First PSA submission-54 Aaron, 57 Clemente qualifiers-now with pics
 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/189549.../shares/0MmN98

Hey guys-I got my first PSA submission return and had a question. I got two qualifiers, one on the 1954 Aaron which was a 4 MC and one was on the 57 Clemente which was a 7 ST. I am new to submitting cards so would you suggest that I send them back and have them graded without qualifiers or just leave them be? I sent 14 cards in this first batch and am a little disappointed with most coming in between 3 and 6.5. I knew they weren't 10's but thought that they were certainly higher than 3's.

Here are pics of the Clemente and Aaron that had qualifiers. I need to get better at pics:)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/189549.../shares/0MmN98

It's really up to you. Do a cost vs value analysis on them. Decide if the cost (grading fees + shipping) is low enough to justify sending them back. Do understand, however, that it will probably be a long time before you will have them again, and when you do receive them, those grades will be appreciably lower.

Personally speaking, if I were in your shoes, I would be fine with having those PSA grades, even with the qualifiers. I would be very happy with them.

If the cards are for you, don't worry about it. If you're trying to sell them, then it's worth the consideration.

Buy yourself a jeweler's loupe (30x or better) and you'll find that you can get a lot closer to predicting your grades.

30x is way too powerful. That's what jewelers use. You will overpower your field with that. PSA themselves use 7-10x loups.

Is there a general rule of thumb when it comes to qualifiers?

Does a 4 MC usually = a straight 2 or 1.5?

Maybe my eyes are that bad? It works great for me. I wouldn't wholly depend on it, as you still need to examine other attributes of the card. But, it works wonders for edges and corners. I've been able to guess my grades almost 9 times out of 10.

MC qualifiers are not supposed to be removed. Same with MK.

OC or ST would be removed and the grade will slide at least 2 number grades down, depending on the severity of the issue.

Add: Also, if you post pictures, people will be able to better help you. If the ST is from wax on the front of the card, you may be able to wipe it off with a nylon. If it is gum or wax on the back of the card, less likely to be removed without altering the card.

Qualifiers
 

Everyone has their own preferences here, personally I hate qualifiers. Points out/polarizes flaws which are often subjective. I’ve seen cards with centering issues and no qualifiers worse than some marked as “OC“. Last submission to PSA at a trade show, their rep said not a problem to note “no qualifiers” on the submission and they still sent a couple cards back with them :mad: .. I cracked them out and resubmitted to SGC. Again, that’s a personal preference thing and debatable whether or not you’ll see any monetary gain because of it.

Edit to add: Regarding your question about 4MC equaling 2 or 1.5, yes – that’s the general thought (about a two grade bump-down) .. but again, buyer subjective based on his/her own needs/taste

Great. I'm just telling you what PSA themselves tells collectors.

People never seem to understand that centering is on a sliding scale. A PSA 8 has a stricter centering requirement than a 4 or a 5. That's the reason for the phenomenon you are describing. A card could be centered 75/25 s-s on the front and get a PSA 8 (OC), but if it were only a 5 it would not get the qualifier.

I would agree it can certainly seem random. I understand the reason for qualifiers; if a card is otherwise a 7 and the only thing wrong with it is centering, it can be misleading to call it a 4 or 5 when other things can be inherently wrong with cards in those grades. So 8 or 7 (OC) is more informative. I would agree with you that I don't like qualifiers on the whole though, which is why I prefer SGC. Just give me a number that accounts for everything that might be wrong with the card. Especially since SGC has tightened up on centering this year, that can lead to more confusion. I have several '72 Topps cards that were given 5's or 5.5's just due to centering, otherwise glossy surfaces and crispy sharp corners. And it's questionable. I think some of them may have been PSA 7's.

The instances I was referring to were same/similar grade. IE: PSA 6 looking more off center than same marked 6 OC.

That's just PSA being PSA. Probably due to different grading eras or their insistence to determine centering by eye instead of calculating it.

6 (OC) is a rather rare grade. It would have to be OC more than 80/20, which gets into the area where cards can almost look like they are miscut.

This is true. It's clear they eyeball more than they actually measure, which leads to all kinds of inconsistencies. SGC at least recently has been even worse. 70/30 is not 90/10, but some graders would not appear to know how to tell the difference.

I love to see a scan of the Aaron rookie....lately, people have been buying the cards and not the flips.....if the card looks great even with the qualifier, it will be fine.

I'm with you. I use 30x and I swear by it. It's nice being pleasantly surprised by grades because I am seeing more flaws instead of bummed out by them because I missed stuff.

Pay attention to this comment above. The more you explore the monthly pickups on Net54, the more you will notice serious collectors buy the card and not the grade. There is even a thread titled Mid-grade Collectors. This is especially true for anything before 1980. Many collectors on this site will happily buy a 3/4/5/6 with great centering and sharp corners. There are even instances of bidding wars for mid-grade cards at auction houses. Net54 members remark about it on the AH threads that card XYZ in mid-grade went beyond estimated price because of its centering / sharp corners. So, if you really do have cards that you thought should have graded higher than what PSA allotted, don't be bummed about it, and don't waste more money.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I would definitely stick with a 4MC. The OC is supposed to be equivalent to a 2 grade downgrade, so for example, an 8 OC is supposed to be viewed (and has a registry weighting) the same as a straight 6. The MC is equivalent to a 3 grade downgrade, so an 8 MC weighs the same as a 5, or in this case, a 4 MC would be viewed (in PSA's eyes) the same as a 1.

I would much rather have an Aaron rookie that is a 4 MC than a 1, which is what they would likely give you if you asked for it without qualifiers. Maybe they give you a 1.5, but I'd still rather see the 4 MC.

This is either completely incorrect or just outdated. All qualifiers are a 2-point drop for registry purposes, unless you're at the very low end of the grading scale.
https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/rules

Many serious collectors here and elsewhere learned grading and the nuances of grading a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away before third party grading had yet been conceived. Those that did this and understand the components of subjectivity in grading have known for quite some time that eye appeal does not always (and sometimes not even frequently) equal technical grade.

We've reached a point in the modern hobby where centering minutiae is sometimes more important on vintage cards than noticeable print spots or focus issues. This can sometimes be unreasonable. Likewise a hairline crease that is difficult to notice can result in an otherwise Excellent to Mint card receiving a grade like a PSA 4, while a PSA 6 card in a slab that's duller and perhaps has worse centering is being offered for sale somewhere at nearly 2x the price.

"Buy the card not the grade" has been a thing for some time, but it's reaffirming to me how true it remains. The confident collector will buy pieces for his collection that meet HIS standards of what is appealing and collectible. Nothing wrong with that at all, and it's nice to see even some of those cards that would have been considered outliers in years past selling for premiums now at auction because real collector opinion is driving the market and not simply a number on a slab.

And remember, if the card isn't well-centered, all it takes is a paper cutter and PSA probably can't tell the difference.

I'm guessing the pictures aren't going to help much. If I plan on posting and trying to sell a bunch of cards in the new year so I need to get better at pictures.

Thanks for your insight.

You need to upload the pictures on some other site (imgur, photobucket, facebook) and then use the yellow mountain button to add the URL and have it show up as an image in the thread.
Or you could just post the URLs and we would click on them and see the images.

Thanks, I was able to post a link but still couldn't get them directly on the page. It kept saying invalid URL. I keep learning and trying...

Happy New Year.

Aaron has almost no border on left side, so it's over 90/10 centering. Back may also have part of a different card. Either could have led to the miscut, which as I said, PSA will likely not remove on a review, even asking for NQ.

Front of the Clemente looks really nice, despite the registration issue (magenta print not aligned with other colors). Might be light gum stain on the top of the card, since I see something resembling residue to the right side of the helmet. Does the back have a stain on it?

Yeah, it sucks but I knew the Aaron was a MC from the start. Its a great looking card (besides that obviously).

The back of the Clemente is clean as can be. No issues so it must be the stain you mentioned. I still can't see it but I have little to no experience with it. Its a beautiful looking card, that is why I was surprised when in came back ST.

Thanks for your insight. I appreciate it.

Tilt the card under a lightbulb and you should be able to see it better. What I'm seeing might just be dust.