E98 Brown PSA5...nice back too...

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Can someone explain how this MemoryLane E98 got a 5? This would be an SGC 30 (2),imo.... (note, no underprint though....so it's got that going for it)





edited to add this scan is borrowed from Vintagecardprices.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Too bad the Memory Lane auction failed to include the picture on the right. I guess you can't trust that when PSA grades a card a 5 that it doesn't have significant paper loss on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

In MemoryLane's defense this card had been slabbed before they ever got it.....

[Archive]

Posted By: robert

Grading really is silly.

We'll all look back on it and laugh one day.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Jeff - upon initial read I thought you were saying they left the back scan out of their printed catalog, which is common practice. However, you meant in the online auction:
http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=10719&getauctionid=69

and that is inexcusable!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Exactly. I'd hate to have bid on that 5 thinking I was getting a.....5.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Kaufman

PSA has been ignoring small areas of paper loss, both front and back, for a couple of years now. For this reason, SGC set collectors can no longer trust PSA pre-war grades sight unseen to cross over at the same grade. PSA has become a real crap shoot.

[Archive]

Posted By: david Poses

Leon,
with your new passion for underprints, you could probably snap this card up and Make Your Own Underprint. Maybe something fancy like an old cigar logo...

(My spellcheck doesn't acknowledge "underprint" as a real word. I think it's a perfectly cromulent word. like "cougat.")

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

Missing it more likely. Takes an extra 10 seconds to flip over the card and look at the back after all. That's no way to run the McDonalds of grading. You need turnover and production. Besides, what do you expect for ten bucks (or 20 or 30 or...you get the idea).

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Ricky Y

With PSA there is a lot of inconsistency. My biggest beef is they use the term "eye appeal" to often bump up the grade. For example, I see higher grades on cards that are often poor in quality and really doesn't meet the terms of a particular grade,( the entire set is on poor card stock, has a lot of miscuts, diamond cuts, OC etc) but, because they look "decent for that set" (not as OC as majority of the card, but still way OC) they still get a higher grade and often with no qualifers.


Essentially, they are not grading the card on its on merit and comparing it against the definition of the grade.

Ricky Y

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"With PSA there is a lot of inconsistency. My biggest beef is they use the term "eye appeal" to often bump up the grade."

My biggest beef with grading companies is that they focus so much on technical criteria that they often disregard eye appeal. To me, the overall appeal of the card SHOULD be related to the grade. Otherwise, what are we indicating with a technical grade? Some arbitrary criteria with no relation to the desirability of the card?

If I would pay more for an SGC 10 N172 with a very bold front image than I would for an SGC 80 with a faded image but sharp corners, there is a problem with the system. If the grading criteria are not telling us something about the visual appeal of the card, then what is the point?
JimB

P.S. I am speaking in general terms here, the E98 Brown notwithstanding.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Kaufman

A similar situation arose when coin grading matured......it got to the point where you could not buy a graded coin sight unseen due to sellers taking advantage of "technical" high grade specimens that had little or no eye appeal. These days, you almost always need a scan of front and back of a card graded by PSA, absent the ideal situation of seeing it in person.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Wow, I've been bidding on this card never knowing about the back. Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Sarian

I agree with JimB's point that there seems to be something wrong if people are paying more for "strong" cards with great "eye appeal" but have a low technical grade. Take for instance the pictured E121 Walter Johnson which I own. It received a PSA 1 (and since crossed to an SGC 20) due to a couple of very minor paper loss spots on the back. I would MUCH rather have this card, than a card with the same grade and no paper loss but with creases, rounded corners, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

I agree with you completely.

Your post, maybe inadvertently, has certainly highlighted the inconsistency of PSA grading.

[Archive]

Posted By: Erick Lewin

Wow...That Johnson is great, it's got even sharper corners and a crisper image than the brown that got the 5! It's defintaley not an exact science with PSA it seems.

[Archive]

Posted By: jdrum

I suspect the secret is all in who submits the card. Dunno, but just a cynical guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

exackalackaly !

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

Leon

When I saw this, I thought of you...I think woot.com stole your quarter...

http://www.woot.com/



(If you open the link up past 1am EST then it will be something different and maybe not as funny..)