 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
03-26-2011, 08:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
PSA Miscuts and Consistency
This card is a straight 6:
http://cgi.ebay.com/1968-Topps-150-B...ht_1697wt_1139 And yet this one gets a MC qualifier, not even a O/C the worst it should be! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...3#ht_500wt_922 Instead of complaining about possible misgrades here, I have a major problem with this, the Brooks gets a MC qualifier apparently the seller did not request "NQ" yet the Clemente gets a decent 6 grade--the seller must have requested as such. The larger issue at hand is is that you the submitter can ask the TPG to give a "straight" grade even if a card is miscut...If the card is a miscut it is miscut and should be graded as such. The problem with this arrangement is that you have a situation where the Brooks is designated miscut but the Clemente is not... Last edited by mintacular; 03-26-2011 at 08:51 PM. 
|
|
#2
03-26-2011, 08:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Brooks is miscut
Not understanding the problem. The back of the brooks is clearly miscut. There is even a tiny bit of another card at the top of the back. Clemente is way oc but does not look to deserve amiscut qualifier. Cards appear to be absoluyely properly graded by the scans shown.
|
|
#3
03-26-2011, 08:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm confident
that Robinson got a MC because of the back centering, which is certainly M/C and not simply O/C
|
|
#4
03-26-2011, 09:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well
Well, so let's say the Front and Back were miscut you could get the MC qualifier however if just the back is you also get dinged with the the m/c as well? How does that make sense? I think that is illogical. You could have a miscut front and back and get the qualifer and a dead centered front with miscut back yet the card would get the same grade?
Also, the Clemente centering does not meet the standards of a 6 but more importantly, why should the submitter be able to request a NQ? Why should the exact same Clemente be in a 6 or 8/9mc slab? What sense does that make and how is that consistent? In short, while I can see that the Brooks back has miscut back, actually the larger issue is still relevant... Last edited by mintacular; 03-26-2011 at 09:12 PM.
|
|
#5
03-26-2011, 09:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree
Qualifiers should not be excusable, in exchange for a 2 grade downgrade (usually sometimes its harsher than 2 grades). Without a peak i wouldn't bet the centering is outside the standards. It is surprising what they actually measure sometimes. I agree it looks pretty off though, should not be an mc though. I don't get your statement of why it would have to be miscut front and back to get a miscut qualifier? A card doesn't need to be written on front and back to get an mk qualifier. Obviously a card with a perfect front and miscut back will have more value than the other way around. What's wrong with that? All cards with the same grade should not have the exact same value. You are making an eye appeal vs technical grade mistake that i often see when people are complaining about third party grading.
Last edited by glynparson; 03-26-2011 at 09:17 PM.
|
|
#6
03-26-2011, 09:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Disagree
All cards with the same grade should not have the exact same value.
This is where we part ways....I thought the purpose of TPGs was to quantify a cards' condition...Assuming you are not a purist, any dummy off the street should be able to buy a PSA 6 Clemente cards and expect something within the range of what that card looks like not the possibility of a badly o/c with sharp corners or well-centered card with corner wear... The ideal TPG would have several dozen characteristics (including a differentiation between a miscut front and back) crunch those #'s and out spurts a grade....Currently, you have otherwise perfect cards with a slight speck of paper loss get a PSA 1 and also that same card run over by a Mac Truck etc with the same PSA 1 grade. While it is fun to buy and exploit that loophole I thought the point of TPGs was to quantify "eye appeal" Last edited by mintacular; 03-26-2011 at 09:31 PM.
|
|
#7
03-26-2011, 10:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
say a t205
If with a t205 if the front in centered but the back of off center to the point where the left border is missing would that get an oc or a regular non qualifier grade? Would t cards be looked at different than something more recent?
|
|
#8
03-27-2011, 06:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Patrick
Than you were mistaken with the intent of third party grading. There is a difference between eye appeal and technical grade. This is a mistake made by many people. A flaw on a card that at first glance looks perfect is still a flaw, even if it is hard to detect. These are the kinds of cards I usually collect. They offer a nice looking card at a lower level, though they usually cost more than a card in the same grade range with worse eye appeal.
Your grading criteria would be impossible unless a card was graded for each specific category centering, corners, gloss, registration, etc. This would make the cost of grading substantially more along with being confusing as hell and we still wouldn't be able to put a final grade on a card because you want the exact same centering for every card in a grade. It is a buyers responsibility to ask question or ask for scans to see if the card is a 6 because of centering or wear or something else. Than a buyer needs to determine if he is willing to pay more less or the same as what the card usually brings. Third party grading was never intended to completely replace personal preference.
|
|
#9
03-27-2011, 12:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the term "miscut" is often misused. The Robinson is not a miscut. It is a misprint. The term miscut implies that the card was cut wrong. In the case of the Robinson, how could it have been cut better so that it wouldn't be a miscut? It couldn't have, because it is a misprint. In other words, the front print does not align with the back print. The front is centered 80/20 (ballpark guess) and the back is centered 100/0 - not a cutting flaw, but a printing flaw.
The term miscut should only refer to cards with mistakes in the cutting process such as diamond cut cards, wavy borders, etc. – not a mistake in the printing process. The Robinson should have received either a PD or OC qualifier, not a MC qualifier. Just another example of PSA's incompetence.
|
|
#10
03-27-2011, 05:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Miscut
Since I have been collecting (1979) miscut has been used to describe the types you mentioned as well as card that have centering worse than 100-0. I agree from a gramatical point you are correct, however that is hobby terminology I have heard since i was a little boy. I wouldn't blame PSA for this any more than I blame them for the GEM Mint grade. In fact there are many truly miscut cards that they just flat out refuse to holder I would suppose it's because they often wouldn't fit in the holders.
|
|
#11
03-27-2011, 06:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Glyn - I realize that you are right when you say that "there is a difference between eye appeal and technical grade," and this is what bugs me about TPG. IMO, these 2 cards illustrate this difference - I think this Matty should grade at least as high as this WaJo; but even though I think the Matty has greater eye appeal, it apparently has more technical faults.
For a card that is in lower grade (less than EX) (almost all of my vintage collection), all I want from a TPG is a slab and to know whether my card is both authentic and unaltered, or not. Val
|
|
#12
03-27-2011, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think both should be 30s. I really don't get how a dirty card with a crushed corner that ought to be seen as a crease can be VG.
Or if that's VG how a card with a tiny paper inclusion that's caused a tiny spot where the ink has worn off is only VG. I must just catch the graders on a bad day. Steve B
|
|
#13
03-28-2011, 01:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
yea wajo is overgraded...that's the newer sgc. old sgc of 5-6 years ago and it's a 20.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
