This is typical PSA inconsistency that has never really been corrected. Not that it's an excuse, but the Banks is in an old slab. Back in the day they were very tough with the PD qualifier, and at some point that suddenly changed. I had the Willie Mays MVP from that same set, and it was riddled with snow, way worse than your Banks. But it was in a (newer) straight PSA 7 case. These kind of things added up is why the consensus still points to professional grading being very inconsistent, and something that should be considered as only one opinion and not the end-all, be-all, as far as I'm concerned. You could bust the slabs and send both of those cards back in tomorrow and they could come back with totally different grades.

1st choice #1
2nd choice #6

Whoops, I neglected to resolve Ellis in Wonderland...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1e6bac06_b.jpg

.

Let's call tonight's brand new episode What the Eck is Going on Here??!!...
(A Quinn Martin Production)

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here is a group of very nearly identical 1976 Topps Dennis Eckersley rookie cards (and I won't even ask what the Eck is going on with that weird long lock of matted hair covering most of his ear). Each and every one of them has been graded as a straight PSA 9, except one - only one - which was callously deemed a PSA 9 OC. Which one is it? Which one is the terrible outcast who has been exiled to the Island of Misfit Cards??

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...880d3dbe_h.jpg

#3

6!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

It was between
 

#4 and #8. I'm gonna pick #4

I am going to guess #7, but again could be any of them. Classic PSA randomness. I am going to guess that whichever one it is is an older slab.

And the very puzzling winner/loser is...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...2eed66cc_h.jpg

As Shaggy would say, "Yoinks!!!!"

Question
 

This may have been addressed here before but I am still a novice at the graded card game. I have seen a lot of cards that are pretty decently centered on the front but not at all on the back...... couldn’t this account for some of these grades or is that not the way they operate?

Yup, it sure can. No question. The cards I've featured in this thread, though, are (usually) my own, so I always make sure the backs aren't the reason for the qualification when I present a new 'episode.'

Great thread.

I agree totally with the idea that an O?C card should be graded and slabbed as O/C if that's what the PSA standards call for.

To grade a MINT card NRMT (9 to a 7) is disingenuous and flat out incorrect.
I wish they never allowed "no qualifiers" selectability by the customer.
RayB

Yeah, but remember grading standards for Mint - Poor in somewhat decent detail existed before professional grading. It was less precise then, but it is logical that bad centering being the "only" problem with a card will lower the grade. It stands to reason then, that an otherwise Mint 9 card with centering slightly outside the 65/35 standard would be NM-MT. This is how grading worked for at least 2 decades (by those who did it properly...) before PSA decided to invent qualifiers. It's not "incorrect."

I found myself looking through some 1972 high numbers and realized an odd pattern was seeming to emerge, so here's a brand new episode. Let's call it Biting Off Morgan You Can Chew...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here is an octet of 1972 Joe Morgan Traded cards. Each and every one of them has (at least) one side getting pretty chummy with a border. They are quite similar in that specific regard, and all of them have been graded as either a straight PSA 8 or PSA 9, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier. Which one is it?

Which card is NOT a part of a Well-Oiled (Big Red) Machine??


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3c2b9bc8_h.jpg

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

Chime in. Let's have some fun!!

Let's see if I can make it 2 in a row....4!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I haven't gotten one of these right yet, so like George Costanza I'm going to dp the opposite, go against my instincts and pick not the one which appears most OC to me, but the one that appears the least. I'm going with #8...Serenity Now!!

I haven't gotten one either. I'll guess #7. But it never seems to be based on what the card actually looks like!:D

I gotta say, it's a little depressing that more people aren't participating in this thread. Oh well, what can you do.

The winner/loser (by a mere hair??) is good ole contestant number 1...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...f1553a6c_h.jpg

No discernible tilt and pretty acceptable side-to-side centering for a tough HOF'er high number, so I'll take it!

For my money, this is one of the best cards of the 70's. A horizontal layout with the crowd wonderfully blurred in the background (Dave Kingman has a similar looking card), coupled with the fact that the hairy-armed Garvey captured the MVP award that year, makes it a quintessential piece of 1974 cardboard. With apologies to Billy Crystal, let's call tonight's episode You Look Garv-uh-lous...

(These cards were randomly placed in three rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)


Pictured here is a sextet of 1974 Topps Steve Garvey cards. Each one of them has been graded as a straight PSA 9, except one - only one - which was deemed PSA 9 OC. In looking at the entire group, they all seem perfectly fine for those of us in the non-OCD crowd. Really marvelous. None jump out as OFF CENTER!!!!!!

So, which one got the OC qualifier?

(The top row contains cards #1 and 2, the second row 3 and 4 and the bottom row has cards 5 and 6.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5b3d22fc_b.jpg

(On a side note, the average price of the five straight PSA 9's pictured here is almost six times as much as what the one with the OC on the label cost. Six times as much!!! Truly stunning.)

My vote is for #4 getting the OC, with #6 as a close second choice.

I think that a lot of people are just tired of talking about the obvious inadequacies of TPG as it is currently constituted. Most people know, many don't care and certainly quite a few would rather the conversations go away.

As long as it helps people trade in the internet age and most importantly line their pockets it really doesn't matter how good (or bad) they are apparently.

#4 is off center obviously. The others are fine.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I should stumble across the right one sometime. I'll guess #2.

4!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I guess sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Number 4 is the winner/loser...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...94e85b4b_b.jpg


But the good news is it only cost me $36, so I jumped at it. The cards pictured sold for (in no particular order) $203.15, $171.50, $190.01, $151.50, and $305.00, so I'm quite happy to have the 'cheap' one.

Here's what it looks like in hand, by its lonesome. Beautiful. Although technically accurate for the grade, what pack-opening baseball card collector would ever immediately describe it as off-center??

Attachment 416669

That was a nice pickup for $36, Jolly. I came in late to this thread, what do we win for guessing right?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You're absolutely right. No one would describe that as OC. I'm going to only have OC's in my 1974 set if that's the standard.

You get a jar full of angry wasps...with an ill fitted lid.

Haha, I will let it ride- double or nothing on the next one.

What a great thread!
I was not able to guess any of the pictures correctly, lol.

I would not buy a slabbed card with a qualifier unless i planned to remove it. It seems silly, but I just don't want a special designation, even though it's only optics.

the best advice i have gotten withe respect to TPG is to "buy the card, not the grade". So if the market gives me a discount because of what is stamped (arbitrarily) on a label, then so be it! I primarily buy raw cards, saves me from all the hassle.

It's time for another episode of everyone's favorite game show. Let's call this one Ep, Ep and Away...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here are eight different 1972 Topps #715 Mike Epstein cards, a tough high number that is notorious for it's image virtually always floating up towards the top border with the result being an excess amount of white at the bottom. Each and every one of them here has that very same (nearly identical) deviation. All have been graded as either a straight PSA 8 or a straight PSA 9, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier. Which one is it?

Which card got the Mike drop??

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...008a5185_b.jpg

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

Put down the cranberry sauce and make your choice!!

I guess #1

I’ll reluctantly say #3

This one is particularly brutal. I'll say #8

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

So Jolly, I am not well versed on the 72s. What is ideal top to bottom centering? Should the distance from the top of the card to the top of the arch match the distance from the bottom of the name box to the bottom of the card?

In any event the best centering is on card #4.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Preach, brother. I am about to crack open four T206's: Burns, Flick, Bresnahan and Dolly Miller. I like to smell my tobacco cards. Touch them. Connect to the people that owned the card so long ago.

Anyway, glad to read this thread.

Oh the OC is #5.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

How can I do this successfully?
 

I'd love to know how to crack open cases. Any tips?

Use aviation snips on an angle near (relatively close to) one of the top corners, and gently chop it. Then push a flathead screwdriver into the gap to pop it open and separate the plastic pieces. A real simple method I've used the couple of times I did it.

I would have to guess #3, only because the top border is a bit thinner than the others.

My guess is #3.

Any 'Black Friday' guesses?

As Hxcmilkshake said, this one is particularly brutal. Just a hair separates them all, and the winner/loser is somehow #5. Look again at how nearly identical they all are, tops and bottoms!! As Scooby Doo said, "Yoinks!!"

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...963efb42_b.jpg

The good news is I grabbed #5 for my ever growing PSA 9 (some qualifiers welcome) high numbers set for about twenty two bucks total. The only straight 9 I see on ebay looks incredibly similar to this one and is listed at $123.99 plus tax and shipping, so it would end up costing you almost $140. I will take mine any day of the week!!

Here's an interesting thread from the PSA forum:
https://forums.collectors.com/discus...-carter-update

PSA not giving MC qualifiers on cards with miscut backs for some sets and not others. We all know they're lax on 1955 Bowman because the printing of that set usually had bad front/back alignment, but it also seems they're doing that with 1976 Topps cards. Consistently inconsistent; so much for "grading standards." Hopefully their corporate takeover will fix crap like this.

In my experience, PSA has always been hit or miss with cut problems on the back. I have a '66 Koufax that (to me, anyway...) is clearly MC on the back. PSA gave it a straight 6.

Well, crap, Jolly. I am not really interested in that jar of bees you've been saving for me. I will feel I'm a winner though if you will answer the question I posed to you earlier in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Sorry, missed your question. I imagine what you described is probably how they do measure it, but visually speaking, I personally prefer it to have a touch more room at top than at the bottom.

It's time for another episode, so let's call this one Ryan's Nope...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here are eight different 1974 Topps #20 Nolan Ryans, one of history's finest looking baseball cards. Every one of them has at least one side that's pretty close to the border, so if one is deemed to be off-centered, then all of them must be, right? NOPE!! Each has been graded as a straight PSA 8, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier thrown at it. Which one is it?

Which card got beaned by a fastball??

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...03e28523_h.jpg

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

I'll guess #7.

#7 would be my guess as well. btw, no offense, but you can't have "1974 Topps" and "one of history's finest looking baseball cards" in the same sentence. Although I do agree it's a great photo of the Ryan Express.

LOL, I would have to agree with that as well. I actually like the 74's, but I don't think they rate anywhere near the best sets of all time.

Never really cared for graded cards. Call me old school but I prefer to collect like I did when I was a kid. I love for my cards to be as nice as I can get but not encased in a plastic coffin. I also like the pricing of raw cards. With a little study and research great deals can still be had. I can see the advantage of it for the investor or value oriented collectors but the money doesn't matter to me. It's just a fun hobby that I've recently come back to.

Your approach is still a popular one. If I'm buying pricier cards online, I prefer graded for the peace of mind of it. But I have been known to liberate certain cards and turn them into raw ones again after I receive them.

Concur. It kind of feels like a card in a slab ceases to be a card, i.e. a thing in and of itself. It's just an accessory to the "PSA prestige and scarcity" that people are chasing. Totally understand the authentication/peace of mind aspect of it, though - although given the trimming scandal and the wild inconsistencies demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere, there's nothing "real" about a PSA grade. But the market still largely treats it as if there is, so there is peace of mind that comes with it. I think I would want graded for any card above maybe $400-500?

I'm going to say #1. I don't like the looks of the left lower corner.

The ferocity of looking straight into the barrel of the Ryan cannon as he's about to blow you away?? Best...card...evah... :D

7 for me Dog!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Curious what's up with #8 on that group of '74 Ryans. The color makes it look almost like a variation. Is that just a matter of photo lighting or is there something more to it?

These are all just screengrabs, so it's probably nothing but the lighting involved with the original picture or scan.

Would agree with Jolly it's probably just the lighting in the pic, but I will say 70's cards can have some funky color variations. Not this one, but the '76 Ryan - I've had at least 3 of in the past year - and the color has not been the same on any of them. One was darker, one was lighter - one had way better focus. I think the decade of the 1970's was probably Topps' worst effort as far as overall quality control. They were literally all over the place.

And the winner/loser is lucky/unlucky #3...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...74be998f_h.jpg

I know it's an old label and all, but it looks like the only one with the O/C designation is perhaps the best centered of all eight cards. At first glance it is clearly better centered than four of them. And take a look at the closest point any part of the image comes to the very edge of the card in each of the pictures. Arguably, the space on #3 is the widest.

Smh!!!! Is the back oc? Maybe the grader actually flipped the card over??

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

That’s ridiculous!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fastball...or Passed Ball??

Here is a little something that goes to the heart of the matter, the reason why I started this thread in the first place. The strangeness involved with 'straight' versus 'qualified' grades.

Here are four randomized 1968 Topps #177 Nolan Ryan rookie cards. The grades are PSA 4, PSA 5, PSA 6, and PSA 7 OC. The corners make it pretty obvious which one is the 4, but the other three have the same type of centering top to bottom, and are very, very similar side to side, with one of them being just a hair better. They are all unquestionably off-centered to anyone's eye (regardless of PSA's self-imposed guidelines for each separate grade)...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...99b68b04_h.jpg

So, although the trio of cards are very comparable to each other, the straight 5 and 6 would most likely sell for a cr*pload more, simply because they don't have a qualifier ("Oh, the horror!!!") on the label.

This isn't a contest or anything, but for the heck of it, based on a close examination of corners, centering, and whatever else is important to you ('eye appeal' is a tough factor here, because the four scans were cobbled together and may or may not be truly accurate), which of these four cards would you be most happy with?? Or how would you rank them best to worst? Or just make random comments about whatever you want.

(The top row contains cards #1 and 2, bottom row has cards #3 and 4.)

I'd go 2, 1, 3, 4...probably no surprise from me based on the Ryans I posted...corners mean the most to me. I'd be happy as hell with ANY of them...:)


These and the 74 Ryans yours? Cool just to see that many together...

Actually, none of those 1974 Ryan are mine. I believe I have a total of three PSA 9 1974 Ryans, two are OC and one is a (snowy) PD, but all look pretty frickin' nice.

I would go 4, 2, 1, 3. I would guess 2 is the 7OC and 4 is the 6.

I don't think I'd be happy with any of those cards in my collection but 4 has more room on the right edge so that would be my first choice. 68s look terrible with corner wear so 3 is out. 2 has the best focus so that one has some appeal as my 2d choice.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Agree 100%

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Triple Threat??

This is just a random posting, but what we have here are three very similar 1969 Topps Roberto Clemente #50 cards with nice side-to-side centering, and one side (top or bottom) a little (too?) close to the border for some collectors' tastes.

(For background info, this card is usually found off-centered, but it is 'always' with regard to left-to-right, not top-to-bottom, centering.)

But here's the interesting part:

• One of them sold for $3,674.40 (which would amount to just about $4,000 with 8.5% tax and shipping added).

• One of them sold for $3,360.00 (which would amount to just about $3,660 with 8.5% tax and shipping added).

• And one of them cost less than $250 total (including tax and shipping).


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3b6389e4_h.jpg

Would you pay way over ten times as much for a card that may only be a hair better in the centering department...because it has a straight grade without a qualifier???

No. I go for best eye appeal within my budget

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Or, you could pay about $25 for this one like I did. But hey, you do you!

EDIT: And HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN EVEN WHEN I ROTATE THE PHOTO 90 DEGREES BEFORE SAVING IT TO UPLOAD???

Frickin' beautiful. Bob's your uncle!!!

That makes no sense at all. Card 1 and 2 are virtually identical and card 3 looks better than the other 2. I think all you can do is trust the grading companies and buy the holder.*

*sarcasm

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It could just be the scan but the 3rd one, or the far right one, looks a tad blurry to me. Is that what is referred to as registration?

Trying do a full rotation then saving it or a slight crop then saving it or if the scan always turns out like the one above, safe it with it leaning to the right to see if it uploads correctly?

Yeah, without knowing too much, we could refer to that as having problems with the registration, but all three of the images are only screenshots, so it could simply be a result of the seller's scanner (and the lack of a CCD element, to be specific) causing the blur. There isn't enough info available to make a determination.

I should have included this in my Clemente post...

275. Slimperceptible (also Scantily Bad)
A card whose centering is only a mere hair worse than another virtually identical card, but unlike that one, it gets a dreaded OC qualifier on the label.

Yeah, I assume it's the PSA card that got the OC. Still ridiculous the $$ difference between the two. They are basically the same card.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yuppers, that's why I jumped at the middle one. This card is usually OC side to side, so seeing one centered that way with just a slight hitch in the top-to-bottom department made my eyes light up. Sharp as heck corners with a clear-as-day image. Like you said, it is virtually identical to the nearly $4,000 card on the left. Remarkable...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...72321ac4_h.jpg

In this crazy market, it's important to make 'elevator grabs' of these all-time greats when the opportunities present themselves.

I'll just put this here. With only the tiniest bit of difference in the top-to-bottom and side-to-side centering, the card on the bottom sold for just about eighteen times as much as the card on top. Eighteen times as much!! Were these cards not slabbed, 99.99% of us would've looked upon them as essentially being the same exact card, but once PSA deems one 'OC,' the perceived value plummets.

Attachment 467967

There's a happy ending, however, as I immediately jumped on and bought the top card the moment I saw it listed!!!