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