What would you rather have?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff J

The PSA designations of OC or ST annoy me to no end.
I can understand the Off Center if the card has no white border it's so off center, but why the designation for a 65/35% cut? It was issued that way.

What would you rather have... a PSA 9 (OC) or a 7 or 8 w/o designation?

Also what about a stain on the back... from wax in the pack. That's how it came from te factory...why is that a defect?

Personally I could care less. Give me a set of 9's OC or ST on the back and I am happy.

What's your opinion?

Jeff J

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

A card which is in the condition that it was in when it left the manufacturing facility is in mint condition, because it is as it was minted.

I do not believe that mint = perfect

And I do not believe that the manufacturing process should be a grading consideration. For example, some sets are always off center, have stains, poor registry, and other "problems"; but that is how they were made. Grading should only address the state of preservation of a card, imho.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Dale

I have a few PSA OC cards - would much prefer they be 7 or 8's instead of the 9's they are. Now I don't even consider bidding on them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony

For the most part I agree that I'd rather have cards with no qualifiers, but there are exceptions. I've got a pre WW1 card that is 9oc, and to me that is a whole lot better than having a 7. And '54 Wilson Franks have such small borders that having an OC qualifier isn't nearly as detrimental as in most other sets.
I was told that if PSA can drop the grade 1 grade and slab it without the qualifier they will automatically, but put the qualifier in when leaving it out would drop the grade 2 grades or more.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

I would rather have a 7 or 8 in all cases than a 9 oc.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff J

For me its about the best condition card that was produced.

If I buy them in bulk and have them slabbed, I'd rather have a 9 (oc).

If I pay X for a 7 or 8 and only care about re-sale value I'd get the 7 or 8 then.

However the re-sale value should not be effected by the 9(oc). The same way (in reverse)that a players rookie card should not automatically be worth more than his second or third year unless there were production rarity involved. There was a time in the mid to late 70's that being a rookie card meant NOTHING more in value.

It's a shame it has gotten this way as I bet there are way more 9 OC's than you think out there that do NOT even get graded.

JJ

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

I have a PSA 7(ST) T220 card that has paint on it. That is not a near mint card except perhaps in a catalog writer's imagination. It is in poor condition. The qualifiers are misleading as hell as to what the card's condition is. A card with a pee stain isn't an 8 ST, it is in poor condition.

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

I don't understand the ST qualifier either, as it directly affects the condition of the card whereas off center is a manufacturing issue. If a card is a 7ST and the stain is bad, it's sort of like other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

I agree. I bought this card, as you see it, 37 years ago. There was no grading system then. At the time it was a player and a type that I didn't have, so it filled two gaps for me, but I have always considered it a poor card. Today, without the gold metallic paint, what would it grade? 2, or 3 at best? But to me it is still a poor card, it has paint and anyone can see that, and no one else needs to be told either. It's a 1 because of the stain, not "if only it didn't..." Gee, except for Gem everything has a qualifier, stated or not. Except for qualifiers, everything other determining factor, grading company wise, starts from the top and works its way down, they don't start from the bottom and work their way up. If I wanted this card in today's market and saw it as a 2(ST) or 3(ST) I would never pay a 2 or 3 price for it. I'd offer a 1 price.