And we cannot rule out that everything that is going on right now is just some collective dream that we are all part of.

I am with the others that your suggestion is nothing more than fantasy. No secret behind the scenes meeting with the top brass at Collectors making these decisions. Hate to rain on your parade but this was nothing more than the owner deciding to submit his find to SGC.

If I sent this card to PSA:

-It would take three weeks for them to open the package;

-The grade would be in progress for three months; and

-They would upcharge me before telling me. I'd wake up to a maxed out credit card.

All to get a nine.

But seriously, if I was a rich man I would bid well north of a million dollars to get this card. Goliath is my favorite player of all time and this is the nicest rookie card I’ve ever seen.

I don’t think it’s weird. One, PSA has a registry that a great many people care about a ton (I don’t). Two, I think the general consensus or at least my thought is that sgc is a bit more lenient at least when it comes to recent grades. There are opposite examples of course but for the most part if you seek out a card in a specific grade the new grade psas are better looking than their sgc counterparts with the same grade.

I agree that PSA may have been a better choice as 1961 is such a huge registry set.

I also agree that mint 1961s look 10 times better in an Sgc slab.

I think we may soon see it in one because this is honestly a Ken Kendrick level card and we know there are a couple buyers like himself that would change it for the registry. I also know that if Kendrick sends it and I send it, the 10 is a slam dunk for him. For me…maybe.

This is for vintage bball collectors like myself a choice I would take over a 52 Mantle, Joe Jackson, pick your poison. This is a hobby changing card in my mind. No one is going to sleep on it because you want this one. I honestly think a better example will never be found, this is the complete holy grail/needle in a haystack.

Would it be a PSA 9 with the lower right corner? Guess so.

I guess what I find amusing is a fuzzy cut supposedly doesn't lower the grade but centering does. Why should one factory flaw be acceptable and another not acceptable? The way some people feel about centering I feel, to a lesser degree, about fuzzy cuts. I really dislike them.

Also someone mentioned they like fuzzy cuts because it means the cards weren't trimmed. Unfortunately at least one doctor has become very good at mimicking fuzzy cut cards.

Great point! I was wondering the same thing. The fuzzy cut edges are significant. I always thought sharp edges and corners were important for a 10.

Agree with this. The fuzzy/rough cut is original to the card, and is not considered a flaw. So why do TPGs have the double-standard of downgrading for centering, but not for a rough cut? PSA also does not downgrade for poor registration/focus. All of these traits are completely original to the card.

To produce the rough cut, the cutting blades were not as sharp as new, due to prolonged usage. With off-centering, the cutting blades were not perfectly aligned and produced an off-center or diamond-cut card. So why punish the grade for one and not the other? It makes no sense.

If they simply graded the card based on its proximity to original condition, there would be no contradiction. People who prefer centered cards could simply use their own eyes to determine which ones they want to buy, and obviously there would still be a premium for well centered cards. Bottom line... their numerical grading scale is contradictory.

It is not designed to make sense, it is designed to make cents.

:D

Good one! 👍🏻🤑

Here I always figured it was designed to make scents.

The bottom of the right corner is soft, along with the fuzzy cut on the edge

Question for our resident centering savant:

Does this one seem shifted just a hair to the right? One of your famous 51/49 centering jobs that you can spot from across the room?

And for that matter, to what extent do the rough edges on left and right help to obscure the centering?

If you can find just one single o-pee-chee psa 10 from 1978 to 1982 without a rough cut, that ones been doctored. Look up the pictures of every opc Gretzky 10.

This is the 10 that sold for 3.75 million in 2021.

I wouldn't want this card, considering what the price would end up being for it. Fuzzy edges left to right alone bug me for a 10. I wouldn't be satisfied with it. I want a perfect 10 if I'm paying big bucks. However, after looking at other graded cards, they all have the same fuzzy edges from that year. Guess that would be acceptable then as a 10. I still don’t like the look.

After looking at a bunch of other graded 1961-62 Fleer Wilt Chamberlain cards, I get it now.

Thanks for your post!

Neither SGC nor PSA have any "smooth edge" criteria for Gem Mint cards. The cut is the cut...if it's not to your liking, that's your thing.


.

Yes, it's shifted right obviously. A bit more than 51/49 too. Probably about 47/53 maaaybe 48/52? Bit it's shifted. Still well within specs for a 10 though, and given how difficult this card is, I can't imagine a nicer copy exists overall. The registration of the red background is also really tough to find like this. Most have a noticeable shift downward.

The grade on this Gretzky is a crime against humanity, or at least against my friend who sold it to me.

Perhaps worth noting is that rough cuts, in general (at least the heavily frayed one's we're referring to above since most vintage cuts are technically "rough" somewhat), should only appear on the left and right edges. The only exception to this rule that I'm aware of are the OPC hockey cards where all 4 edges have rough cuts. I'm sure there are other sets I can't think of off the top of my head, but generally speaking, rough cut edges are only on the sides. The reason is because those were caused by the rotary sheets cutters that they ran the full sheets through. After they ran the sheets through those, they would end up with long strips which they would stack together and then used guillotine-style ream cutters to slice the stacks and create the top/bottom cuts. This is also why there is much more variation in card sizes from top to bottom than there is from left to right. Cards came short and tall with extraordinary variance from factory (upwards of 1/4" at the extremes), but they had very little variance from left to right (usually 1/64" or less for Topps). The majority of trimmed cards are trimmed top to bottom for this reason. Although there is certainly no shortage of trimmed left/right cards in slabs.

Could be due to registration (look at the centering/placement of the colors in the Oilers logo, and the red bleeding into the border toward the top). But ya, looks fairly harsh overall.

I think more likely some kid used to gradng Panini Prizms didn't know how to grade OPC hockey.

Gorgeous card but by looking at the pictures I don't think this is a 10 because look at the left and right edges.

You've got some studying to do, my friend.

Not all Fleer are fuzzy cut. While obviously not a 10 (though we thought it would grade an 8) this was in our auction a couple years ago, along with what Travis acknowledged was the nicest centered West rookie he had ever seen.

https://thecollectorconnection.com/i...88_1_43345.jpg

I get that, I just don't understand the decision that one factory flaw is cool and the other is the kiss of death.

I had an amazing Clemente card a few years ago that was a PSA 9. Thought it might cross over so sent to PSA. Got at 7. Great. Resent it to SGC. Got a 7.5.

Direct from Merriam-Websters

scam

noun
ˈskam
Synonyms of scam
: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

It might feel arbitrary but I think there are collectors out there who prefer rough cuts (fuzzy cuts, as you refer to them) but not sure anyone prefers an off center card, though many will accept off centered cards.

Oh it doesn't FEEL arbitrary...

I get it and don't get it all at the same time. To me if a factory flaw can affect the grade then all factory flaws should affect the grade and so if the highest graded OPC Gretzky rookie is only a NM 7 so be it.

Personally speaking I just do not see a factory rough cut as a flaw...to me it is closer to a variation but some might not agree. Print lines, poor registration, washed out color, print spots, centering or surface wear (snow) are things which detract from a card's appearance. I just do not view the rough cut as a distraction and unless the rough cut impacts the sharpness of the corners I do not feel it should adversely impact the grade.

To me it's simpler. Is the card SUPPOSED to be fuzzy cut? Of course not. Just like it's not supposed to be off center or have fish eyes or paper flaws etc. Anything that is not an intentional part of the production process should get equal treatment.

+1 👍🏻💯

I agree, but I don't.

I'm from the hometown of OPC. Growing up, we kids all abhorred the rough cuts. We thought they were kinda unprofessional as compared to the slick cards coming from south of the border. Nobody wanted OPC.

On the other hand, all those way-too-sharp OPC Gretzkys were mostly cut from uncut sheets years after the fact. You simply did not pull cards that nice from packs of OPC. For many years, you'd see people placing local classifieds to buy uncut OPC sheets. Guess what they were doing with them?

Fast forward to today, and I don't mind a rough cut. Nothing super-jagged, mind you, but that's personal preference. As some have speculated with wide bordered T206s, I have a feeling that a future premium will be placed on certain rough cuts.

Thus far, I'm not aware of anybody trying to create a rough cut artifically. Just wait and see. We'll get there someday.

I'm sure this is common knowledge to most of you, but thought I'd tell the old story about the reason for the rough cut OPC cards in case somebody was unaware. They cut the cards with a hot, electric wire device. In OPCs haste, many sheets were cut while still too damp; this is the cause of the OPC rough cuts.

Getting back to why I am on the fence about agreeing to Scott's opinion: if OPC, for instance, had intended every card to come off the production line perfectly, then yes, I would agree. But they clearly didn't care, ergo the rough cuts. Therefore, to me, a rough cut might not have been their ideal vision, but they let this slide for decades, so rough cuts were, indirectly, intentional. They released them that way; didn't bother scrapping that stupid hot wire until 1990 or thereabouts.

The hot wire story has been debunked several times.

https://forums.collectors.com/discus...-cut-is-solved

Thanks for the link. I'll be interested in reading. Local OPC employees have mentioned the wire as part of the process, so I have never had reason to question it.

Has it been definitively debunked? If so, I struggle with what I have heard locally over the years. Certainly wish I knew these former employees I talked to, but it was just conversations in passing, being local to the area. They would have had no vested interest in lying about it.

My only possible questions would then be, was the wire used initially, then this other system brought in? Or, possibly, both methods utilized at the same time? This latter speculation could certainly account for the varying quality as well, and how there were definitely more nicer cuts as the years progressed.

My problem is I can find no evidence that ANY paper has EVER been cut with a hot wire. I worked for a printing company for 4 years, nobody there had ever heard of it, not even the old-timers.

If a wire is hot enough to cut paper how is it not setting stuff on fire, or at the very least scorching the edges? I think it's an urban legend that grew very long legs.

Because the sheets were cut while damp. The rough cuts stemmed from when they were too damp, so the story goes.

But yes, it makes me wonder where all the singed-edged printer's scrap went off to!

If you've ever taken a sheet right off an offset press they are basically dry. If they weren't you'd have ink everywhere. This idea that the paper is wet enough to not burn when sliced by a hot wire just flies in the face of everything I know about printing.

These comments are hilarious

I hate to break it to you, but that ship sailed long ago.

Most Canadians actually believe that workers in the OPC London plant were slicing up all the sheets using wires! :D I never worked in the printing industry, but man, this story made zero sense to me (cutting sheets using wires ?? WTF ??) I did manage to talk to Ken McAvoy, who was the supervisor at the OPC plant from 1980 to 1998, and he told me there was no such thing.

I don't agree that those are the same card though. But I do agree that card doctors have been faking fuzzy cuts for a while.

They are the same card...https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=7827. Apparently this Moser guy has been doing rough cuts for decades.

I love the BODA, but I don't think they're infallible. I see pretty definitive differences on these cards that shouldn't be doctorable (to a standard that would get past PSA or SGC.

If the sheets were cut by blades at OPC, as is now apparently the accepted version of events according to what has been presented, this certainly still leaves me with some questions.

Why would they only cut one sheet at a time? That just seems ridiculously slow and inefficient.

If you are cutting very thin cardboard one sheet at a time, how poor quality are those blades that they would wear out so frequently as to cause such a high percentage of rough cuts? Why would they have not made a switch to a higher quality blade to ultimately save them money?

With all the OPC rough cuts, does it not illustrate that these blades either wore out almost instantly and they just kept using them, or that they wore out almost instantly and had to be replaced constantly? It has to be one or the other, does it not? No company is going to keep making this mistake for 30+ years when there has to be a more cost efficient solution which would ultimately yield a higher quality product.

That fellow who was answering the questions didn't even work at OPC if I managed to read it correctly. He worked at another local company (which is still in business--I used to know one of the daughters).

What would those be? And unless you are a doctor I would not put it past those who are to be able to do some pretty amazing things.

The back clearly has unique identifying "spots" that make it impossible to argue they are not the same card.

Your assumption is that when PSA graded this they were actually trying to catch alterations in PWCC's submissions. That does not seem to be the case with any of the thousands of cards BODA outed that had been submitted by PWCC.

It's definitely the same card. Look at the back. There are numerous identifiable fingerprint markings.

Also, what's interesting most to me is that Moser (or whoever it was) made rough cuts on the shorter edges too, not just the longer edges. Which should have been a dead giveaway to anyone looking at it during grading. The rough cuts were only on the long edges for 56 Topps, as those were the edges that ran through the dull rotary blades. The short edges were cut by the guillotine-style ream cutters and did not produce rough cuts. It's strange to me because I would assume someone as detail oriented as Moser would have known this. Was he just trolling perhaps? Or was he actually unaware of that fact? I don't know.

There is no evidence whatsoever that PSA was knowingly grading altered cards by PWCC. They are simply incompetent/incapable of detecting this stuff. No conspiracy theories needed here. Also, their records and communications with PWCC were subpoenaed by the FBI. If something more nefarious were happening between them, I think we would have heard about it.