|
Off-centered cards you love anyway...
Ever have an OC card where for whatever reason it doesn’t bother you, and you love it anyway? I thought I’d devote a thread to that. Here’s one to start:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...769cf48b08.jpg Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
2 Attachment(s)
These NS cards are very hard to find nice so I can live with the centering.
|
Quote:
|
3 Attachment(s)
I've got plenty of OC cards in my vintage sets. It's one way I reduce costs, especially with the costlier cards, since I'm not bothered by it at all.
Attachment 347543 Attachment 347544 Attachment 347545 |
I have oc cards but they give me the shakes. I'm getting worse about it the older I get!
|
2 Attachment(s)
Don't even know why it's graded OC.
|
Off-centered cards you love anyway...
Another. I’ve had this card since I was probably 13 years old. And had it for well more than a decade before I even considered the fact that it’s off-centered…
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...88b3116087.jpg Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
7 Attachment(s)
I have many off centered cards in my collection. Do I wish they were perfectly centered or close to it like my Faye Thornberry card? Of course I do, ($$$) but I am not disappointed at all knowing I own them.:)
Like others have said, OC cards are much more affordable but I do understand the reasons for those who purchase, or try to purchase, perfectly centered cards. |
I'd guess most of my collection is off-centered. It just never mattered much to me.
Except for 1970 Topps, where for a while I was collecting them with and without what I think are guidelines between all rows. Those I have a mostly centered group, and another that's off center enough to show the lines. Yes, I may be slightly "eccentric":D |
A few survivors that I still like before I started going for centered cards......
https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...topps-maris-rc https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...topps-clemente [IMG]https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...ps-rc-clemente[/IMG] |
|
Back before centering was “all the rage”, that’s the kind of card you might have picked out of a stack of 54 Hank Aaron cards because it has the best corners and gloss. Nice card!
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
It bothers me a little, but I still love it. The registration and lack of snow/print dots is great.
|
Quote:
For my sets I go for or will upgrade in the following order - 1. Creases (NO CREASES) 2. Corners 3. Centering 4. Gloss I do upgrade anything off center to the point the border is gone or barely there. But I'd take an OC with sharp corners and no creases all day long vs a card with soft corners and a wrinkle that is centered. Some cards I've seen I just don't get where the grader can say OC... |
I like the Holtzman in this scan, I got it from a pack in 74, and just liked how weird it was. It spent a long time in the binder with the cards I liked the most.
The 75 was a close second, until I found out that it was sheet cut that way after the factory. http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=3206 |
|
Tolerable TPG Dinosaur , but just barely
http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...19_NEW_001.JPG
..The card has such great subject matter and crisp cornering and brilliant pack-fresh color and looks so good in the old original Sports Card Digest Magazine-graded holder and was probably examined by Bob L. himself and I've had it forever sooooooo I can grit my teeth and overlook the 90-10 side-to-side . The subgrade for "Centering" is "7" ; the Bob Lemon centering subgrade is a "10". Rare. .. |
A Couple Clementes
2 Attachment(s)
As a non-recovering centering addict, I have a "thing" about O/C
But I *had* to buy the '56 Clemente here at the 2017 National, and I absolutely love it. The '55 isn't really that bad centering-wise, but enough to bother me a bit normally. But it was my last purchase from Wayne Johnson before he passed recently -- it has great color, but even better sentimental value. I'll always remember it as his card. Attachment 350793 Attachment 350794 |
Those two Clementes are both very nice!!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Off-centered cards you love anyway...
I will add this one. 67's are tough because the borders are smaller to begin with. Finding 67's truly dead-nuts centered, and also without tilt is quite the tall order. This card is fine with me because it was what a nicer looking card in a shop back in the 80's or early 90's would have looked like. It's far from dead-nuts centered, but is missing the tilt. Back then, "centering" was not a term used by teenage boys attempting to grade old cards. If a card was not "creased" or "beat to hell" in our vernacular, it was usually going to be pretty desirable. :)
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...963c20b437.jpg |
There are 3 recurring versions of the 67 Mantle, the one posted above, one with a red dot above the S in Yankees and one with red dot above the black top border on right side
|
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
My favorites
|
Quote:
|
Off-centered cards you love anyway...
|
1 Attachment(s)
Seems like most of the Al Kaline Band-Aid variation cards are OC.
|
Off-centered cards you love anyway...
Bumping this thread that I started more than 2 years ago.
Recent thought has again led me around to the conclusion that centering hyper-focus / paranoia is mostly still just the result of cognitive bias that was introduced to us 20-25 years ago along with the advent of professional grading. Does anyone honestly disagree? How many of you who were big into vintage cards in say - 1988 - can honestly say that centering was on your top 10 list? I'm sure there are a few, and that's fine. Sure, empirically I guess a perfectly centered card is preferable to 80/20 s-s if you are looking at them next to one another. But when did the lesser centered card just become inherently ugly and shunned? I'm interested in researching this particular issue almost as a sub-hobby in terms of condition evolution. It's something that for some dumb reason endlessly fascinates me. Anyone else? https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...bf017907f7.jpg |
Good questions John and I do not have an answer. All I know is that I can live with a card being off centered somewhat if the corners are good. I am definitely a corner guy when it comes to buying raw vintage cards.
|
|
Great thread. Glad to see so many others not terribly bothered by centering issues.
https://i.ibb.co/tqj3VNJ/67-Robinson-2.jpg |
1 Attachment(s)
How far is too far when “off centered”?
Drew |
Quote:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
3 Attachment(s)
Here are my 53 Bowman Color Mantle, Musial, and Berra- all off-center. Though not pictured, My Spahn has centering similar to the Berra.
|
Quote:
I think today's level of centering scrutiny is largely a con job pulled over on many of us in the hobby by professional grading companies. Think about it. Where in a spec for Topps or Bowman back in the day did it ever say that a card HAD to be perfectly centered? It didn't, because they were never intended to be perfect. In reality, not only did Topps QC not throw out OC cards, they didn't throw out most badly MC cards either. To me anymore, cards in midgrade that still look nice and are not perfectly centered are just offering more proof that they are not doctored / altered here in the 21st century, because they look the way that many of them looked back decades ago. If I can pick them up at a discount because of that - well then so be it. |
Quote:
|
Funny looking through this thread and not realizing it was an older thread brought back...and then seeing I've replied was pretty funny...and my opinion still holds true.
Also funny the discussion on the 1970 Ryan...as I received a perfect example just today in the mail relevant to this thread. I am doing a second 70 set and needed another Ryan, won this last week for a heck of a deal, and the perfect card for a second set and one where the OC doesn't bother me a bit. https://i.ibb.co/qptHMWp/Ryan-70.jpg |
Quote:
78 Topps were the first cards I ever saw as a kid so it makes them that much more special. Thanks for asking and to everyone else in this thread really nice cards guys. Most of yours are dead centered compared to my collection. Drew |
These pairs are in that same connective vein (and the Mantle/Mathews is just way cool)...
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7853/...b1970f5b_b.jpghttps://farm8.staticflickr.com/7857/...431974a4_b.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[IMG]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...961936f5_z.jpg1960 Topps Pittsburgh Pirates Team, on Flickr[/IMG]
I picked this up (unsigned) off eBay about five years ago. At the time, I was still in college and my signed 1953 Topps project was busting my budget. I decided I needed a project that wasn't so expensive, and I've always had a soft spot for the 1960 Pirates. I won this card for a song, due to it being miscut. I ended up getting an internship a couple weeks later that enabled me to keep going on the 1953s, so I worked them both. All of these were obtained TTM, except for Bill Mazeroski, who I got at a private signing. I'm on the hunt for a low grade Carl Yastrzemski rookie for the signing he has in November, and a lot of the ones I'm seeing are very OC, which I don't mind. Edit: And I just realized I posted a picture from before Mazeroski signed it. I'll have to update it later. |
From a Net54 member last year. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...4137035a57.jpg
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:01 PM. |