O/C in Graded Cards

[JollyElm]

I am personally not a graded card collector, but something really bugs me about the whole situation. When PSA, et al, were established, why didn't they 'truly' grade cards with qualifications included right on the holders as standard operating procedure? In other words, if it's O/C, then it's going to be noted as O/C on the slab no matter what.

For instance, I hear all the time that submitters can forego having qualifiers listed on the slabs (unless its too extreme a case) at the expense of a grade point or two. Why is that the case? If a beautiful card is an 8, but it's significantly off-center, why not have it be an 8 O/C from the get-go? If the grading companies did this from the beginning, then you would always know the 'true' grade of a card. Plus, if this was SOP from day one, then there would be much less of a stigma attached to cards with qualifiers, because it would be the norm.

It's annoying seeing a card that's an 8, but it's way off center and no qualifier is listed on the slab. And if someone recounts the stupid maxim, "Buy the card, not the slab" one more time my head is going to explode. That's not the point. The point is having a grading system that is true to reality.

Case in point (not my card):
clemente.jpg

[atx840]

"Buy the card, not the slab"

[t206blogcom]

Originally Posted by atx840

"Buy the card, not the slab"

You beat me to it!

[itjclarke]

This looks like a very recent submission, so definitely within the era of PSA qualifiers. Regardless of anyone's subjective opinion.. or that old oft used slogan.. it looks like a PSA grader considered this card an unqualfied 8.

Personally, I wish all cards used something like the old BVG (or BGS?) system where there were 3 criteria and it gave you a number for each. It would be nice if a couple other things like image quality, registration, etc could be added to a similar stye system and be printed on the back of a flip... or maybe on a registry filed with a high resolution scan under each card's s/n.

[brewing]

I couldn't disagree more. Qualifiers are the biggest pile of horse s#%t when it comes to PSA. If its off centered, stained, miscut, or has a print defect, then grade accordingly. These are all things that detract from a cards' grade or condition. No different than creases or rounded corners. Where is the creases qualifier?

I'm fine with the grade of 8. It is at least 70/30.

Here is the standard from PSA
NM-MT 8: Near Mint-Mint
A PSA NM-MT 8 is a super high-end card that appears Mint 9 at first glance, but upon closer inspection, the card can exhibit the following: a very slight wax stain on reverse, slightest fraying at one or two corners, a minor printing imperfection, and/or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

[glynparson]

with the grade

[toledo_mudhen]

My experience has been that unloading a PSA 6 is much easier than moving a PSA 8 (OC) any day of the week. Since I only buy PSA slabs for resale to the kool aid drinkers - it works out for me.

Of course you can always eliminate the happy horsesh*t from PSA by simply changing the address on your submissions from Newport Beach, CA to Bound Brook, NJ

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

My experience has been that unloading a PSA 6 is much easier than moving a PSA 8 (OC) any day of the week. Since I only buy PSA slabs for resale to the kool aid drinkers - it works out for me.

Of course you can always eliminate the happy horsesh*t from PSA by simply changing the address on your submissions from Newport Beach, CA to Bound Brook, NJ

It seems most people are missing the point of my post. Right now, as you indicated, the same card could be determined to be an 8 with a qualifier or a 6 with no qualifiers. Most collectors seem to prefer the card without qualifiers, so clearly they would prefer that one.

My point is, wouldn't it have been a better and more honest system if the TPG's included obvious flaws like O/C on all cards from the beginning?? Eliminating the option of receiving a lesser grade if the card's flaws were completely ignored would give a consistency to the system that just doesn't exist in its current state. A card that's an 8, but off center, would always get an 8 O/C and a card that's a true 8 would get an 8. In other words, it would reflect the unbiased reality of the card in question.

The Clemente I posted here is just one quick example. It's obviously off centered both ways - top to bottom and side to side - yet there's no mention of it anywhere. It's too late to put the Genie back in the bottle, but I think it would've been a much better and realistic system if they noted all qualifiers on the label without allowing you to opt your card out for a lower number grade.

[glchen]

I think the point is that this card is properly graded, and doesn't deserve the O/C qualifier. It's slightly off center, but not off center for the grade. Not all 8's are perfectly centered. You'd need to upgrade to a 9 or possibly even a 10 for that b/c even 9's can be slightly off center.

In regards to the qualifiers, some collectors don't like qualifiers on their slabs, which is why they prefer 6's to 8OC. (SGC and Beckett don't have qualifiers at all on their flips.) I think it's reasonable for TPG's to allow this. PSA only does this (2 point downgrade but no qualifier) for certain qualifiers like OC. For example, if the qualifier were MC (miscut) or MK (mark), even if you requested no qualifiers on the submission form, you would still get these qualifiers on the flip.

On a personal level, I prefer 8OC to 6 because sharp corners to me has more of a "pack fresh" appeal that I like. I know many collectors disagree with me because they prefer better centering for slightly softer corners. In my experience 8OC sell at a slightly higher price also although if the card is very off center almost to a point of miscut, then it's a different story.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

The Clemente I posted here is just one quick example. It's obviously off centered both ways - top to bottom and side to side - yet there's no mention of it anywhere.

2 things here:

1) As already pointed out by "Brewing" in post #5, that card doesn't warrant a qualifier. It's ballpark 70/30 and that is within PSA's standards.

2) This is regarding the comment I quoted above. O/C quailifiers are a joke. Does one really need to see the letters "O/C" on a flip to tell them that a cards is off-center? As you posted above, you can see that it's off center both ways (although I disagree with you on that), but then you're complaining because there is no mention of it on the flip. Well, if you can see it from the card, why do you need to see it on the flip? In other words, anybody that needs to see "O/C" on the flip to tell them that a card is off center probably shouldn't be collecting cards. That's not directed to you, it's a general statement. I can tell if a card is O/C (at least to my standards) by looking at the card, I don't need some flip to tell me that.

Regarding your overall point, I agree with you. If PSA is going to use qualifiers (which I agree with Brewing - they are "horse s#%t" anyway), then they should use them every time that one is waranted - not omit them just because the submitter requests so.

[Stonepony]

This card measures about 60/40 off center. Is does not deserve a qualifier by PSAs definition so none was given. It is an 8, and not all 8s are created equal. Buy the 8 that most appeals to you

[pepis]

Originally Posted by atx840

"Buy the card, not the slab"

The overwhelming majority of buyers are investors registry chasers and people
that think they have knowledge, will always buy the slab 1st! true collectors,
(and there is some here) still buy ungraded cards,
as for the qualifiers in slabs, it remains the dumbest thing that a grading company could have!! however PSA is the top grading company and they
don't even judge & grade cards by there true integrity, go figure.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by pepis

...
as for the qualifiers in slabs, it remains the dumbest thing that a grading company could have!! ...

Removing qualifiers for OC is somewhat persuasive to me although I don't completely agree. However, how about the qualifier for MK (marks)? Many marks on cards are not nearly so obvious.