Buy the card, not the grade - stories

[jchcollins]

I won't post a pic of it again, because there are already two on here in the Mantle thread and in December Pickups - but I just bought a '62 Mantle PSA 5 that I swear is nicer than the last two or three 6's that I went looking for in eBay sold items.

In looking at several other recent purchases, I found a '61 Berra and a '67 Mays - that are - well, also damn nice for the grade in comparision to other comps when I went out looking just because I was curious.

I know the saying has been around for awhile, but I'm starting to really put more credence into it. Anyone else have other "Buy the card, not the grade" stories worth sharing?

PS - my already shaky opinion on PSA consistency may have taken another hit tonight...

[irv]

I purchased these 3 cards 2 years ago and played a guess the grade game.

All who replied chose the Smalley as the highest grade, as they should have, but he was the lowest of the 3 graded. Personally, I don't have a lot of faith in PSA as they are inconsistent and there has been far too many other stories on here about their grading. The washed out Dimaggio comes to mind, let alone the Wagner.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by irv

All who replied chose the Smalley as the highest grade, as they should have, but he was the lowest of the 3 graded.

Wow. That Smalley has 6 or 7 corners. Yeah, I agree - just too many examples even recently where it's like what? In '60s and '70s cards, I have a few 5's that look better than some of my other 6's, and at least one 6 that probably could have been a 7. I understand that at least in some cases, technicalities can be resonsible for a card that looks better getting the lesser grade, but I also have slabs where that does not appear to be the case and I'm stumped.

[irv]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Wow. That Smalley has 6 or 7 corners. Yeah, I agree - just too many examples even recently where it's like what? In '60s and '70s cards, I have a few 5's that look better than some of my other 6's, and at least one 6 that probably could have been a 7. I understand that at least in some cases, technicalities can be resonsible for a card that looks better getting the lesser grade, but I also have slabs where that does not appear to be the case and I'm stumped.

When I joined the site back in 2016, I asked a lot of questions about grading and what some of my cards would grade out as. One member told me to do it myself, learn, look, read, quit asking questions, and get at it, to which I did.
I thought I was getting there and thought I had a pretty good idea/understanding but then I started noticing cards/grades, anomalies, threads and pics here and elsewhere, and all was thrown out the window! The inconsistencies I seen/noted, like the 3 cards I posted above, made it almost impossible for me to even considered myself an amateur grader!

Needless to say I gave up on PSA and I no longer consider them as a possible TPA if and when I choose to get my cards graded.

I found SGC far more consistent, and also a tad meaner, if you will, with their grading standards, but now, reading how many forged sigs slipped past them, I think I am now done considering getting any of them to grade/encapsulate my cards.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by irv

When I joined the site back in 2016, I asked a lot of questions about grading and what some of my cards would grade out as. One member told me to do it myself, learn, look, read, quit asking questions, and get at it, to which I did.
I thought I was getting there and thought I had a pretty good idea/understanding but then I started noticing cards/grades, anomalies, threads and pics here and elsewhere, and all was thrown out the window! The inconsistencies I seen/noted, like the 3 cards I posted above, made it almost impossible for me to even considered myself an amateur grader!

Needless to say I gave up on PSA and I no longer consider them as a possible TPA if and when I choose to get my cards graded.

I found SGC far more consistent, and also a tad meaner, if you will, with their grading standards, but now, reading how many forged sigs slipped past them, I think I am now done considering getting any of them to grade/encapsulate my cards.

Grading in theory is nice. In reality, the "expertise" has proven to be fraudulent, far too many times. Learn how to grade yourself, as we did as kids in the 1980's; it's worth it. It's tougher today buying sight-unseen, but still possible to maintain some of your own personal accuracy over the long run if you learn what to look for. I'm not saying to buy raw cards only necessarily, but I'm starting to realize with decent scans, I can tell the difference between high end for the grade, and mediocre slabbed material.

[Big Six]

Just picked up this Mays which I think looks a lot better than the grade...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Big Six

Just picked up this Mays which I think looks a lot better than the grade...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Indeed. Not sure what earned that a 5, but it wasn’t the corners...here’s another Willie that fits into that category:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VintageVinnie]

Wow! That 54 Mays is sweet. Nice pick up!!

[JollyElm]

Speaking of the Say Hey Kid, I grabbed this Mays donning my favorite uniform (qualifier be damned!!) a while back at a substantial discount. Nothing but a hair O/C...

1973mays305.jpg

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Speaking of the Say Hey Kid, I grabbed this Mays donning my favorite uniform (qualifier be damned!!) a while back at a substantial discount. Nothing but a hair O/C...

Attachment 336735

IMHO, qualifiers on high grade (> PSA 7) vintage cards are a bargain for the most part if you are looking to add a decent card to your collection and not just to flip it for $$.

Cards on the upper end can retain a lot of eye appeal and still be slightly OC, but the centering standards get a lot tougher in that territory. If a card has super sharp corners but got an 8 (OC) because it was 70/30 one way...is that really a deal breaker if the discount is steep enough? The same card could be a nice 6 or potentially even a 7 and would still be considered sharp. I guess with the OC qualifier in particular, it depends on your tolerances. I'm not a centering freak, but would agree beyond a certain point bad centering starts to destroy eye appeal. I'd rather have a centered 5 over an 8 (OC) that was 85/15. But I collect mostly PSA 5 and 6 range cards for "nice" vintage, so again at times centering is not a chief concern if it's 70/30 or better. I digress...at a high level I don't mind OC cards, but I dislike egregiously OC cards. Does that make sense?

Nice '73 Mays...

[Big Six]

Sweet card...one of my favorite Mays cards!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

I’ve had this card for about a year and have always thought it very sharp for the grade. OC, and with slight tilt and a rough cut, but at least 3 of those corners look like they were made by Gillette...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cgreat14]

PSA is all over the place. Had a "6" on a non-sports card and resubmitted(hate playing that game) and it received a "9". Had some beautiful "8's" that came back 4's & 5's. Can't figure it out. Their inconsistency has gotten worse and customers are going to keep or sell more "raw" cards if this keeps up. The customer is #1 not the TPG's. Once the customer gets fed up and stops submitting so many cards( PSA prices have just increased as well), then maybe PSA will revisit their long term marketing strategy. And they don't give you any explanation on why the card receives the grade that it does so you have no idea. All bad teams have to change if they want people in the seats. All monopolies fall at some point if they don't change.

[Suitntieguy]

Originally Posted by cgreat14

PSA is all over the place. Had a "6" on a non-sports card and resubmitted(hate playing that game) and it received a "9". Had some beautiful "8's" that came back 4's & 5's. Can't figure it out. Their inconsistency has gotten worse and customers are going to keep or sell more "raw" cards if this keeps up. The customer is #1 not the TPG's. Once the customer gets fed up and stops submitting so many cards( PSA prices have just increased as well), then maybe PSA will revisit their long term marketing strategy. And they don't give you any explanation on why the card receives the grade that it does so you have no idea. All bad teams have to change if they want people in the seats. All monopolies fall at some point if they don't change.

I disagree with none of this. I will ad that some point along that road, we may see the realized price discrepancy between PSA and SGC narrow. I hope so.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I’ve had this card for about a year and have always thought it very sharp for the grade. OC, and with slight tilt and a rough cut, but at least 3 of those corners look like they were made by Gillette...

Your Berra reminded me of the one I bought last year at a really nice price due to the O/C. The back is basically miscut, but that doesn't bother me at all. Of course, looking at the scan now, the card appears to have some hazy print defects. Sure hope that's a problem with the scan or it's on the slab and not the card...

1961berra425.jpg

[leaflover]

Very affordable. Because this NM-MT example of Yogi was given the "authentic/altered" label I was able to add it to my collection.
I believe it to be nothing more than a factory "rough cut".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Even though supposedly none of them were, this looks like it could be factory to me.

[leaflover]

Nice looking Campy.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Your Berra reminded me of the one I bought last year at a really nice price due to the O/C. The back is basically miscut, but that doesn't bother me at all. Of course, looking at the scan now, the card appears to have some hazy print defects. Sure hope that's a problem with the scan or it's on the slab and not the card...

Attachment 342254

Miscut on the back and they ignore their own guidelines a lot, from what I've seen. Your Berra is nice too, that one is hard to find without print snow on the dark background.

I don't know, within the past 2 years I've had PSA 5's that are nicer than other 6's, and some 6.5's that I would have topped out at 5.5 after seeing them in-hand. I cannot give them a high grade on recent consistency.

[jchcollins]

Dupe post.

[jchcollins]

And gosh, in looking at my '61 Berra again, I wonder if it is a PSA 6 that really should have been an 8 (OC). I never even considered that.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

And gosh, in looking at my '61 Berra again, I wonder if it is a PSA 6 that really should have been an 8 (OC). I never even considered that.

It's quite possible, because your corners look very sharp, but the centering is nothing to be concerned about at all...so it's a mystery.

Edited to add: The centering on mine (similar to yours, but probably just a tad worse) looks relatively decent, so I assume the reason mine is OC is because of the back. The green is basically touching the border.

[jchcollins]

Will post this again here; was also in the pickups yesterday - but seems very appropriate.

In scouring this one with a fine-toothed comb, I can find enough stuff to where a picky grader probably could have justified the 3. But overall eye-appeal blows that out of the water. Again, I try to buy “high-end” for the grade and just try to be happy with the merits of the actual card and not the slab, but the discrepancy between not considering all factors of eye-appeal with the technical grade is a slippery slope for PSA, I think. (Someone pointed out to me yesterday also that you're kidding yourself if you don't think they treat Mantle differently). This one fits as well as any. Corners are 6-7 quality and many 5’s I looked at on eBay weren’t centered this well. The beginnings of a corner crease and some other nearly indistinguishable surface wear brought it down, though.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ToddW.]

Obviously this thread is filled with tons of examples of what appear to be cards that have eye-appeal that substantially surpasses the technical grade. The question is how much of a premium are you willing to pay to get those cards that have great eye-appeal? Of course the easy answer if you can get them in the range of a 3 when it looks like a 5 or 6 it is a no brainer. But are you willing to pay almost 5/6 graded price level for the 3? Its a dilemma I've faced a number of times. I try to look at all recent graded purchases to compare the actual cards, but at the end of the day (assuming new slab) you still have a 3 you paid 5/6 pricing for, even if you like it (and other like it). If you keep track of purchases or sales vs. market, those cards put you significantly underwater, even if the optics are impressive to those who appreciate the card itself. Is there a rule of thumb people generally use?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by ToddW.

Obviously this thread is filled with tons of examples of what appear to be cards that have eye-appeal that substantially surpasses the technical grade. The question is how much of a premium are you willing to pay to get those cards that have great eye-appeal? Of course the easy answer if you can get them in the range of a 3 when it looks like a 5 or 6 it is a no brainer. But are you willing to pay almost 5/6 graded price level for the 3? Its a dilemma I've faced a number of times. I try to look at all recent graded purchases to compare the actual cards, but at the end of the day (assuming new slab) you still have a 3 you paid 5/6 pricing for, even if you like it (and other like it). If you keep track of purchases or sales vs. market, those cards put you significantly underwater, even if the optics are impressive to those who appreciate the card itself. Is there a rule of thumb people generally use?

Your point is valid. I weigh each decision on the particular card and what my situation dictates I think should be paid for it within my limits. There are times I’m willing to overpay for something that I think won’t come around again for a while, and then times I’m really, really not willing to do that. Yes sometimes it simply comes down to "how bad do I want it?" There are a number of ways to look at it, and it depends where you put what value. In the case of my ‘65 Mantle - I believe I paid around $100 more than what a “normal” nicer 3 (noticeable rounded corners) - but still a card with eye appeal - should go for. But my card looks like a 6, and to get a true 6 centered as well as the card I bought, I would be looking at spending anywhere from $500 to north of $800 based on recent sales. So I would prefer to look at it as yes, I paid a steep price for a 3 - but it’s an anomaly because the card looks nothing like a 3. If resale or trying to flip entered the equation - that would make things more difficult - but in this case it’s just a card I want to add to my PC. Same deal with a higher-end centered ‘62 Mantle 200 PSA 5 I snagged right before Christmas. I paid well more than VCP for a 5, but a hell of a lot less than a 6 - and my card looks better than half of the 6’s out there I compared it to.

It is difficult to buy nice examples of “the card and not the grade” consistently, and that’s an understatement with a player like Mantle - perhaps the single most difficult postwar player to get any kind of deal on, simply because he is so popular and if you are buying online he’s everywhere - if an undergraded or strong-for-the-grade card is out there, people are going to see it and pay attention. You are right in that the value for cards in lower grade that still retain a lot of eye appeal is ostensibly that you can get them at bargain bin prices. I think sometimes yes, and sometimes maybe not for so much of a bargain - but still in many cases you can get a card for cheaper than the card could be had for otherwise without some small hidden flaw.

Here's another way of looking at it - I paid maybe close to a "Dean's Card" price for a PSA 3 '65 Mantle. But if you spent that money with Dean you will get a PSA 3 that looks like a 3; doing it my way I got a card that looks more like a 6.

I do see your point. Sometimes I'm willing to go for this kind of thing, other times not. I'm not sure there is any grand rhyme or reason behind it for me personally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk