle's and you added a couple zero's to your example, I would buy #4 with the grade. Nobody want's those OC's. They are graded kryptonite. worthless. Nobody like em. AND HOW DO WE CRACK THE SGC & PSA cases. I only ruin cards when I try.

I'd love to know how to crack open cases. Any tips?

[JollyElm]

I'd love to know how to crack open cases. Any tips?

Use aviation snips on an angle near (relatively close to) one of the top corners, and gently chop it. Then push a flathead screwdriver into the gap to pop it open and separate the plastic pieces. A real simple method I've used the couple of times I did it.

[GasHouseGang]

I would have to guess #3, only because the top border is a bit thinner than the others.

[jayshum]

My guess is #3.

[JollyElm]

Any 'Black Friday' guesses?

[JollyElm]

As Hxcmilkshake said, this one is particularly brutal. Just a hair separates them all, and the winner/loser is somehow #5. Look again at how nearly identical they all are, tops and bottoms!! As Scooby Doo said, "Yoinks!!"

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50672784821_5e963efb42_b.jpg

The good news is I grabbed #5 for my ever growing PSA 9 (some qualifiers welcome) high numbers set for about twenty two bucks total. The only straight 9 I see on ebay looks incredibly similar to this one and is listed at $123.99 plus tax and shipping, so it would end up costing you almost $140. I will take mine any day of the week!!

[swarmee]

Here's an interesting thread from the PSA forum:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1026907/need-advice-on-back-centering-for-this-1976-topps-gary-carter-update

PSA not giving MC qualifiers on cards with miscut backs for some sets and not others. We all know they're lax on 1955 Bowman because the printing of that set usually had bad front/back alignment, but it also seems they're doing that with 1976 Topps cards. Consistently inconsistent; so much for "grading standards." Hopefully their corporate takeover will fix crap like this.

[jchcollins]

PSA not giving MC qualifiers on cards with miscut backs for some sets and not others.

In my experience, PSA has always been hit or miss with cut problems on the back. I have a '66 Koufax that (to me, anyway...) is clearly MC on the back. PSA gave it a straight 6.

[Gorditadogg]

Well, crap, Jolly. I am not really interested in that jar of bees you've been saving for me. I will feel I'm a winner though if you will answer the question I posed to you earlier in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

So Jolly, I am not well versed on the 72s. What is ideal top to bottom centering? Should the distance from the top of the card to the top of the arch match the distance from the bottom of the name box to the bottom of the card?


Sorry, missed your question. I imagine what you described is probably how they do measure it, but visually speaking, I personally prefer it to have a touch more room at top than at the bottom.

[JollyElm]

It's time for another episode, so let's call this one Ryan's Nope...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here are eight different 1974 Topps #20 Nolan Ryans, one of history's finest looking baseball cards. Every one of them has at least one side that's pretty close to the border, so if one is deemed to be off-centered, then all of them must be, right? NOPE!! Each has been graded as a straight PSA 8, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier thrown at it. Which one is it?

Which card got beaned by a fastball??

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50732939562_1e03e28523_h.jpg

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

[jchcollins]

I'll guess #7.

[Kutcher55]

#7 would be my guess as well. btw, no offense, but you can't have "1974 Topps" and "one of history's finest looking baseball cards" in the same sentence. Although I do agree it's a great photo of the Ryan Express.

[jchcollins]

btw, no offense, but you can't have "1974 Topps" and "one of history's finest looking baseball cards" in the same sentence.

LOL, I would have to agree with that as well. I actually like the 74's, but I don't think they rate anywhere near the best sets of all time.

[Wimberleycardcollector]

Never really cared for graded cards. Call me old school but I prefer to collect like I did when I was a kid. I love for my cards to be as nice as I can get but not encased in a plastic coffin. I also like the pricing of raw cards. With a little study and research great deals can still be had. I can see the advantage of it for the investor or value oriented collectors but the money doesn't matter to me. It's just a fun hobby that I've recently come back to.

[jchcollins]

Never really cared for graded cards. Call me old school but I prefer to collect like I did when I was a kid. I love for my cards to be as nice as I can get but not encased in a plastic coffin. I also like the pricing of raw cards. With a little study and research great deals can still be had. I can see the advantage of it for the investor or value oriented collectors but the money doesn't matter to me. It's just a fun hobby that I've recently come back to.

Your approach is still a popular one. If I'm buying pricier cards online, I prefer graded for the peace of mind of it. But I have been known to liberate certain cards and turn them into raw ones again after I receive them.

[ASF123]

I love for my cards to be as nice as I can get but not encased in a plastic coffin.Concur. It kind of feels like a card in a slab ceases to be a card, i.e. a thing in and of itself. It's just an accessory to the "PSA prestige and scarcity" that people are chasing. Totally understand the authentication/peace of mind aspect of it, though - although given the trimming scandal and the wild inconsistencies demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere, there's nothing "real" about a PSA grade. But the market still largely treats it as if there is, so there is peace of mind that comes with it. I think I would want graded for any card above maybe $400-500?

[GasHouseGang]

I'm going to say #1. I don't like the looks of the left lower corner.

[JollyElm]

The ferocity of looking straight into the barrel of the Ryan cannon as he's about to blow you away?? Best...card...evah... :D

[Hxcmilkshake]

7 for me Dog!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Kutcher55]

Curious what's up with #8 on that group of '74 Ryans. The color makes it look almost like a variation. Is that just a matter of photo lighting or is there something more to it?

[JollyElm]

Curious what's up with #8 on that group of '74 Ryans. The color makes it look almost like a variation. Is that just a matter of photo lighting or is there something more to it?

These are all just screengrabs, so it's probably nothing but the lighting involved with the original picture or scan.

[jchcollins]

Curious what's up with #8 on that group of '74 Ryans. The color makes it look almost like a variation. Is that just a matter of photo lighting or is there something more to it?

Would agree with Jolly it's probably just the lighting in the pic, but I will say 70's cards can have some funky color variations. Not this one, but the '76 Ryan - I've had at least 3 of in the past year - and the color has not been the same on any of them. One was darker, one was lighter - one had way better focus. I think the decade of the 1970's was probably Topps' worst effort as far as overall quality control. They were literally all over the place.

[JollyElm]

And the winner/loser is lucky/unlucky #3...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50746221332_2374be998f_h.jpg

I know it's an old label and all, but it looks like the only one with the O/C designation is perhaps the best centered of all eight cards. At first glance it is clearly better centered than four of them. And take a look at the closest point any part of the image comes to the very edge of the card in each of the pictures. Arguably, the space on #3 is the widest.

[Hxcmilkshake]

And the winner/loser is lucky/unlucky #3...



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50746221332_2374be998f_h.jpg



I know it's an old label and all, but it looks like the only one with the O/C designation is perhaps the best centered of all eight cards. At first glance it is clearly better centered than four of them. And take a look at the closest point any part of the image comes to the very edge of the card in each of the pictures. Arguably, the space on #3 is the widest.Smh!!!! Is the back oc? Maybe the grader actually flipped the card over??

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

That’s ridiculous!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Fastball...or Passed Ball??

Here is a little something that goes to the heart of the matter, the reason why I started this thread in the first place. The strangeness involved with 'straight' versus 'qualified' grades.

Here are four randomized 1968 Topps #177 Nolan Ryan rookie cards. The grades are PSA 4, PSA 5, PSA 6, and PSA 7 OC. The corners make it pretty obvious which one is the 4, but the other three have the same type of centering top to bottom, and are very, very similar side to side, with one of them being just a hair better. They are all unquestionably off-centered to anyone's eye (regardless of PSA's self-imposed guidelines for each separate grade)...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51015547505_2c99b68b04_h.jpg

So, although the trio of cards are very comparable to each other, the straight 5 and 6 would most likely sell for a cr*pload more, simply because they don't have a qualifier ("Oh, the horror!!!") on the label.

This isn't a contest or anything, but for the heck of it, based on a close examination of corners, centering, and whatever else is important to you ('eye appeal' is a tough factor here, because the four scans were cobbled together and may or may not be truly accurate), which of these four cards would you be most happy with?? Or how would you rank them best to worst? Or just make random comments about whatever you want.

(The top row contains cards #1 and 2, bottom row has cards #3 and 4.)

[Harliduck]

I'd go 2, 1, 3, 4...probably no surprise from me based on the Ryans I posted...corners mean the most to me. I'd be happy as hell with ANY of them...:)


These and the 74 Ryans yours? Cool just to see that many together...

[JollyElm]

I'd go 2, 1, 3, 4...probably no surprise from me based on the Ryans I posted...corners mean the most to me. I'd be happy as hell with ANY of them...:)


These and the 74 Ryans yours? Cool just to see that many together...

Actually, none of those 1974 Ryan are mine. I believe I have a total of three PSA 9 1974 Ryans, two are OC and one is a (snowy) PD, but all look pretty frickin' nice.

[Gorditadogg]

I would go 4, 2, 1, 3. I would guess 2 is the 7OC and 4 is the 6.

I don't think I'd be happy with any of those cards in my collection but 4 has more room on the right edge so that would be my first choice. 68s look terrible with corner wear so 3 is out. 2 has the best focus so that one has some appeal as my 2d choice.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Hxcmilkshake]

I would go 4, 2, 1, 3. I would guess 2 is the 7OC and 4 is the 6.

I don't think I'd be happy with any of those cards in my collection but 4 has more room on the right edge so that would be my first choice. 68s look terrible with corner wear so 3 is out. 2 has the best focus so that one has some appeal as my 2d choice.

Sent from my SM-G955U using TapatalkAgree 100%

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Triple Threat??

This is just a random posting, but what we have here are three very similar 1969 Topps Roberto Clemente #50 cards with nice side-to-side centering, and one side (top or bottom) a little (too?) close to the border for some collectors' tastes.

(For background info, this card is usually found off-centered, but it is 'always' with regard to left-to-right, not top-to-bottom, centering.)

But here's the interesting part:

• One of them sold for $3,674.40 (which would amount to just about $4,000 with 8.5% tax and shipping added).

• One of them sold for $3,360.00 (which would amount to just about $3,660 with 8.5% tax and shipping added).

• And one of them cost less than $250 total (including tax and shipping).


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51172363952_7e3b6389e4_h.jpg

Would you pay way over ten times as much for a card that may only be a hair better in the centering department...because it has a straight grade without a qualifier???

[Hxcmilkshake]

No. I go for best eye appeal within my budget

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[ASF123]

Or, you could pay about $25 for this one like I did. But hey, you do you!

EDIT: And HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN EVEN WHEN I ROTATE THE PHOTO 90 DEGREES BEFORE SAVING IT TO UPLOAD???

[JollyElm]

Or, you could pay about $25 for this one like I did. But hey, you do you!

EDIT: And HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN EVEN WHEN I ROTATE THE PHOTO 90 DEGREES BEFORE SAVING IT TO UPLOAD???

Frickin' beautiful. Bob's your uncle!!!

[Gorditadogg]

That makes no sense at all. Card 1 and 2 are virtually identical and card 3 looks better than the other 2. I think all you can do is trust the grading companies and buy the holder.*

*sarcasm

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[irv]

Triple Threat??

This is just a random posting, but what we have here are three very similar 1969 Topps Roberto Clemente #50 cards with nice side-to-side centering, and one side (top or bottom) a little (too?) close to the border for some collectors' tastes.

Would you pay way over ten times as much for a card that may only be a hair better in the centering department...because it has a straight grade without a qualifier???

It could just be the scan but the 3rd one, or the far right one, looks a tad blurry to me. Is that what is referred to as registration?

Or, you could pay about $25 for this one like I did. But hey, you do you!

EDIT: And HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN EVEN WHEN I ROTATE THE PHOTO 90 DEGREES BEFORE SAVING IT TO UPLOAD???

Trying do a full rotation then saving it or a slight crop then saving it or if the scan always turns out like the one above, safe it with it leaning to the right to see if it uploads correctly?

[JollyElm]

It could just be the scan but the 3rd one, or the far right one, looks a tad blurry to me. Is that what is referred to as registration?

Yeah, without knowing too much, we could refer to that as having problems with the registration, but all three of the images are only screenshots, so it could simply be a result of the seller's scanner (and the lack of a CCD element, to be specific) causing the blur. There isn't enough info available to make a determination.

[JollyElm]

That makes no sense at all. Card 1 and 2 are virtually identical and card 3 looks better than the other 2. I think all you can do is trust the grading companies and buy the holder.*

*sarcasm

I should have included this in my Clemente post...

275. Slimperceptible (also Scantily Bad)
A card whose centering is only a mere hair worse than another virtually identical card, but unlike that one, it gets a dreaded OC qualifier on the label.

[Gorditadogg]

I should have included this in my Clemente post...



275. Slimperceptible (also Scantily Bad)

.

Yeah, I assume it's the PSA card that got the OC. Still ridiculous the $$ difference between the two. They are basically the same card.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Yuppers, that's why I jumped at the middle one. This card is usually OC side to side, so seeing one centered that way with just a slight hitch in the top-to-bottom department made my eyes light up. Sharp as heck corners with a clear-as-day image. Like you said, it is virtually identical to the nearly $4,000 card on the left. Remarkable...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51174421142_ad72321ac4_h.jpg

In this crazy market, it's important to make 'elevator grabs' of these all-time greats when the opportunities present themselves.

[JollyElm]

I'll just put this here. With only the tiniest bit of difference in the top-to-bottom and side-to-side centering, the card on the bottom sold for just about eighteen times as much as the card on top. Eighteen times as much!! Were these cards not slabbed, 99.99% of us would've looked upon them as essentially being the same exact card, but once PSA deems one 'OC,' the perceived value plummets.

467967

There's a happy ending, however, as I immediately jumped on and bought the top card the moment I saw it listed!!!

[JollyElm]

Today, I harken back to post #141 (and the ensuing follow ups there), to show an oddity I ran across. Graded versions of the 1961 Topps #160 Whitey Ford card are so often found with qualifiers attached to them (with an inordinate amount of 'PDs'). Here's mine (I'll refrain from screaming about how much I disagree with the assessment. Been there, done that.)...

478340


But then I looked at the POP reports for Whitey, and I was stunned even more. Take a look at the number of cards in higher grades, as a percentage, that received qualifiers. Yowza!!!!! Almost half of all 9's have a qualifier attached, and 39% of all 8's have one.* That's gotta be some sort of a curiously strange record. :confused:

478342

This entire post was off the cuff, so can anyone think of other cards that have been hammered as much as the wonderful Mr. Ford??


*The overall percentage across all grades is just about one in ten, a hair shy of 10%.

[Mbjerry]

Today, I harken back to post #141 (and the ensuing follow ups there), to show an oddity I ran across. Graded versions of the 1961 Topps #160 Whitey Ford card are so often found with qualifiers attached to them (with an inordinate amount of 'PDs'). Here's mine (I'll refrain from screaming about how much I disagree with the assessment. Been there, done that.)...



478340





But then I looked at the POP reports for Whitey, and I was stunned even more. Take a look at the number of cards in higher grades, as a percentage, that received qualifiers. Yowza!!!!! Almost half of all 9's have a qualifier attached, and 39% of all 8's have one.* That's gotta be some sort of a curiously strange record. :confused:



478342



This entire post was off the cuff, so can anyone think of other cards that have been hammered as much as the wonderful Mr. Ford??





*The overall percentage across all grades is just about one in ten, a hair shy of 10%.Interesting. And interesting thread! Glad it got brought back the top. I learned something today... Don't ignore the ones with qualifiers! Lol

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Let's call today's episode Bobknobbing with Roberto...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Okay, I've already ventured into a short version of the 1969 Topps #50 Roberto Clemente a while back, but it is time to revisit it. Before you is an eight-spot of 1969 Bob Clemente cards. Each and every one of them has (at least) one side being (relatively?) dangerously close to a border. The particular sides differ, but they are quite similar in that specific regard.

Each and every one of these cards has been graded a PSA 8, except one - only one - received an OC qualifier.

This isn't a trick question where I am asking which one it is, but rather, given that you know one of them is a PSA 8 OC, which one or two of this octet is the most deserving of that OC qualifier?

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52391412146_8c328f2346_h.jpg

[Pat R]

I think #1 and #4 are the most deserving with a slight edge to #4.

[Hxcmilkshake]

1

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[cgjackson222]

3 or 7?

[hcv123]

#5 as the winner and #6 a close runner up

[Gorditadogg]

I'd say #7 is most deserving of the O/C.

By the way, I still have 4 of those 69 Clementes that I pulled from packs as a kid, and the centering on all of them look like yours.

[JollyElm]

Anyone else wanna chime in?

[JollyElm]

And away we go...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52405642748_ed26111bc2_h.jpg

Although all of these cards are extremely similar with regards to one side mimicking the cover of Kansas' 'Point of Know Return' album, only one received an OC qualifier and had its value tumble over the edge.

On a side note, of the collectors (who are educated in the ways of centering) chiming in with one or two guesses as to which card was most deserving of said qualifier, not a one said unlucky number 8.