Certified, Qualified and Glorified!!!
 

The time has surely come for an appreciation thread featuring cards you have that came back from the graders with dreaded qualifiers, but don't bother you (nearly) at all. You love them and/or love the discounted price you paid for them!!!!

Post 'em if you got 'em...

The '61 Say Hey Kid just has a bit of snow while his '73 Mets card is barely a hair off from being properly centered. The Mantle has a tiny bit of wax near his face that could've been easily removed before it was submitted, but alas. The Rose is a puzzler for sure...

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7923/...95832ef8_b.jpg


These 4 (including a trio of HOF southpaws) are all O/C, but if your OCD isn't too bad, they don't present much of a problem...

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7806/...ae915516_b.jpg

Is "OC" a standard designation now?

I'm pretty sure the O/C qualifier has been there since the beginning. I have a 1970 Topps Nolan Ryan in an ancient slab that's graded a PSA 6 OC. That one, let me tell you, is way off center and wouldn't deserve to be in this thread.

That was sarcasm. I have seen much worse come back with no OC than several of the cards pictured.

It depends on the degree of offcenteredness and the straight grade the card is.
https://www.psacard.com/resources/gr...andards/#cards

Unbelievable.

I don't have many OCs, but I like this Mays. To me, the value of the qualifier is that you know this is essentially how the card came out of the pack - according to the eagle eyes of PSA at least. With a 7 (or whatever it would be without a qualifier) you have less information about the overall condition. Of course I would know the centering contributed to the grade, but I wouldn't know it's the only real flaw PSA found.

Attachment 334679

Thought I'd give this thread a bump with a couple of the all time great sluggers. Show 'em if you got 'em...

Attachment 340393Attachment 340392

This one doesn't bother me in the least.

Here is one my favorites.
https://i.imgur.com/l6vRpy7.jpg

Gorgeous color.

I've seen worse that don't have the OC.

??

I don't get get it...

BEAUTIFUL CARD!!!

The higher grade the card is notwithstanding the centering, the less tolerance there is for bad centering in terms of the grade. Does that make sense? For example a PSA 8 must be 65/35 to 70/30 centering or better on the front. If a card is otherwise an 8 but is centered 75/25 it's going to be a PSA 8 (OC). But when you get down to a card that is otherwise a PSA 5, the tolerance is only 85/15 on the front. So a card there that is 75/25 is going to be a straight 5 without the qualifer.

Thank you for that. Had no idea. Good info.

Yeah it's still subjective (you will see cards often centered outside the standard on the back, for example - but they still get a higher grade...) but the idea is that if a card is really high end, the centering must be very good as well.

This kind of thing drives me nuts when people online are arguing over why this or that vintage card got a PSA 3 or 2, and someone will chime in "Look! It's way off-centered on the back...that's why!!!" Well yeah, it's O/C on the back, but who cares? That is virtually never the reason that a card in lower grade already gets downgraded further. As if the card would have been a PSA 5 if not for the centering on the back...when often the card in question already has a crease or 3 shot corners or something.

It may be a bit of 'qualifier overkill,' since I've posted these elsewhere, but what the hey...

Attachment 347965
Attachment 347964

This one has a small wax stain from the wrapper on the blank back. Doesn't bother me too much.

https://i152.photobucket.com/albums/...psjgnyvec5.jpg

Suh-weet!!!!!

(No longer) graded, but certainly could be qualified. Love it regardless, the surface and color are killer.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...9708084296.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wow Josh! Those are tough to find in good shape. I’d be really happy with those even with the qualifiers.

This one is obviously more about the back than the front...

Attachment 349827

...and it don't bother me none. :cool:

Attachment 351046

Attachment 351047

The marker on the back of this card doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, I can picture an 8 year old boy sitting in his room in 1956 writing the uniform numbers of his heroes on the back of their cards. I have no idea if that’s the case, but it’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

My Kin Hubbard Card
 

[IMG]http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...GEHRIG_NEW.JPG[/IMG]


... "There ain't no disgrace in bein' poor......( pause , pace the stage ) might as well be , though".

..the grader could have stopped at the "1".....adding the qualifier was juss piling on and showin' off....I figure he was mad because he couldn't read the back ( it's half in French.).....merde....

..

A couple more big names that don't look so bad...

Attachment 356118

Don't collect the 1970 FB set, but I couldn't pass up either of these HOF'ers, who don't even come close to what I would deem O/C...

Attachment 356999

Technically this is out of line since it’s not graded, but this would probably get some kind of qualifier. I don’t know though - it could be a straight 6. Normally 80/20 centering range or worse I stay away from, but for some reason this one has never bothered me. Maybe because the ‘62 borders are a bit duller - I just don’t really notice them. The pic is killer with nice color and a crispy image:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...0181a44bed.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hey Mike,

I wonder if the same 8 year old kid owned both of our cards....

That '72 Lefty Traded is ridiculous, btw. I have one centered about the same that was a straight PSA 8.

Certified, Qualified and Glorified!!!
 

I don't know if I overpaid, but this was roughly 20% the VCP on a straight 9.

-John
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...90f15b33ca.jpg

A pair of 1961 Topps...

The virtually flawless #485 Banks MVP is featured in the "Grading Has Clouded Our Minds" thread, and the tough #531 Coates high number has a little too much black/gray here and there (most visibly in the yellow area) for PSA's liking. Really nothing very noticeable, so I'm happy to have grabbed it...

Attachment 358998

Wow, whatever. That’s a great looking card!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

amazing stuff man. Not sure how some of these got OC qualifiers

This is a companion piece to the 1973 Willie Mays at the beginning of this thread...

Attachment 363066

Two of the three true all-time HR leaders. When I see a beautiful card like this, the OC qualifier stands for "OF COURSE I need to grab it!!!"

Grabbed this Mantle at a huuuuuge discount (as compared to a straight 7) and it really doesn't look too bad to me, as it isn't mind-blowingly off kilter. You could even argue that the OC qualifier is a result of the back centering...

Attachment 365257Attachment 365258

Two all-time greats from 1972 with sharp as heck corners, but just a smidge off side to side...

Attachment 366011

If the centering on this very low POP 1961 high number is wrong, I don't wanna be right...

Attachment 368869

...and the 1963 Fleer Adcock SP has the standard (non-problematic to 99.9999% of us) wax residue on back. Got it for a great price!!

Attachment 368870

Here are a pair of recent finds. The tough series #277 1957 Johnny Podres is simply too nice to even accept the OC designation, and the 1969 #500 Mantle YL simply has a little see-through gum residue on front. While angling it like crazy in the light, you'd have to be the world's greatest detective to locate this supposed "stain." I'll take these cards any day of the week...

Attachment 369963

Similar. I mean to me, this is o/c but not egregious in terms of overall affect on eye appeal. Sharp otherwise.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...9bc69721a2.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Some one's attempt to grade cards from the mid 90's

A pair of high number HOF'ers that are a tad bit off-center top to bottom, but neither of which gives me any sort of pause, because the extra white involved mirrors my big-ass smile. :D

Attachment 370843

What is the difference between off center and mis cut. Seems to be a grey area.

It seems a miscut is when part of the picture/border/etc. is 'missing.' If something is 99.9% off centered, but nothing is actually missing, it gets the OC. If a hair of the picture or actual border (not the 'white areas') is missing, it gets the MC.

In my 1969 WL Mantle in this thread, a tiny bit of the round number bubble on back is cut off, so it was deemed MC.

Edited to add PSA's definition:

Attachment 371158

Curious
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...2TOPPS_NEW.JPG

..there seem to be no hard fast rules...
..

Is the back miscut?

I noticed a card just the other day that had the MC qualifier and thought for sure the back must be way off with evidence of another card there but nope, it was clean.

I'm guessing some graders at PSA don't know the difference between MC and OC?
Shocking, I know. :)

A card doesn’t have to show a portion of the adjoining card on the sheet to get the MC qualifier. Per PSA, cards with an “atypical cut for the issue” make up the standard. So in other words, they can give that qualifier to any card they want to if it looks odd to the grader. [emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A couple of recent additions...

1982 Topps #21 Ripken RC that looks fine to me. This is exactly what 99.99% of cards coming out of packs looked like that summer, so I have no problem with it. And the 1962 Mantle has 'invisible' wax/gum residue on it...I guess. Can't see anything. What's pretty cool about the 'highlight' cards from that year (Stan the Man, The Killer, etc.) is the overlooked fact that they have the full player stats by season on back. The players' regular cards only showed full stats from the previous season and career totals.

Attachment 373710

I picked up a Schmidt rc at a steal......

Nice. With that card, tilt is usually more of a problem than the centering. Early 1970’s cards in many cases were condition doozies, and this particular one is a poster child for that, IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The 1969 Parker White Letter is a tough variation to grab, so I don't have a problem with it being a tad O/C...but, man, the umps at PSA are really squeezing Tom Terrific's strike zone with this qualifier. The pitch clearly hit the corner of the plate, but they called it a ball anyway...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...21dacc75_b.jpg

PSA's standard for a 9 is 60/40 to 65/35. I would agree that one could have gone the other way.

Another real tough to find 1972 Topps high number, #699 Bobby Murcer, that is just a tad bit O/C as compared to a straight PSA 9...

Attachment 376780

A couple more sharp-cornered HOFer cards I picked up for but a fraction of the price straight 9's sell for. The 1973 Topps #190 Bob Gibson is just a tiny bit, harmlessly o/c top to bottom, and the surreally yellow/green 1974 Topps #110 Billy Williams has a small, virtually non-existent amount of obligatory wax/gum residue on the back. The scan makes it look much, much darker than it is in real life. Cool stuff...

Attachment 379912Attachment 379913
Attachment 379914

A couple (few?) more cool, smiling, high grade OC HOFers...

Attachment 380421

Because of the O/C qualifier I was able to add this card to my collection.
If centering is a must then the 1954 Topps issue is not for you.

To limit my response to two words, all I can say is, "YOW - ZA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

A pair of tough 1957s that are fine just as God (Topps?) made them...

Attachment 383562

An oddly sunburned(?) Say Hey Kid and a trio of all-time great sluggers having a grand old time...

Attachment 385936

I hate the term 'great eye appeal,' but to me neither of these o/c cards suffer from a lack of it.

A pair of 1972 PSA 9 high numbers that almost never appear up for auction, and since they're just a touch OC, I got them at a beautiful price...

Attachment 386795

A quartet of yumminess...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...19a172b8_b.jpg

Thank God I don't have COCD (Cardboard Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), because these tough, sharp cornered 1967 Topps high numbers don't bother me much at all...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a5eeb16c_b.jpg

Nice cards, would not bother me either. 67's are deceptively tough because even if perfectly centered, the borders are a bit thinner than some issues. Finding one close to centered with zero tilt is next to impossible anyway. I certainly would not try to build a 67 set that had super stringent centering requirements.

A quartet of cool high-grade, but qualified, cards...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...950804b9_b.jpg

Here are some recent pick-ups (with commentary)...

The 1973 Strikeout Leaders' (from 1974) 'print defect' is a tiny bit of extraneous snow/dots in a couple of places, but it doesn't bother me none and I got this great card featuring two legendary hurlers together for less than $20 total (and it is perfectly centered). The 1964 Ed Charles Stand-Up has the obligatory wax/gum stain on its blank back, and the 1976 'Eck' rookie card has what I like to call a WTF qualifier...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e9ef4f46_h.jpg

This 1972 Jim Fregosi Traded high number is as close as you can possibly get to NOT being deemed off-center. It's a head scratcher (the back is centered). 99.9% of all '72 Steve Garvey highs are much too close to the top border, so although it's a tad bit hinky looking (although side to side it's right on the money), I bought this one instead of taking out a loan to shell out $400-$500 for a straight 9 that is only a tiny bit better in the top to bottom centering arena (check out ebay to see the pricing/look of other PSA 9 OC's). The 1973 Frank Robinson is a majestic card and everyone knows how ridiculously hard it is to find nice 1971's that aren't plagued by chipping, so this beautiful 'a little low' Jim Bunning is fine by me...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6f038927_h.jpg

Ah, the difference in grading companies-

Attachment 413137

Learning Curve
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...OWMANS_NEW.JPG

..Agreed ....we all learned fairly quickly where to send our lesser-centered '50s cardboard......I'm over-the-top mentally unbalanced about side-to-side centering but strangely I can tolerate this type of T-to-B like your Berra and Spahn ; ..

..

I'm over-the-top mentally unbalanced without qualifiers! I've always been more about having stronger corners than centering. For the 53 Bowman set, one either accepts what they find or uses quite a bit of patience, discretion and money to build a set with perfect centering. I can live better with more at the top than having less, side to side I have some with 15/85, but I am completely happy with 65/35.

I have 2 Spahns- this one and a BVG 3 which has nice corners and perfect centering, but it has a 2 inch horizontal line wrinkle starting from the left side and running near the mitt. The BVG 3 has better eye appeal, but the PSA has strong borders and no creases or wrinkles. This week the BVG 3 is my keeper, next week-who knows?

A quartet of (for me) coolness...

The 1972 Morgan and Cepeda cards are just a tad/touch/smidgen too high top to bottom to get straight grades. Oh well, but I'm ecstatic to have them. The 1969 Johnny Bench is a wonderfully celebrated (see, I took my own advice https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277906) card that has what should have been easily-wiped-away (see-through) gum residue on the front...and I mistakenly bought the '59 Dark (which looks pretty frickin' nice), because I came to the hurried conclusion that it was a high number. Missed it by THAT much...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...55a570a7_h.jpg

Take a ride on the stain train...

1957 Topps tough series Danny Kravitz has a small amount of non-problematic wax/gum residue of back. The 1964 Frank Malzone Stand-Up has a tiny bit of the obligatory wax/gum stain on its blank back, and both the 1965 Killebrew and 1966 high number Mahaffey look as clean as a freshly Windexed window. No matter how much they're tilted in the sunlight, I can't pick up even a hint of a 'stain.' Perhaps there's an unseen bit of residue that's only visible when the cards are actually in-hand and not in a slab?? Dunno...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9d942133_h.jpg

Here's one I didn't expect. I sent a bunch of Mantle cards in to be graded in March and they just came back yesterday. Grades were all over the place, got a couple 8's I didn't expect but also two 1's that I thought were better.

The most surprising one to me is this 1962 Mantle All Star. Do think the MC qualifier is because of the bottom border on the front, or the top of the circle on the back?

It's gotta be the back circle. I have a 1969 WL Mantle that's a 6 MC for the same reason, the circle on back is just a hair cropped off. Back MC's are great (for buyers, not graders), because you can usually get them at a severe discount and the front isn't affected at all.

I was extremely happy to grab this pair of all-time greats. Both are just a slight hair of a tad off-center top to bottom to get straight grades, but they look pretty sweet to me, with sharp corners and beautiful clarity (and the Ryan is one of the best cards ever!!!)...

Attachment 418610

Three Under Par??

The 1964 Topps #331 A.L. Bombers/Mantle is a beautiful card that is slightly pushed to the right, but there's plenty of breathing room over there. In a vacuum, the 1964 Topps Stand-Up Orlando Cepeda looks absolutely, perfectly fine. Nothing wrong whatsoever. The name plate is virtually dead centered, so it's only by examining other cards graded PSA 8 do you realize that it is just a touch too close to the bottom to warrant a straight grade. You would never think anything's amiss if you looked at the card by its lonesome. Oh well. I don't really collect football cards, but 1970 Topps #87 Bob Lilly makes the fifth HOF'er from the set that I've picked up in PSA 9 OC shape. They are generally gotten pretty cheaply, which is nice. With the thin white borders, it only takes a hair's width to deem those cards O/C (Although Bob really doesn't look all that bad, it is BY FAR the most OC of my quintet. How funny is that?)...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1dd139dc_h.jpg

4-on-the-Floor.

A couple of Hall of Famers caught in very insignificant 'snow' flurries, a very decent looking Gil Hodges, and the 1961 Topps high number, #559 Jim Gentile, is just a bear to come by in high grade, so I grabbed this slightly hinky O/C one just to get it...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...818415e7_h.jpg

Top of the POPs...

Here is an awesome foursome of extremely sharp-cornered cards with beautiful (3 out of the 4) centering that have ridiculously low pops, so I'm happy to have them in any way, shape or form. The 1958 Topps Harry Anderson #171 has six straight 9's and three with qualifiers, 1958 Topps Murray Wall #410 has four 9's and two with Q's, the 1962 Topps Herb Score #116 Green Tint has only a pair of straight 9's and the card pictured is the only one found with a (in my mind, ill-gotten) qualifier, and the 1971 Topps Jerry Robertson #651 high number has a total of six nines and four with qualifiers. Although a bit off-center, his perfect borders and corners couldn't possibly get any more blacker...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...ab6748f1_h.jpg

Hi, I'm new around here...this thread is fascinating. How on earth has PSA maintained the level of hegemony in the market that it has, given how obviously arbitrary and inconsistent its grades are? To say nothing of the trimming scandal, which somehow hasn't seemed to affect its credibility in the market. *And* the incentives that it has to keep the population of 10s and even 9s artificially low. Talk about a naked emperor. It's baffling to a newcomer.