Weirdest PSA 4 (and recently graded nonetheless)

[vthobby]

r.jpg

I remember talking to the owner (not sure its the same guy that now has it) and he even told me that the surface looked as if a truck had rolled over it and left some black tire marks or some kid went crazy with a black eraser!

Clearly there is a bunch of junk on the surface of this card. I'm baffled as to how this did not get a MK designation or a lower grade?!?!?!?!?

Does the look of this iconic card give anyone else the "willies". Or is it just me?

Peace, Mike

PS Sorry for stealing this image from another thread but just look at the difference in these two (4s). I would say there is really no comparison. The Mikan looks a bit weak compared to this beauty!

attachment.jpg

[iwantitiwinit]

Nice 4 on the bottom card thats for sure.

[j_cook]

Another example of why you can't just price a card based on the grade. And i think there obviously should be a (mk) qualifier. I like to think it's a newly hired grader when I see examples like this, but I'm probably being naive.

[steve_a]

I would guess Mikan is a 6MK that the submitter requested no qualifiers.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by steve_a

I would guess Mikan is a 6MK that the submitter requested no qualifiers.

I think this is the misinterpreted thought when people get the notion that Psa docks two grades from a card if you ask for no qualifiers. I believe the two grade dock only applies to off center and possibly miscut cards. This false interpretation is why a lot of people know to ask for the qualifier on a card with a mark because a Psa 6(mk) slab probably looks better and should sell higher than a card with no qualifier that is correctly graded in a 1.5 slab. The two grade dock for qualifiers is a loose guideline, but doesn't apply necessarily to cards with ink or eraser marks.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by steve_a

I would guess Mikan is a 6MK that the submitter requested no qualifiers.

I think a 6 is too high of a grade even with the MK designation. Does anyone think this card should have a MC designation as well?

[vthobby]

Yes to MK but no on MC.

Here is another big problem. Sometimes when you see MK, it is tough to actually find the MK on the card. Stamps and writing are obvious but I've seen MK designated and spent some time looking.

There should be a factor within the MK as to severity. This PSA 4 has SEVERE MK and I think it is blatantly obvious. If this card had a slight roller mark or someone's initials on the back then those should also be weighed based on "eye appeal".

I stand by my initial point. This is not a 4 by any standards. It is a 2 or a 3 on the best of days, maybe even a 1? It looks like someone took a piece of charcoal and smeared the front of the card.

Peace, Mike

[ezez420]

Actually this was MY card and I got it graded. It was raw and no I dont believe you spoke with me. The marks on the card were more of a wet transfer mark and not an addition. There was no request to not have a qualifier. So squash that theory.

I sold the card and know it has changed hands twice already. For the record, SGC graded this a 1 which was not very accurate which is why it was resubmitted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by ezez420

Actually this was MY card and I got it graded. It was raw and no I dont believe you spoke with me. The marks on the card were more of a wet transfer mark and not an addition. There was no request to not have a qualifier. So squash that theory.

I sold the card and know it has changed hands twice already. For the record, SGC graded this a 1 which was not very accurate which is why it was resubmitted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm more apt to believe the SGC 1 than the PSA 4. Sorry, but SGC got it right, PSA blew it.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I'm more apt to believe the SGC 1 than the PSA 4. Sorry, but SGC got it right, PSA blew it.

+1. There are marks and there are MARKS. This one is a MARK.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tschock

+1. There are marks and there are MARKS. This one is a MARK.

Agreed. Card shouldn't be in a 4 holder. It hurts other 4s like the one below it. SGC was closer than PSA but I might give it a 1.5 (on a good day). To me, a 4 is laughable. And that bottom left corner should make it where it would never get a 6, mark or no mark. I don't think its miss cut.