1933 Uncle Jacks INSANE PSA Grade/Comparison (Video)

[Jws57]

Hey guys - just posted this. A PSA 1 vs my recent PSA 1. Outrageous.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8D7BRDOd950

[ejharrington]

It's possible that there is some technical flaw with your card (slight paper loss on the back) that would justify the grade. Clearly, your card is better looking overall regardless of grade.

[Pat R]

What You're calling a major hole in the one on ebay looks like an ink spot to me.

[swarmee]

I know you're upset, but if the card has water damage that isn't automatically visible, it is still poor.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

It's possible that there is some technical flaw with your card (slight paper loss on the back) that would justify the grade. Clearly, your card is better looking overall regardless of grade.

Mine has a bad back but a 1 is ridiculous. Give me a break.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Pat R

What You're calling a major hole in the one on ebay looks like an ink spot to me.

Good. Point is ?

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by swarmee

I know you're upset, but if the card has water damage that isn't automatically visible, it is still poor.

It's clearly at the minimum 2-3 grades higher than that 1. It's not an automatic 1 if it's has slight water damage vs. being halfway mangled.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

It's clearly at the minimum 2-3 grades higher than that 1. It's not an automatic 1 if it's has slight water damage vs. being halfway mangled.

Crack and resubmit!!

Or, time to take it to another grader.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jws57

It's clearly at the minimum 2-3 grades higher than that 1. It's not an automatic 1 if it's has slight water damage vs. being halfway mangled.

No it isn't. It absolutely can, and looks to, have attributes of a 1. It doesn't matter for value...someone will buy that on aesthetics. It is a great looking coupon but I can see a 1 to 1.5, technically speaking. That's just me though...btw, we never saw the backs either. They can be the reason for low grades sometimes, as we all know.
.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Leon

No it isn't. It absolutely can, and looks to, have attributes of a 1. It doesn't matter for value...someone will buy that on aesthetics. It is a great looking coupon but I can see a 1 to 1.5, technically speaking. That's just me though...
.

Wow. I'm not gonna keep pushing this. But I'm glad everyone is so confident this is a fair grade haa..PSA obviously has everyone still wrapped up. Crazy.
AND definitely has attributes of a 7-8. If you owned the card you'd see the sharp corners and overall good-excellent front.

[Jws57]

You guys think the same thing regarding this batch this guy posted?? Same PSA defense here?

https://www.reddit.com/r/baseballcar..._bag_of_dicks/

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Good. Point is ?

Well I guess the point is there is a big difference between a major hole and a factory ink spot.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Well I guess the point is there is a big difference between a major hole and a factory ink spot.

You can clearly see the notch at the top shares the same exact background as that of what I deem a hole. Doesn't matter going round and round on a forum - it's just blabber at this point. But I'm glad everyone is so happy to defend PSA. It's a joke. Have fun with em !

[bbcemporium]

Originally Posted by Jws57

You can clearly see the notch at the top shares the same exact background as that of what I deem a hole. Doesn't matter going round and round on a forum - it's just blabber at this point. But I'm glad everyone is so happy to defend PSA. It's a joke. Have fun with em !

Can you post a picture of the back of the card?

[Lucas00]

I have a '66 Venezuelan that looks like an 8 or 9 on the front too. Guess what, it's a 1.
Back damage is a severe penalty for PSA. I don't agree with it, but it's how they grade.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I have a '66 Venezuelan that looks like an 8 or 9 on the front too. Guess what, it's a 1.
Back damage is a severe penalty for PSA. I don't agree with it, but it's how they grade.

Then I concede with that after 20yrs of grading with PSA / 35 years collecting bla bla - - I've seen countless weak backs get far less penalized. Oh well.
Though it goes with the latest PSA trend over the last 1-2 years in highly inconsistent (AND BAD) grading.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Then I concede with that after 20yrs of grading with PSA / 35 years collecting bla bla - - I've seen countless weak backs get far less penalized. Oh well.
Though it goes with the latest PSA trend over the last 1-2 years in highly inconsistent (AND BAD) grading.

You are only giving half the information only showing the front. We all hate it, but the TPG's grade backs mostly the way they grade the fronts. A blank back paper loss is pretty much (half point?) the same as a front paper loss in grading'
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The other card is irrelevant. Post the back of yours and people can then assess how undergraded it might be.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Jws57

You can clearly see the notch at the top shares the same exact background as that of what I deem a hole. Doesn't matter going round and round on a forum - it's just blabber at this point. But I'm glad everyone is so happy to defend PSA. It's a joke. Have fun with em !

It doesn't to me, what you're calling a hole looks like a spot of black ink that's the same color as the ink used to print the coupon.

And I'm not defending PSA but you haven't posted a scan of the back. There can be a big difference in eye appeal on cards with the same grade especially lower grade cards with back damage.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Leon

You are only giving half the information only showing the front. We all hate it, but the TPG's grade backs mostly the way they grade the fronts. A blank back paper loss is pretty much (half point?) the same as front paper loss to writing..

Even if it were an even 50/50 (or is it not?) between grading the front and back - this would not be a 1. How in the world is everyone so convinced this IS a 1 when compared to the ebay card!?? So crazy!! It's staring us right in the face with holes/marks/creases/staining and mine has back damage but a great front. You're saying that also would equate to a 1? So the front and back don't share in the grade? A Mint-front card with a bad back should be a 1? Ok. (I'm not saying my front is MINT - but just an example on this logic of why mine should be a 1..)

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Wow. I'm not gonna keep pushing this. But I'm glad everyone is so confident this is a fair grade haa..PSA obviously has everyone still wrapped up. Crazy.
AND definitely has attributes of a 7-8. If you owned the card you'd see the sharp corners and overall good-excellent front.

I think the issue is that a "1" today encompasses a very large bucket and covers everything from total beaters to items with technical flaws that do not really affect aesthetics. In many regards, old standards were better because a 2-7 meant more and had wider application. If you look at some PSA 5's from the early years, many could not get a 3 today. The problem is not so much PSA today as how PSA's standards and requirements have changed so much over the years.

All that said, Leon is right - aesthetics matter most, especially with an item like yours, which I expect is pretty rare.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Even if it were an even 50/50 (or is it not?) between grading the front and back - this would not be a 1. How in the world is everyone so convinced this IS a 1 when compared to the ebay card!?? So crazy!! It's staring us right in the face with holes/marks/creases/staining and mine has back damage but a great front. You're saying that also would equate to a 1? So the front and back don't share in the grade? A Mint-front card with a bad back should be a 1? Ok. (I'm not saying my front is MINT - but just an example on this logic of why mine should be a 1..)

Yes, if the front is MINT and the back has medium to major paper loss, technically it would grade a 1 to a 1.5, in my experience. I am not a grading fanatic though so others will know more..
.

[Jws57]

I've already stated I have a bad back (card-wise haha) - though I still hold to this card being undergraded. Shred me all you want - but the front should make up SOME - not all - but for some of the back.
(Here are all the photos actually)
Sorry - can't seem to embed. If you want them - they're at the drive:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...ja?usp=sharing

[Pat R]

I don't collect or follow these but I think this would get a 1 from any of the grading company's.

03.jpg

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't collect or follow these but I think this would get a 1 from any of the grading company's.

Attachment 534568

The definition of a 1.
.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't collect or follow these but I think this would get a 1 from any of the grading company's.

Attachment 534568

And now the truth comes out.

No matter how great the front, if the back is a mess, they’re going to give you a low grade.

Way to hide it, though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

They don't grade the front and back separately and average the grades, as far as I know. A back defect can certainly take the grade all the way down, depending on what it is.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't collect or follow these but I think this would get a 1 from any of the grading company's.

Attachment 534568

Thanks

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

And now the truth comes out.

No matter how great the front, if the back is a mess, they’re going to give you a low grade.

Way to hide it, though.

'Way to hide it' - Right. It wasn't about that - you obviously missed the entire point. The front of the PSA 1 on ebay vs mine was the point.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by rhotchkiss

i think the issue is that a "1" today encompasses a very large bucket and covers everything from total beaters to items with technical flaws that do not really affect aesthetics. In many regards, old standards were better because a 2-7 meant more and had wider application. If you look at some psa 5's from the early years, many could not get a 3 today. The problem is not so much psa today as how psa's standards and requirements have changed so much over the years.

All that said, leon is right - aesthetics matter most, especially with an item like yours, which i expect is pretty rare.

exactly.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Leon

The definition of a 1.
.

Thanks. And maybe as of now. But see Rhotchkiss' post. Maybe I'm stuck on how they used to grade and how the card should grade.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

And now the truth comes out.

No matter how great the front, if the back is a mess, they’re going to give you a low grade.

Way to hide it, though.

And 'low grade' - fine. Just not a 1.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

'Way to hide it' - Right. It wasn't about that - you obviously missed the entire point. The front of the PSA 1 on ebay vs mine was the point.

I guess you missed the point that they grade the whole card, not just the front.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

I guess you missed the point that they grade the whole card, not just the front.

Idiot.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

And 'low grade' - fine. Just not a 1.

Hard to tell from the scans, but it looks like it was glued down at one point, and now you have paper loss plus a bunch of glue residue on the back.

But maybe you can give us more detail about whether that’s accurate?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Idiot.

Thanks. I agree with you now.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

Thanks. I agree with you now.

Just don't be a punk dude. It'd be a lot different if we were actually having this conversation face to face. You act like I'm 'concealing' or 'hiding' the back. The point of the video was showing both fronts of the card and regardless - I still believe it's a terrible grade.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Just don't be a punk dude. It'd be a lot different if we were actually having this conversation face to face. You act like I'm 'concealing' or 'hiding' the back. The point of the video was showing both fronts of the card and regardless - I still believe it's a terrible grade.

Sage advice. I guess we can agree to disagree on a few points. Good luck with it!

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

Sage advice. I guess we can agree to disagree on a few points. Good luck with it!

Thanks - I'm sure you can understand my frustration. We're all fellow collectors and I imagine hoping the best for everyone. You saying 'Way to hide it' is just being an ass - that's all.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Thanks - I'm sure you can understand my frustration. We're all fellow collectors and I imagine hoping the best for everyone. You saying 'Way to hide it' is just being an ass - that's all.

I guess we all learned a lesson today.

And hopefully you realize that we like to see both sides to the card if we’re going to express an opinion on the grading and get all hot and bothered with you. Because just based on one side, it’s impossible to tell.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The 1 grade can cover a whole range of problems, from those that render the card a disaster to those that are more technical. Comparing yours to another 1 and saying it looks much better really isn't meaningful in this context. The flawed assumption in your post is that 1s should be roughly equivalent aesthetically so if yours looks much better than another 1, it must be graded wrong. Not so.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

I guess we all learned a lesson today.

And hopefully you realize that we like to see both sides to the card if we’re going to express an opinion on the grading and get all hot and bothered with you. Because just based on one side, it’s impossible to tell.

Got it. I agree there. Maybe I'm too used to how grading was way way back as I had many over the years that weren't as penalized for the back. Gotta roll with it I guess. Thanks

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The 1 grade can cover a whole range of problems, from those that render the card a disaster to those that are more technical. Comparing yours to another 1 and saying it looks much better really isn't meaningful in this context. The flawed assumption in your post is that 1s should be roughly equivalent aesthetically so if yours looks much better than another 1, it must be graded wrong. Not so.

Appreciate that..

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Got it. I agree there. Maybe I'm too used to how grading was way way back as I had many over the years that weren't as penalized for the back. Gotta roll with it I guess. Thanks

Don’t get me wrong - one of our favorite pastimes around here is getting all hot and bothered with grading companies. You might call it our favorite activity.

But at the same time, we also like to jerk each other around whenever possible.

And if. we’re going to get all pissed off at the grading companies, there are lots of examples for us to use to highlight their incompetence. Rather than just going nuts without seeing the whole item. That way they don’t accuse us of just hating them irrationally…

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

Don’t get me wrong - one of our favorite pastimes around here is getting all hot and bothered with grading companies. You might call it our favorite activity.

But at the same time, we also like to jerk each other around whenever possible.

And if. we’re going to get all pissed off at the grading companies, there are lots of examples for us to use to highlight their incompetence. Rather than just going nuts without seeing the whole item. That way they don’t accuse us of just hating them irrationally…

Ha - ya I got ya...Well - honestly - I've been a bit uptight about the card ever since I got it back yesterday. It's actually good news in a way - finding out it wasn't just randomly badly graded. If it's truly just how it is now - then I'm behind the times and have to realize that a bad back can crush a good card...

[Jws57]

Well - that about does it then guys...from being fiercely defensive - to now realizing I guess it's a warranted grade....unfortunate as it may be.

Thanks for all the input!! Much love to my fellow collectors!

[Carter08]

I don’t know why but I hate paper loss on the back. Someone people rightfully could care less.

[NiceDocter]

Obviously there are major flaws in the other card..... your front is very clean which means collectors almost surely would value it more than the other one. I respectfully ask if it may be faded or washed out as it doesnt seem as "pink" as the other one? In any event it is a very nice example and the PSA grade would not hurt the value in my opinion as most collectors now look past the lower grade holders to see what the card actually looks like. Theres a bunch of crazy variations as to eye appeal of "1" graded cards. Very nice card in any event.... dont let PSA ruin your day!

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by NiceDocter

Obviously there are major flaws in the other card..... your front is very clean which means collectors almost surely would value it more than the other one. I respectfully ask if it may be faded or washed out as it doesnt seem as "pink" as the other one? In any event it is a very nice example and the PSA grade would not hurt the value in my opinion as most collectors now look past the lower grade holders to see what the card actually looks like. Theres a bunch of crazy variations as to eye appeal of "1" graded cards. Very nice card in any event.... dont let PSA ruin your day!

Thanks a lot! I really love the little piece - the era - and how rare it is. It doesn't appear to be faded to me as the text is strong and better in person. Not sure if the other has the contrast way up on the photo or what really is the case.

[glynparson]

Eye appeal and technical
Grade are not the same thing at all. A card can be technically a one based on one single attribute despite the rest of it looking like a ten. That’s just how it works. I get that’s tough for some to understand but that’s how it is.