This is a beautiful card but...
 

Posted By: <b>Mark Turner</b><p>why would psa give it a 5 and not state it as (OC). I do respect psa but they have to be more consistent on grading.<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/PSA-5-T204-Ramly-1909-Ed-Eddie-Collins-HOF_W0QQitemZ280016936172QQihZ018QQcategoryZ31718Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/PSA-5-T204-Ramly-1909-Ed-Eddie-Collins-HOF_W0QQitemZ280016936172QQihZ018QQcategoryZ31718Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a>

This is a beautiful card but...
 

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>at some point PSA changed its grading scale and allowed that if you wanted they would grade a card at a lower grade rather than make the OC or MK qualifier. If this is one where the submitter made that election it would have been a 6 but for...

This is a beautiful card but...
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>PSA will give a straight number wo/ qualifier for off center cards, but they will generally drop it two full grades. No way that card was an otherwise 7, so I think they just plain missed it. Also, it is my understanding that a mk qualifier is always included, even if PSA 1, as they consider that to be an alteration.

This is a beautiful card but...
 

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>about PSA. Guess that's why I only use SGC. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

This is a beautiful card but...
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff P</b><p>PSA's front centering tolerance for a PSA 5 is 85/15, this card falls within that range.<br /><br />Personally, I would much rather have a nicely centered 4.