Centering question
 

I have always loved the look of this card and was pleased to finally pick one up. However, I don’t understand how centering factored into the grade of this 1953 Bowman PSA 8 (oc). I’m not complaining as I purchased this card for $63 and believe it was a great deal. This was cheaper than the asking price on all but two of these examples. Nonetheless, can anyone explain how these other seven examples evaded the OC qualifier?

Centering
 

I would say because they are lower grades and those grades have a bigger tolerance for centering. Eddie

That's part of it. It's also that PSA grades by the look and does not seem to actually measure centering. There are also different versions of slabs/flips there, so some were graded back when centering specs might not have been defined. You can find a lot of old grades in T206s that are 8s, 9s, and even 10s that are highly off-centered.
PSA lists its specs for centering tolerances on their website:
https://www.psacard.com/resources/gradingstandards

The big reason those others don't have qualifiers, is because you can submit your card to PSA and request No Qualifiers. So a PSA 8 (oc) will usually grade two grades lower, or a PSA 6.

If I cared to I could resubmit this and get it back as a 6 with no qualifier? The subjectivity of grading is silly at times.

Yeah, probably. It is silly, but that's the game. I always check the "No Qualifiers" box on my submission.

If you do that and need it to come back as a 6, make sure to put a mingrade of 6 on your Review form. Or if they determine the centering only deserves a 4 or 5, they will give it that instead.

This.

All those cards are no different than yours really, just no qualifiers. This is why it’s silly when people buy an 8 or 9oc and think they got the deal of a lifetime. It’s just a midgrade card that has the biggest flaw overlooked during grading by having it as a qualifier.

I guess that’s the best explanation. It is a mid grade card. I agree completely. Deal of a lifetime? Not quite, nor did I indicate that it was. I just don’t understand why there is such inconsistency in qualifiers. If a card is OC then it should be labeled as OC there shouldn’t be wiggle room within a given grade. Nor should there be the ability to request no qualifier. If an 8 OC is actually a 5 or 6 call it that. If a buyer wants a centered 5 with a couple of soft corners great, if he wants an OC 5 with gloss and sharp corners that’s fine too. This inconsistency is why I have never paid to have a cards graded. I wonder how many high dollar cards are still out there without TPG because of such issues? Nonetheless, thanks for all of your responses.

This ongoing thread will undoubtedly appeal to you...

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=265200

Thanks that’s a great thread. I should have completed a search prior to posting.

The biggest reason is the higher the grade, the less the tolerance for centering problems. A 9 is supposed to no worse than 60/40, but if the card is only a 5 otherwise, centering can be as bad as 85/15. Centering is on a sliding scale, which often confuses / frustrates those new to grading.

The other thing to point out as others already have of course, is that they often eyeball centering and can be wildly inconsistent. Back in the early days of TPG's in the 1990's and early 2000's, centering as the number one main important paranoia-driven criteria of grading was not really a thing yet. Centering has become much more important in determining overall grades for PSA and SGC even just within the last 10 years. SGC just this year it seems has really gone overboard. I've seen cards they would have easily called NM a decade ago get knocked down to 5's just because of centering. A lot of it is really borderline silly...

I see what you did there.

Ha. I glossed right over that. ;)