Was this an early mistake by PSA??? [Archive]

Archive

02-02-2008, 09:04 AM

Posted By: WayneHow could this possibly be a 6??? look at those corners, + staining on the reverse??? More and more, Im leaning toward the judgment of SGC for my t-206 collection. Thoughts? <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1201885033.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1201885010.JPG">

Archive

02-02-2008, 10:10 AM

Posted By: RhysBefore the card graders started making up technical grade rules out of thin air, that card was an Ex+/ExMt card. So then you have to ask yourself who is right, the collectors who called a card like that EXMT for 40 years or the card graders like PSA and SGC who started assigning technical grades and say things like "Staining on the back can not get higher than a 4 etc etc." a few years back. I dont have a problem with that card being called a 6 and if you ask anyone who was around before grading what they thought that card was and you would get an EX+ (the now equivelant of ExMt) pretty consistantly.

Archive

02-02-2008, 10:14 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanWayne, I've seen early PSA 7s that looked no better than that card.

Archive

02-02-2008, 10:26 AM

Posted By: WayneI appreciate the feedback! I'm still a novice in most respects to vintage collecting, ( only about 8 years now ) and I guess i'm unfamiliar with the old school opinion on grade of vintage cards. In some ways, it would be nice if they went back to those standards.

Archive

02-02-2008, 10:45 AM

Posted By: JKWhile I agree with everything that Rhys and Jeff have said above, if we are going to judge apples to apples, I think that card is overgraded given the technical requirements now needed to get a 6. Though its solid enough for a 5 in my opinion.

Archive

02-02-2008, 10:48 AM

Posted By: quani would have no problem selling that card as EX/MT raw and sleeping well at night...so I don't think the grade is out of line at all. I've seen worse psa6s and sgc70s. also for opinions on EXMT+ stuff i'd go with jeff's more than JK's <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>...josh's range is more sgc10s-20s that presents like EX+.

Archive

02-02-2008, 10:49 AM

Posted By: RedThere's no absolute standard that everybody has to accept. Each person has their own opinion and the average of all those opinions create the standard grade levels. If you apply old standards or new standards to the card above most people would call it EXMT. Most people would call it that when selling it, but buyers might be quick to point out those defects and call it only EX. If it didn't have any defects then it wouldn't be an EX or EXMT card.

Archive

02-02-2008, 11:30 AM

Posted By: JKYou'd be surprised Quan - while Im an expert at the low grade/high presentation collection, I actually have a few higher grade cards to at least pretend to know what Im talking about <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-02-2008, 11:31 AM

Posted By: martyi see nothing wrong with that grade at all, a very clean card with great eye appeal. here is the technical psa definition-EX-MT 6: Excellent-Mint. A PSA EX-MT 6 card may have visible surface wear or a printing defect which does not detract from its overall appeal. A very light scratch may be detected only upon close inspection. Corners may have slightly graduated fraying. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. Card may show some loss of original gloss, may have minor wax stain on reverse, may exhibit very slight notching on edges and may also show some off-whiteness on borders. Centering must be 80/20 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse just my opinion like the rest.

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:00 PM

Posted By: MartyI was sending cards to PSA in 1992. The cert #'s started with 020. This is an early card. I think that Hall's cards begain with 0200001

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:15 PM

Posted By: WayneYour being awfully generous with that card!!! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> To me it looks like it has more than slightly frayed corners, and more than a touch of staining on the back. jmho I do agree however as to the cleaness of the front, and fine presentation. Wayne

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:19 PM

Posted By: MattWayne - the back scan is blown up - the staining is very small - how much staining should it have for it to be "a touch?"

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:24 PM

Posted By: WayneLike I said, just an humble opinion, nothing more. It just looks like to me to have a darker tone on the back than others...and splotchy in spots...thats all Wayne

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:29 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsas both an older raw person (25% or so slabbed) and a NS guy - card and grade appears to actually be the grade they gave it. Now THAT surprises me! Buying it or selling it with that grade - raw or graded - seems perfectly sound and correct. A good portion of grading is subjective as are the reasons for buying something. The significant visual characteristics or parameters that cause one to buy or not buy a card are specific to the individual buyer. I think "grades" in general for raw or slabbed cards are just a descriptive element - if one can't actually SEE the card - to describe it's general state of preservation. My problem with grading is kinda like defining what is the "strike zone" in baseball. Hard to apply ONLY objective criteria to something with perceptual variances - one can only hope that there will be consistancy from that umpire. The only exception I see would be for the high end registry people - whose goal might be the "highest graded" syndrome. Not that there's anything wrong with that........

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:34 PM

Posted By: dennis"Before the card graders started making up technical grade rules out of thin air" if that isn't the truth!

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:38 PM

Posted By: WayneMarty, Matt, 1880nonsports, all of you...I appreciate the input. I by no means try and come off as an expert here. Like I said earlier, I still consider myself a newbie in the vintage arena. To me this is good a discussion. When I make my choices to by in the 5 or 6 range, I want to make a WISE choice (naturally). Wayne

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:49 PM

Posted By: martywayne-to back up jk a little, the card would probably not look out of place in a 5.5 holder either, ex+, do you own the card? if so and you feel like you have to do the ethical "right thing" send it back and ask for a 5.5 holder, wether psa would do that i don't know?

Archive

02-02-2008, 12:51 PM

Posted By: fkwPre1993 that was an EX-MT card, and should still be IMO

Archive

02-02-2008, 01:04 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsthat's funny. Not the suggestion that it might be seen as ex+ - but that it might be an issue of ethics. I'm no fish but I'm smelling bait......

Archive

02-02-2008, 01:09 PM

Posted By: WayneNo..I do not own the card.

Archive

02-02-2008, 01:15 PM

Posted By: keywaySometimes you get good grades and sometimes not. I have gotten cards back graded 2 or 3 and can't believe they are not 4"s and 5"s. I have gotten cards back that I thought were overgraded. I guess its just that on any given day anything can happen. Graders are only human.

Archive

02-02-2008, 08:21 PM

Posted By: Andrew S.That card is no better than a 5 and probably has been substituted into the slab. And anyone that saw a PSA-7 that was comparable to this card was likely looking at a pried open slab also.

Archive

02-02-2008, 08:41 PM

Posted By: Rob LoefflerNo, this is an early PSA mistake: <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1201927271.JPG"> Rob L <a href="http://www.freewebs.com/loefflerrd/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.freewebs.com/loefflerrd/</a>

Archive

02-02-2008, 09:00 PM

Posted By: Tom NievesAndrew S., you're an idiot.

Archive

02-02-2008, 09:35 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsports??????????

Archive

02-03-2008, 04:27 AM

Posted By: T206CollectorI think it is a weak 6, but a 6 nonetheless. More appropriately a 5.5 perhaps. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> for my blog, interviews, articles, card galleries and more!

Archive

02-03-2008, 04:39 AM

Posted By: MVSNYC"i would have no problem selling that card as EX/MT raw and sleeping well at night...so I don't think the grade is out of line at all. I've seen worse psa6s and sgc70s"... i'm with quan, and many others here. not the best 6 ever, but i have no problem with this card in a 6 holder... be well.

Archive

02-03-2008, 05:08 AM

Posted By: AnonymousAnother accurately graded card from the experts at PSA.

Archive

02-03-2008, 06:08 AM

Posted By: SteveBack in the day I always called a gem mint card that ended up with 1 or 2 minor probs an ex/mnt card. we had MINT, NEAR MINT, EX/MNT, EX, VG, G, P A near mint card out of the pack could never become an ex/mnt card, once it received a flaw it became an ex card. I am not sure who made up the standard, but i remember reading this back in the early to mid 70's. Thus the name ......EX/MINT It was an excellant MINT card. Steve

Archive

02-03-2008, 08:59 AM

Posted By: SteveThe scan is not the best, however I think I see 4 slightly rounded corners. IMO that card should be a 4 or a 5 at best. It is the type of card that sellers will call a 6 and buyers a 4 or 5. Steve

Archive

02-03-2008, 10:11 AM

Posted By: martysteve is right, it was alot easier back in 1985 to grade cards, another that is absurd to me is not so much mint, but the grade after "pristine", you have to kidding was my thought when i first seen that one! that was another made up grade to be ahead of another grading co. i am still waiting for the out of the pack psa 11 or sgc 104 ultimate mint grade.

Archive

02-03-2008, 11:11 AM

Posted By: lumbergyou will want to resubmit it under their new system. It may cost a little but won't it alleviate any skepticism. They will not downgrade it to a 5.5 since you were a loyal customer years back, right?

Archive

02-03-2008, 04:50 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethProlly should be (and would be now) a 5 but hardly a grave mistake.

Archive

02-03-2008, 09:09 PM

Posted By: brian<you will want to resubmit it under their new system Why would he want to waste money resubmitting a card that might have been switched? That one can't possibly get a bump to 6.5. Put a black background behind it and see if there is frosting around the edges of the plastic because that card looks PSA 5 (ST) to me.