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!!!

Today, I harken back to post #141 (and the ensuing follow ups there), to show an oddity I ran across. Graded versions of the 1961 Topps #160 Whitey Ford card are so often found with qualifiers attached to them (with an inordinate amount of 'PDs'). Here's mine (I'll refrain from screaming about how much I disagree with the assessment. Been there, done that.)...

Attachment 478340


But then I looked at the POP reports for Whitey, and I was stunned even more. Take a look at the number of cards in higher grades, as a percentage, that received qualifiers. Yowza!!!!! Almost half of all 9's have a qualifier attached, and 39% of all 8's have one.* That's gotta be some sort of a curiously strange record. :confused:

Attachment 478342

This entire post was off the cuff, so can anyone think of other cards that have been hammered as much as the wonderful Mr. Ford??


*The overall percentage across all grades is just about one in ten, a hair shy of 10%.

Interesting. And interesting thread! Glad it got brought back the top. I learned something today... Don't ignore the ones with qualifiers! Lol

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

Let's call today's episode Bobknobbing with Roberto...

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

Okay, I've already ventured into a short version of the 1969 Topps #50 Roberto Clemente a while back, but it is time to revisit it. Before you is an eight-spot of 1969 Bob Clemente cards. Each and every one of them has (at least) one side being (relatively?) dangerously close to a border. The particular sides differ, but they are quite similar in that specific regard.

Each and every one of these cards has been graded a PSA 8, except one - only one - received an OC qualifier.

This isn't a trick question where I am asking which one it is, but rather, given that you know one of them is a PSA 8 OC, which one or two of this octet is the most deserving of that OC qualifier?

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...328f2346_h.jpg

I think #1 and #4 are the most deserving with a slight edge to #4.

1

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

3 or 7?

I'll go with
 

#5 as the winner and #6 a close runner up

I'd say #7 is most deserving of the O/C.

By the way, I still have 4 of those 69 Clementes that I pulled from packs as a kid, and the centering on all of them look like yours.

Anyone else wanna chime in?

And away we go...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...26111bc2_h.jpg

Although all of these cards are extremely similar with regards to one side mimicking the cover of Kansas' 'Point of Know Return' album, only one received an OC qualifier and had its value tumble over the edge.

On a side note, of the collectors (who are educated in the ways of centering) chiming in with one or two guesses as to which card was most deserving of said qualifier, not a one said unlucky number 8.