Which one is the PSA 3.5 and which is the 7?
 

Here's a little afternoon game for you.

Which one is the PSA 7 and PSA 3.5? Backs are both similar.

I don"t see any images AJ

AJ
 

I only see one image? nevermimnd see them both now

Please post back scans so everyone can make an informed decision.

My guess prior to scans is the right is 7 left is 3.5, I believe I see a crease running through Jack at the top which has been taken with certain scanner settings to make it appear extremely minor when in hand in proper lighting it would be more prevalent.

im guessing
 

the one on the right with worse centering is the 7. Its always tough to grade scans though.

sorry these scans suck but more hints. Both cards have similar very light caramel staining on back and both have no creases

Ok I'll go with the bottom is a 3.5 and the top is a 7st

Then I bow out. Scans are not high enough quality to render an accurate opine.

I say top is the 7

7 is the right, 3.5 the left. I detect a surface wrinkle.

I'd take the one on the right any day of the week. That diamond cut/slant kills the one on the left and makes it very hard to look at it. Not sure how that fact impacts the grading gods, though.

Cj
 

The one on the bottom is trimmed
Top left corner has been shaved

I'd guess the top one is the 7. Side note- this is why I collect low-grade cards. Anything above a 4 looks the same to me.

I think the 2nd one (on my monitor it's on the right, or it could be on the bottom if you have a skinnier monitor) is the 7. The first one has staining on the right edge front that is distracting.

I think the centering on the first one(left) is superior to the second one (right), though it (left) has more staining. I'm guessing better centering is of more importance than staining, when the staining is slight.


WARNING: English Lesson follows:

By the way, the backs of the two cards can be similar, however 'similar' is an inclusive adjective.

Hence, 'both' is implied. So saying 'both' are similar is not necessary.

After all, one, by itself, cannot be similar, nor can the other - separately.

.

From what I have seen from PSA, either one could be the 7?

ok....
 

Left is 3.5, right is 7 but most of us clearly know that the 7 is not REALLY a 7...........cmon!!!!! :eek:

Peace, Mike

Maybe PSA, doesn"t know either?Seen some of there grades,I thought were to high & some of there grades, thought was way to low!Got a 1964 Duke Snider with green magic marker on front of the card,{auction card}I had won,they said was a {5} ex?Not in my or any ones other book,would that be a ex card!

Neither looks bad enough for a 3.5, or nice enough for a 7 from what I can see in the scans. If forced to choose based on those two scans alone I would pick the one on the bottom.

The trimmed one is the 7.

Thanks for playing along. The 3.5 was just graded and is mine. Grading inconsistency is real folks. :-) Reason for the 3.5 given was "back staining"

(I'll throw in a 5 for good measure)

A consistency in inconsistency.

Forget the grade.

Your 3.5 CJ Joe is a beautiful card!

It's absurd that some "grade".....decided by someone unknown.....who may or may not have been having a bad day....can influence the price of a card by 10's of thousands of dollars......

This again shows the inherent subjectivity in grading, not only among graders but by the same grader grading different cards. I'm still a supporter of TPG for many of the reasons discussed in a prior thread. But, what continues to baffle me, in light of this unavoidable 'flaw' in the system, is the wide disparity in values from one grade to the next, especially at the high end.

Its all bullshit...

The values given to the flips borders on irrational. Edited the rest to try to be nicer :).

honestly
 

this proved nothing to me. all it showed was these two items had similar eye appeal on scans. In hand minor technical issues are easier to see and may explain things better. that said your card is very nice looking for a 3.5 (which doesn't mean its not accurate, again can't be sure from scans)

If there are no creases, then what is it that looks very clearly to be a wrinkle in the top of the 3.5?

+1 I thought that the wrinkle was clear.

Cards should either be graded :

"authentic"

"authentic-trimmed"

"authentic-altered"

"fake"

There is very obviously a surface problem on the 3.5. That's why it is a 3.5 and it isn't the staining. I still concur with you and my earlier post. Looks like a crease or wrinkle on the 3.5 and was simply missed by the OP.

+1

Hey Leon - I saw your original post before you edited and agree nor was I offended. Although, I happen to really enjoy the registry (I think it fosters a community of like minded collectors), I also try and buy the card not the holder even if that higher graded but "lessor" card would give me a bump on the list.

My post was to point out the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of grading in general especially with some issues like Cracker Jacks (and to have some fun at my expense). I think consistency is the most important aspect of the value proposition of a TPG as the collector relies on his/her experience and historical transactions of past grades to figure out value.

Sean and others thanks again for playing along. Impossible to be 100% accurate with less than stellar scans. There's no creases on the card though. The line you mention can't be seen by the naked eye and is only picked up by the scanner. It's a "snail trail" of missing color pigments on the paper similar to line across top red border between red background and white border. Anyway the reason given for the 3.5 by the grader was back staining. I obviously disagree with the grade and will march on and play the game in trying to right the wrong.

So you reviewed the card and for the review reason of rejection that put a sticky note on the back and said "staining"?

no it's a long story and without getting into the weeds, I was told by the PSA rep who talked to the grader the reason for the 3.5 (because as you can imagine I was pretty incredulous)

P.S. I don't think my card should be a 7 by any stretch but a 5 or 5.5 is well within reason given all I've seen over the years. Against better judgement, I tried to cross in a SGC holder because of the card value and felt they were being punitive.

You need to review again if what you are saying is 100% accurate and there is no surface issue on the card.

To me all this reinforces the old adage of buy the card not the holder. The thousands that can be saved by purchasing the 3.5 vs the 7 in incredibe.

This also raises another thought I had. One's opinion is influenced by what side of the coin you're on. As a submitter, I'd be frustrated and upset at the 3.5 grade. As a buyer, I'd be delighted at the 3.5 grade. I can relate to both sentiments. I guess I'm guilty of wanting my cake and eating it too.

Edited to add. BEAUTIFUL card A.J. And I understand your bewilderment.

yes plan to resubmit at a later date and will crack this time. Don't think a straight review in holder will get the job done. Card was originally in a SGC 60 holder and I think they were about right.

Here's a much more high quality scan. Maybe that isn't a wrinkle or crease, but it sure looks like a scratch at a minimum to me. Hopefully this gives us a better understanding of why this card obtained this grade.

http://i.imgur.com/MweXox0.jpg

I've looked with loop no scratches or creases. That Goldin scan was blown out and color saturated.

We'll see what happens on the re-do. It's a travesty outside of a least a 5 holder

how much $$$ does each "redo" cost?

New adage: Those who live by the TPG, die by the TPG.

True dat but we all play the game in our own way

The increase in "perceived" value with a justifiable bump more than makes up for the cost of resubmitting.

At the end of the day I factored the cost of this happening into the final purchase price and still came out on top.

I think it is $500 per swing at that level, so PSA will cop a cool grand on this card in the two attempts. Specifying a minimum grade on a cross attempt is key. Personally I've come to much prefer the SGC presentation for the colorful Pre War cards like the CJs, that black matting makes the cards just pop. Beautiful cards, either way.

but even if you specify a min cross...and they dont agree...and the card remains in its original tomb...you still pay...correct?

Yes.

yes and the crappy part is they don't tell you what the actual grade is they would have given you. I feel like if you pay for a grading service at least they should tell you what the grade is. Now if you disagree and don't want to move forward then that's one thing. I guess the sheer volume prevents them from the back and forth.

This is why I don't crack em when I submit em for crossover, and I always put a minimum grade. Horrifying if SGC won't put that back in their holder and/or if PSA sticks with 3.5.

:eek:

Seems like good value!😜

I seen the stain on the front but still thought it was the 7 . Did you ask for NQ ? Is it a 5.5 st?