[jchcollins]

Don't know that I've ever seen it on a 9, but PSA is usually pretty lenient on fisheyes like that if there are not a ton of them.

I was asking on another thread recently about a '58 Mantle of mine that has a similar one - in that case I have seen PSA give the same card with the same defect as high as a 7 before...(mine, while not an ultra high-grade card to start with, I would be happy with a 5, as the rest of the card is bright and more than decent with no creases).

This type of print spot is what Beckett (the magazine, not the graders) back in the day would have termed a "micro defect". Obviously some work against the card in harsher ways than others depending on where they are, and how noticeable they are. But on the whole Beckett back then would have said a card could have micro defect(s) and still be at least NM, I'm pretty sure. I would agree on the PSA side that even with this one, it's not some super huge detraction from the aesthetics of the card. Yeah, it's there if you are looking for it, but it doesn't necessarily jump out at you. At least it doesn't to me.

Interesting topic though. On the whole yeah, I would not give that a 9 - the fisheye isn't even the only printing defect - there is more printer line crap to the bottom left. But is it still an 8? Maybe. The color is nice, the centering is near perfect, and on the whole I still think it's a good looking card. For what it is worth that is a pretty old slab, too.

Interesting to me how people judge this type of thing where a defect can be no big deal to one person, and then a total dealbreaker to another. Back in the 1980's I'm sure that was called a mint condition card by at least someone...