Downgrades for fisheyes?
 

I just got PSA grades back on some 1967 high numbers. I was shocked that the Belanger rookie got a 3. I had expected maybe a 7. The card is perfectly centered with sharp corners and a good surface (edit: there is some kind of scratch or wrinkle on the surface). It is marred by 6 "fisheye" dots (little white circles on black ink parts of the card). I found some threads about fisheyes and grading, and most people say you might get a slight downgrade for them. But is 6 fisheyes on one card just too many? Really, a 4 point deduction?

Is this a scratch on the card? Pretty harsh grade, though.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0d20399123.jpg

Grades must’ve just popped today, as it’s not even in PSA’s database yet. Figured I would check the back just to see if anything there might be to blame, but not yet possible!

You pay the money, and you get their grade. That's the way it's always worked. Yet you for whatever reason still opted to play a game where they rather than you as the customer make the rules.

So now you're complaining? Why? Granted the fee you paid is long gone. Chalk that up as an expensive learning experience. But you still have the card and you can always break it out of its plastic prison and enjoy it for what it is.

;)

Agree pretty harsh grade. Nice high # though

You're right! There is some kind of flaw there, which I did not notice when I submitted the card. So maybe that explains some of the low grade. And perhaps the fisheyes are the rest. Still is a very handsome card. And as a light-hitting infielder myself, I was always impressed how important Mark Belanger was to the Orioles' success.

You make some good points. I am playing their game. But understand that the reason I am getting these cards graded is to establish the condition and value of a complete set for selling. The high numbers, along with the major star cards, are key to the value of the whole set. Out of the 20 or so grades I got on all the 67s in this set, this was the lowest and I was trying to understand why (and complaining a bit, yes).

Just my limited personal experience. People buy sets to break up and make money. I have never once seen someone put a set together to sell as they almost always sell for way less. I easily lost $1.5K on the last set I put together and then sold.

Really nice card. Fisheyes would never cause a card to get downgraded more than a single grade, I'd imagine. 99% of the time this happens (thought it was a 7 but graded a 3) it has to do with surface integrity, a scratch (as poster already noted), or something less than a wrinkle but more than nothing (a bubble, surface veining etc.). These are often the most difficult flaws to interpret and can lead to wide-varying opinions from one grader to the next.

Now that it’s available on PSA’s site, I wonder if there’s something going on with the back. I will admit that I’m no expert on this card, and maybe it’s just a visual illusion, but the back almost looks like there’s some staining or toning? Almost wonder if it’s from soaking or from being pasted into a photo album or something.

You lost me on the "selling" part. I hate the way cards and their "value" have become inextricably intertwined in most people's minds. I've always valued cards only for the intrinsic delight they bring me. The only way their price enters into the equation is that now I can't readily afford many of the cards I'd like to add to my collection. It's quite simply the case that if I buy these cards right now, I can't buy those.

While this may also have been true to a much lesser extent fifty years ago, I simply couldn't find the cards I wanted then. So, yes, I suppose things have improved over the last few decades.

I still absolutely hate price focused discussions though. My posts are all about the aesthetics of cards and the joy I've gotten from collecting them over the decades.

I know the history of this card since I bought it in 1967, and no, there has not been any tampering. PSA seems to have taken a bad photo of the back. Here it is in my dining room.

A replacement for Aparicio, eh? Kind of funny that Aparicio went on to play through the 1973 season.

Belanger couldn’t hit even in the minors.

This is a helpful comment, thanks. Really the main reason I am here on this board is to understand the best way to liquidate several of my childhood late 60s complete sets. I am considering putting them up for auction, consigning, breaking and selling the sets myself, or finding a willing buyer/collector, or something else I haven't thought of. Maybe it's worth a new thread, not for this one that's about fisheyes and PSA!

I doubt the fisheyes had anything to do with the grade. My guess would also be the scratch or whatever is in the middle of the card. It still should have got a 3.5 for the eye appeal.