How is this a PSA 5 with no qualifier?
 

I’ve been researching this set a bit and recently came across this example. Like my own card, this Whitey Ford card has an ink stamp on the rear of the card for the school nurse. The stamp was obviously applied by the school nurse after the card was produced so how is this a PSA 5 without a qualifier?

You can select (or unselect, I don't remember its been a while) a "No Qualifiers" Box when submitting; probs what happened here

That checkbox is long gone.

I believe 'School Nurse-Teachers' qualify for no qualifiers.

Brian

Yeah, most of the school nurses are not qualified.

Depends where you live but
 

in some state's school districts , the Nurses are authorized to perform gender-affirming surgery right there in their offices if like , for example , any young boys are overheard singing show tunes .

Which states are those, retard?

Did I read they was going to do away with qualifiers ?
Or was that a dream ?

:p...do all cards of this issue have the stamp?

Getting back on topic, there are examples of cards from this issue without the nurse’s stamp.

That's hot.

I was waiting for someone to catch that! I fixed it to prevent further derailing of the thread though.

I would say that the stamp was applied by the original issuer. The cards were handed out to school nurse who applied the stamp. Similar to many other "back stamps" that are on E and W issues. So my vote is no qualifier needed.

I’m not sure I understand your reply. Are you saying that the original printer applied the stamp or the nurse did? I can’t see the stamp being applied by the printer. It’s haphazardly done and screams of a old rubber stamp and ink pad. I think it was most certainly done by the nurse after the fact when she received them hence why there are examples that don’t have the stamp on them.

I think he meant that the school nurse was the original distributer, not the printer.

During my last hospital stay, my nurse proudly showed off her 'tramp stamp' ink to me.
She said it loosely translates to "Buy the card, not the holder."

Attachment 640072

Yes The Nurse was given the cards to Distribute and applied the stamp before issuing the cards to students. Happend many times to various E and W cards where back stamps are applied. You have never heard of a back stamped card before? E94 W554 W515 M104 and M105's ...look them up and I think you will agree no qualifier required.
J

This is great, poster gets butthurt about a pretty harmless, fairly obvious gender joke and then uses a derogatory slur that is more offensive then the joke.

How is this a PSA 5 with no qualifier?
 

Who says it's pretty harmless? If you want to immortalize your general stupidity on a sports card-specific forum...keep going.



And yes, retard is the last insensitive term I have failed to drop from my youth. Maybe someday.

Seriously, she got a tramp stamp without knowing what it really means? It doesn't say that? Anyone that knows Chinese can tell you it says "Push harder"... sheesh...

Of course, I’ve heard of those cards before, but I look at it differently. The card was issued by the manufacturer without the stamp. Any alteration to that card like an ink stamp should result in a qualifier because it was done after production.

Now would be a great time to drop it. Very rude, insensitive and offensive word to me, my family and my developmentally delayed stepdaughter.

Lots of us used to say it, but now it's in the same class as the "N" word (racially) and the "F" word (sexually). Most of the people afflicted know exactly what you are saying about them and find it very hurtful.

You say you look at it differently but the issues I referrance all left the Manufacturer / Printer without a back stamps. Were given to a distributor gum candy bread store ....on and on who placed a back stamps. Same thing happen here it and it would not surprise me to find other back stamps on this issue. And no surprise that PSA saw it this way.
If the end user added a backstamp or other writing then the card would not be as "Issued" and deserving of a qualifier. But the youg person who took Whitey home that day took it home as issued by the Nurse.

Not Sure of All of Them...
However California & New Mexico for Sure *

And at least You got His Moniker Politically Correct...
They "Took back the Tard" 2 years ago...
They/Them/He found it Offensive to be Labeled "Mentally Challenged" :D

How is this a PSA 5 with no qualifier?
 

Did someone just challenge you to prove you’re a genius in one incoherent post?

You are replying to jokes, not serious claims.

god….damnit

Could we maybe stop with all the nonsense in this thread and get back to the discussion on the original question?

Card
 

Vintagedeputy-

I too believe PSA missed this one for sure, by their own standards. There
very much should be one of those dreaded qualifiers on this card. If I was
czar, PSA would be forced to drop the stupid qualifiers and reflect the
presence of the stamp in a uniform way- i.e, stamps drop a grade by 2 full
points, so the card in question could be a PSA 3 without qualifier.

2nd question you posed- there are FAR too many people on this site who
can't stay on topic, or who wish to divert the topic for their own ends. When
you bring it up, their feelings get hurt.

Trent King

I'd be willing to guess that people at PSA wouldn't have a clue about whether to give it the MK qualifier or not. In this case, I bet PSA just missed it.

What is the rule of thumb on back stamps/overprints as it pertains to the hobby (not grading)?

Nice attempt!

Hard to say 100%, because there are some covered bits. And also because as is common, neither the artist nor the recipient have a clue, so they usually just hope that it means whatever their cheat sheet suggests, and don’t know how to actually position anything.

But it looks like the first character is actually 2 characters stacked on top of one another. 自 營。 Hard to translate this, but probably something like “search yourself” or “yourself seek”, then 福, which means blessings or happiness. And then 強 means strong or powerful. Hard to decipher what someone was trying to say here, but maybe something like: seek for yourself and you will find happiness and power.

But for the “buy the card” die hard fans, this is probably close enough.

I look at it like someone just took a card and wrote something on it that was not intended, which to me would earn the MK qualifier.

Trent, they definitely “missed the mark” - pun intended, on this one.

I too think that qualifiers are stupid and much prefer the way SGC grades.

PSA missing some ink that should get the MK qualifier and giving the card a straight grade is hardly anything new. My LCS this summer had a nice '63 Aaron, except with pen marks on the back. It was a straight PSA 5.

Being through a health organization, it's possible the nurses backstamp was intended.
Perhaps as a way to track what cards were given out.
Anyone recall the "TB tine test?" I don't like needles at all, and getting stuck with the Katyusha rocket of needles (Ok, it was only 5 at once, but still 5x worse than one) was the makings of a bad day.
A free baseball card would have gone a long way to making it "better" or at least more tolerable.
Maybe the stamps were to indicate ones given out for taking that test or some other test?

Or, just similar to the Carousel discs which were blank backed MSA discs rubber stamped with the store stamp before issue.
Or as mentioned, the many stamps issued with back stamps for a variety of purposes, from repurposing a set to identifying the individual who packed the product.

I am a post war collector and the only pre war set I collect is the 1923 Fleer set, and I only collect it as an extention of my post war Fleer run, 1959-2007. The cards are just W 515 cards with a Feer back stamp. I assume Fleer obtained some and stamped them post production or maybe under a license agreement.

This is great, poster gets butthurt about a pretty harmless, fairly obvious gender joke and then uses a derogatory slur that is more offensive then the joke.

We were all thinking the same thing...

[QUOTE=Bpm0014;2474535]This is great, poster gets butthurt about a pretty harmless, fairly obvious gender joke and then uses a derogatory slur that is more offensive then the joke.

We were all thinking the same thing...[/Q

I WAS DEFINITELY NOT THINKING THE SAME THING. Speak for yourself.