Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   PSA at it again (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=196794)

BlueBlood 11-11-2014 10:23 PM

PSA at it again
 
How is this not an 8oc..I've seen better centering with the OC qualifier..Sold for 24k..I'm thinking they did an under the table deal..or maybe it's just me..what say ye

http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/im...em_31693_1.jpg

Den.nis Sch.err

glynparson 11-12-2014 02:35 AM

Not an oc
 
qualifier in my opinion though it looks more like a 7. From the serial number i believe this was an early grade, reholdered, Not the greatest but i do not see this as horrible either. would not probably 8 today, but both PSA and SGC have tightened their parameters since they started. Again would not be an 8 today but looks fine as a 7. I do not really scream about one grade opinion difference. There are plenty of SGC 88 cards with similar centering. Especially those graded in the late 1990's.

brewing 11-12-2014 04:26 AM

Is it me or do those borders look small, could it be trimmed?

the 'stache 11-12-2014 05:38 AM

Brent, I thought the borders might be just a little on the thin side, but I compared it to other graded examples, and have reversed myself.

http://caimages.collectors.com/psace...1_599x1020.jpg

I do, however, feel that if the card were graded today, it would receive an OC qualifier. I think Glyn is right, that card has been reholdered.

Fred 11-12-2014 05:54 AM

What is the difference in price between the following:

PSA7 to PSA8

PSA8 to PSA9

I just get a kick out of perceived values of the labels. IMHO people place a higher value on those labels than the actual card itself.

1952boyntoncollector 11-12-2014 06:09 AM

grade the card not the holder
 
if this card was cracked..and there were honest scans...noone would pay psa 8 money.......thats why i dont care if people crack cases....

clydepepper 11-12-2014 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred (Post 1343616)
What is the difference in price between the following:

PSA7 to PSA8

PSA8 to PSA9

I just get a kick out of perceived values of the labels. IMHO people place a higher value on those labels than the actual card itself.

I agree. 5 is good for me in most cases.

mark evans 11-12-2014 10:10 AM

Just another example of the arbitrariness inherent in grading. I will never understand the wide disparities in value at the higher grades.

freakhappy 11-12-2014 10:49 AM

Definitely looks oc to me...I've seen some not this bad with the qualifier. But I think this just shows how inconsistent TPG can be and we shouldn't be surprised when examples like this show up.

BobbyVCP 11-12-2014 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred (Post 1343616)
What is the difference in price between the following:

PSA7 to PSA8

PSA8 to PSA9

I just get a kick out of perceived values of the labels. IMHO people place a higher value on those labels than the actual card itself.

PSA 7....$10.000
PSA 8...$23,500
PSA 9....$75,000

Been a very long time since this card sold in a PSA 9 so it could go up a lot.

Peter_Spaeth 11-12-2014 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark evans (Post 1343684)
Just another example of the arbitrariness inherent in grading. I will never understand the wide disparities in value at the higher grades.

Because for some people collecting is a competitive endeavor.

Leon 11-12-2014 01:42 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1343753)
Because for some people collecting is a competitive endeavor.

collect what you enjoy...

vthobby 11-12-2014 05:46 PM

nice card
 
Leon,

Beautiful card! I would buy the 4 all day, every day and never look back. Nice centering also.

peace, mike

KingFisk 11-12-2014 06:37 PM

Tolerance for trimming
 
Just on the talk about the possible trimming....Whenever I buy an expensive card now I find myself hand-wringing and half convinced I have been ripped off if something seems a little amiss...is there any sort of standard tolerance PSA uses for mimimum size? I just got a PSA 8 65 Morgan that is nicely centered and otherwise sharp, but by my measurement about 1/64th of an inch shy of 2.5" top to bottom...then I notice the little imperfections in the slab...am I just being paranoid over this fractional length? Were vintage cards typically varying in size by these slight degrees?

Lgarza99 11-12-2014 07:52 PM

I work for a label company and we abide by an industry standard of +/- 1/64" for size variation, and we supply nation brands with this tolerance. Some apply labels at 1000+ containers per minute so sizing is critical.

I'm sure we cut labels in the same manner as 50 years ago with a guillotine process. We even have programable machines. The +/- tolerance is needed for process variation. You should be good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingFisk (Post 1343860)
Just on the talk about the possible trimming....Whenever I buy an expensive card now I find myself hand-wringing and half convinced I have been ripped off if something seems a little amiss...is there any sort of standard tolerance PSA uses for mimimum size? I just got a PSA 8 65 Morgan that is nicely centered and otherwise sharp, but by my measurement about 1/64th of an inch shy of 2.5" top to bottom...then I notice the little imperfections in the slab...am I just being paranoid over this fractional length? Were vintage cards typically varying in size by these slight degrees?


KingFisk 11-12-2014 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lgarza99 (Post 1343895)
I work for a label company and we abide by an industry standard of +/- 1/64" for size variation, and we supply nation brands with this tolerance. Some apply labels at 1000+ containers per minute so sizing is critical.

I'm sure we cut labels in the same manner as 50 years ago with a guillotine process. We even have programable machines. The +/- tolerance is needed for process variation. You should be good.

Interesting! Thank you for that unique insight, Luis.

Peter_Spaeth 11-12-2014 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingFisk (Post 1343860)
Just on the talk about the possible trimming....Whenever I buy an expensive card now I find myself hand-wringing and half convinced I have been ripped off if something seems a little amiss...is there any sort of standard tolerance PSA uses for mimimum size? I just got a PSA 8 65 Morgan that is nicely centered and otherwise sharp, but by my measurement about 1/64th of an inch shy of 2.5" top to bottom...then I notice the little imperfections in the slab...am I just being paranoid over this fractional length? Were vintage cards typically varying in size by these slight degrees?

If you can even measure something to 1/64 God bless you. There is a fair amount of variability on 65s in my experience building that set. 1/64 would not bother me.

asoriano 11-12-2014 08:39 PM

Speaking of trimmed...
 
One of my favorites by PSA:

http://i60.tinypic.com/5168on.jpg

Fred 11-12-2014 10:16 PM

Bob,

Thanks for posting the prices for the different grades on this card:

PSA 7....$10.000
PSA 8...$23,500
PSA 9....$75,000


It absolutely blows my mind that someone would pay so much for a label that says PSA8 (or even 9) when you can't tell the difference between some of these cards and someone "subjectively" assigns these numbers.

conor912 11-12-2014 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asoriano (Post 1343916)
One of my favorites by PSA:

http://i60.tinypic.com/5168on.jpg

It took me a second to notice that edge, then my jaw hit the floor.

KingFisk 11-13-2014 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1343913)
If you can even measure something to 1/64 God bless you. There is a fair amount of variability on 65s in my experience building that set. 1/64 would not bother me.

My father in law bought me a tremendous tape measure with 64 notches! It is awesome and causes even greater paranoia in this neurotic guy.. ;) Thanks, Peter!

tschock 11-13-2014 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asoriano (Post 1343916)
One of my favorites by PSA:

http://i60.tinypic.com/5168on.jpg

Yowzers! About as obvious as it gets. I will lay money that this is one card that will never be cracked and resubmitted.

Rollingstone206 11-16-2014 04:14 PM

...

Peter_Spaeth 11-16-2014 04:27 PM

Lol.

MuddyMules 11-16-2014 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred (Post 1343936)

It absolutely blows my mind that someone would pay so much for a label that says PSA8 (or even 9) when you can't tell the difference between some of these cards and someone "subjectively" assigns these numbers.

+1 completely agree.

digdugdig 11-16-2014 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asoriano (Post 1343916)
One of my favorites by PSA:

http://i60.tinypic.com/5168on.jpg

ADVERTISEMENT
Paid for by ............ ????????

vthobby 11-16-2014 05:00 PM

deleted
 
deleted

Fred 11-16-2014 05:05 PM

Is it possible that the 1941 Playball is a "paper" card and that's just the way the edge was cut?

bnorth 11-16-2014 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtgmsc (Post 1345114)

My guess is some of the borders on the top card. It looks small.

Fred 11-16-2014 06:05 PM

Reagarding the Spahn Bowman cards.... wow - that is absolutely ridiculous... my only guess is that the submitter must have been a "Preferred PSA" submitter/customer.... :confused:

glynparson 11-17-2014 03:52 AM

Spahn
 
is terrible, looks to be an early grade from serial number. And some of you guys were talking about how good Baker was yesterday? I see a lot of junk in the early serial numbers. Just like many of the Merkle SGC graded cards are not up to the standards of the company after Dave bought it.

Fred 11-17-2014 11:25 AM

Do you think PSA would "make good" on the difference between the PSA8 price and PSA Authentic price for the owner of this card? My guess is that they'd "stand firm" on their initial assesment and that it was cut that way from the factory..... hahahaha...

Luke 11-17-2014 12:12 PM

1 Attachment(s)
So what's the deal with this card? Is it just an oversight, or did the submitter opt for no qualifiers (meaning it would have been a PSA 5 (MC) otherwise)?

jerrys 11-17-2014 12:47 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Within a 1/64" of OC?

Attachment 168228


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:09 AM.