PDA

View Full Version : Show some over graded PSA cards!


Archive
08-19-2007, 08:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>Or post your under graded SGC cards!<br /><br /><br />Q1:What grading Co. do you prefer and why?<br /><br />Q2:Do you think PSA is consistent with there grading system?<br /><br />Q3:Do you believe SGC is to tough when grading lower end cards ~ 10',20,30?<br /><br />I believe this card deserves an SGC60 (Just my opinion!) What would PSA grade it??<br /><img src="http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j136/MapleCrispetteV117/25BillMackechnie-1.jpg">

Archive
08-19-2007, 08:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I think your card is mislabeled. That sure looks a hell of a lot like a Jamie Moyer rookie card.

Archive
08-20-2007, 08:23 AM
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p><img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/bcbgcbrcb/MathewsonChristy-2.jpg">

Archive
08-20-2007, 12:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Prizner</b><p>1. Depends on the card. (PSA for more mainstream, SGC for more oddball)<br />2. Yes<br />3. No

Archive
08-20-2007, 12:50 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>No creases, no marks, no wrinkles, nm - nm/mt corners, mint surface and gloss. Small enamel chip in the left white edge downgraded the card at least three notches.<br /><br /><img src="http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7509/e94youngnagy2nn7.jpg">

Archive
08-20-2007, 01:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>If I submit this to PSA, it's a 1<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1187543657.JPG">

Archive
08-20-2007, 06:33 PM
Posted By: <b>B.C.Daniels</b><p>bandwidth on Net54 to actually display PSA cards to the tune of let's say 2% satisfaction to the poster?<br><br>BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
08-20-2007, 06:56 PM
Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/thurber51/.Pictures/Grading%20Mishaps/1895Shindle.jpg">

Archive
08-20-2007, 10:30 PM
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>A few of many undergraded cards - not a wrinkle or crease on any of these (IMO, the cobbs should be 40s even with the miscuts):<br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/1909-11T206CobbBatOnfMedium.jpg"> <img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/1909-11T206CobbGreenfMedium.jpg"> <br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/file006Medium.jpg"> <img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/1910E93EversfMedium-2.jpg">

Archive
08-21-2007, 11:55 AM
Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Here's one of mine that sticks out???<br /><img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/andreatny/sgc30e90-1hartzellfieldfront.jpg">

Archive
08-21-2007, 12:21 PM
Posted By: <b>hotshot888</b><p>Jim,<br /><br />Nice E94 Young but it isn't consistent with your login name "E93:. You should sell it to me! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Albert

Archive
08-21-2007, 01:32 PM
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Sorry Albert - Im first in line <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
08-21-2007, 01:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Undergraded SGC caramels? There isn't enough bandwith to show them all from my collection. At least they are consistent and buyers are beginning to buy the card not the grade now with SGC cards.

Archive
08-21-2007, 02:08 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Albert,<br />Thanks, but Josh is right; he is first in line if I decide to sell it. But I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.<br />JimB

Archive
08-21-2007, 02:16 PM
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>What do you think the difference in sell price is between your '50' and the exact same card with a flip that said '84'? I would think somewhere around 5-7K.....that sure is some serious money tied up in a graders opinion! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.<br /><br /><br />Daniel

Archive
08-21-2007, 03:44 PM
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Daniel - I agree in principle with your statement. However, I dont think Jim's card boils down to a grader's opinion. It has an obvious flaw - a chip is essentially a mild degree of paperloss. That card could never grade an 84 as nice as it looks otherwise. Its different in my opinion than two cards, one an 8 and one a 9 that essentially look the same and really do amount to a difference in opinion. I also think that Jim's card would sell for more than a typical 50 due to how nice it looks. If you want to see a card that truly was subject to nothing other than one grader's opinion, look at my sgc 60 clarke above - that card has nothing at all wrong with it on either side other than the centering.

Archive
08-21-2007, 03:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Jim- That Young is a beauty. You might be tempted to cross it over to PSA or GAI which doesn't crucify you for a tiny enamel chip. That is, if you are going to sell it down the road; otherwise, I'd leave it alone, the holder enhances the card's beauty.

Archive
08-21-2007, 04:58 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Daniel,<br />I would guess it would be at least that much, probably more. I think the chip should disqualify the card from 84 status, but 80, or at least 70 seems very reasonable to me. That said, I am sure if I were to sell it, the eye appeal would bring a significant premium over an "average" SGC 50. But you are right, a third part opinion is worth a lot of money in the market these days.<br /><br />I am not complaining too much about SGC. In general I think they do an outstanding job and are very consistent. I just think that on occasion (and this is not the only such experience I have had), I think they are a bit too strict. At other times, I see the opposite. I have seen some E cards with 99/1 centering that have graded SGC 40. I generally believe that grades should reflect the appeal of the card. <br />JimB

Archive
08-21-2007, 05:02 PM
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>'was only imagining PSA being a little gentler of opinion and giving it a perhaps generous 7 and the resultant change in value......<br />I would also wonder if that chip was perhaps a printing/manufacture/ink flaw when looking at the wear on the rest of the card. It would be awfully tough to nick away some surface off the edge without doing any damage at all to the rest of the card through simple handling. In cases like these, though I wholeheartedly support SGC's vigorous grading approach, common sense says this card in its entirety is a WHOLE LOT better than a four out of 10.<br /><br />JMO, and definitely respect yours.<br /><br /><br />Daniel

Archive
08-21-2007, 05:02 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Josh's SGC 60 E93 Clark looks NM from the scan. That card is a blazer.<br />JimB

Archive
08-21-2007, 07:40 PM
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Good post, Josh and Jim those are blazers!<br /><br /><br />When the hobby started rising so fast in price, I made a point to buy cards that looked much better than their given grade. I assumed most of these cards had hidden defects some did. I however was very surprised to find cards with no defects or simple tiny imperfections that other cards I owned had yet those cards received much higher grades.<br /><br />The southern league cards below have a very tiny stain on the back no residue or anything just a small square discoloration where tape may have been at one time…<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/Carey.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/Foster.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/McCauley.jpg"><br /><br />The Huggins and Young have a very tiny wrinkle which you really need a loop to see really well.<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/hugginsper201.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/youngper201.jpg"><br /><br />The others you’re guesses are as good as mine, I’ve been over them time and time again with every type of tool/light, and IMO should be at least one and in some cases two grades higher as they don't seem to fit the mold of the current given grade IMO.<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/cobb.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/40071275_f.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/conroy_1.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/duffy_1.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/killian.jpg"> <br /><br />I did however get a really overgraded card IMO from SGC, I kept the PSA 4 version because it was much better than the SGC, so I guess PSA isn’t the only one who screws up here and there.<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/klienow.jpg"><br />

Archive
08-21-2007, 08:45 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>These posts aren't fair without showing the backs

Archive
08-21-2007, 09:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Prizner</b><p>I want your scanner John! Wow!

Archive
08-21-2007, 09:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>John -- what scanner was used on those cards? Great images.

Archive
08-21-2007, 09:42 PM
Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>Here are some low grade nice presentable cards, not just SGC sorry!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.qualitycards.com/ebay/t206trio.jpg"><br />

Archive
08-21-2007, 10:05 PM
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Jeff & Jeff,<br /><br />Thanks, I use an HP Scanjet 4890, generally on 200dpi res. Then I just crop the image as much as I can...<br /><br />Hope this helps.