Would someone explain to me why one of these cards has a qualifier and the other does not?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

[Archive]

Posted By: P SPAETH

Sure, no problem. Yes. Ahem. Hmmmmm. Uh.... well.... indeed. EDITED TO ADD On a serious note is it possible some of the bottom edge of the Speaker is hidden beneath the slat/post/whatever you call it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Kismet.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Speaker's hat is nicely centered in his card,

while Lajoie's hat is clearly off-center to the right.


It's plain as day.

[Archive]

Posted By: Carlos Alcazar

Take your pick:

1) PSA got it wrong.

2) The submitter could have requested "No Qualifiers," which is possible and would theoretically reduce the grade you get but remove the qualifier.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I acutally prefer the cut of the Lajoie compared to the Speaker. If I resubmitted the Lajoie in the slab, could I ask for a 7 with no OC?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Bottom centering is a bit ambiguous on T206s (and other issues). This Speaker may be an extreme example, but the question of whether or not or how much of the border area with the name should be considered border area is tough.
JimB
P.S. I passed on this card several years ago at a show because of centering

[Archive]

Posted By: Carlos Alcazar

I believe it's up to PSA's discretion about the grade it gets, so you couldn't "ask" for a 7 without the qualifier.

However I would think that the card would probably be nice enough to warrant just one grade down for the centering, I'm not sure what the centering tolerances are for a 7.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

To paraphrase that great Brooklynite (no, not you Barry) Ralph Kramden:

"You wanna know why one of these cards has a qualifier? You wanna--know--why---one of these
cards has a qualifier...I'LL TELL YA...I'LL TELL YA...whoa, I'll tell ya!....


WHY SHOULD I TELL YOU WHY ONE OF THESE CARDS HAS A QUALIFIER!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

er, no, that can't be it...

Because the grader did the second card in the morning and was more hung over from the beer and cheetos the night before...

still doesn't sound right...

Because PSA is about as consistent as a schizophrenic on acid.

YeaH, that's that ticket!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

It's because the Lajoie is off-center.

The flip in that slab is also off-center, top-to-bottom...-so it's very consistent.

If you need anything else, you know where to find me

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

A PSA NM-MT 8 ... Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

A PSA NM 7 ... Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

1. The Lajoie is an 8 and therefore has stricter centering guidelines than the Speaker, which is a 7.

2. The back on the Lajoie may not meet the guidleines.

3. PSA may not have followed its guidelines.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.

You got lucky on one of them, but that ain't good enuff, huh?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

No, Gil, I got lucky and NONE of them. I own just the Lajoie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron

Taken from the PSA website. Here is their defintion of the OC qualifier. OC (Off Center):
When the centering of the card falls below the minimum standard for that grade will be designated "OC." PSA determines centering by comparing the measurements of the borders from left to right and top to bottom. The centering is designated as the percent of difference at the most off-center part of the card. A 5% leeway is given to the front centering minimum standards for cards which grade NM 7 or better. For example, a card which meets all of the other requirements for PSA MINT 9 and measures 60/40 off-center on the front automatically meets the PSA front centering standards for MINT 9. If a card meets all of the other requirements for PSA MINT 9 and measures 65/35 off-center on the front, it may be deemed to meet the PSA front centering standards for MINT 9 if the eye appeal of the card is good

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

The border on the top looks to narrow.

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Carlos,

Someone could ask for NO QUALIFIERS but does that give the grading service the right to abandon their posted grading criteria? For example, if a card must be centered to a certain degree should the card by virtue of sharper corners, cleaner edges and higher gloss be graded higher even if the cards centering criteria is not met? We've seen this before and the debate continues. A posted criteria is just that. Any reputable grading service should adhere to their own posted standards. But hey, the little flip in the holder shouldn't mean much - seriously, who would be foolish enough to pay thousands of dollars more for a card in an 8 holder as opposed to a 7 holder? Especially since grading is so subjective.

[Archive]

Posted By: Carlos Alcazar

"Someone could ask for NO QUALIFIERS but does that give the grading service the right to abandon their posted grading criteria?"

Fred,

What you say is true, but I think that the notion behind the qualifiers is that the card exhibits all the signs of the higher grade given with the exception of centering in the case of the OC qualifier.

When somebody asks for No Qualifiers it pretty much automatically drops the grade down to take the centering, staining, or whatever the case may be into account. It goes from being a card that "is nice enough to be grade x, except for centering, etc" to instead being a lower grade without a qualifier to take the whole into account.

This is why I don't think they abandon their posted grading criteria necessarily.

The market also takes this into account. I don't purchase much graded, vintage or otherwise, but in more modern cards even a PSA 9 with an OC qualifier will not be treated the same as an 9 without one, and in some cases an 8 with no qualifier can sell for more than an a qualified 9.

It should also be noted that PSA does include an exception (found on the PSA FAQ):
"Also, while you may request no qualifiers on your submission, it is up to the discretion of our graders to determine if the qualifier can be removed."

So even the request doesn't automatically make it happen, just when the graders decide it's warranted.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glyn PARSON

PSA has stated That Eye Appeal can allow them to loosen their stated standards of centering. Something doesnt look right with the top of the Speaker in my opinion though scans can be and often are deceiving.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark T

if you look at the bottom of the Speaker it looks like a slight Diamond cut matches up with the slight cut on top. I agree the top would look trimmed if the bottom was not the same but my eye tells me this is ok.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

hey jeff, how are ya?

good topic...i am "PSA guy", but this is one big area that pisses me off sometimes. i have a few PSA 9 (OC) T206 SLers, they are definitely centered high, that is not debatable, BUT i have also owned several PSA 8's that were centered EXACTLY like the 9 (OC)'s...very frusterating...

i do think, however, IF you wanted to resubmit the Lajoie, they usually knock the cards down 2 notches, not just 1...

if anything the Speaker looks like it should have a "miscut" qualifier, not "off-center", because of its diamond cut...i used to own a dummy taylor that looked just like that Speaker, it had a (MC) qualifier.


p.s. when is that steak dinner? let's talk monday, and really try to set it up.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ummmmmm......steak!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Mike, I agree that the Lajoie merits the OC qualifier; like you I can't understand why the Speaker doesn't have an MC next to the grade.

As for steak, I'm free next week anynight so let's do it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

If I had to make some sense of the decision to 'not' put the qualifier on speaker...

If you look at the 'white' all around the card, it is pretty even all around.
Ignore the name.... and the white border is pretty even.

I am not saying I agree with that as a 'good' reason - but it is the difference between the two cards you show.


Michael - Barry - Jeff
Count me in for a steak dinner. Just say where and when!

Regards,
Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

"Where and when."

There, I said it.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

i think i'm free any night this week...

i have recently heard that Morton's is NOT good. so the search continues...

maybe i'll call Luger's and see if there are any cancelations?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I don't care what anyone says, Peter Luger's serves the best steak in the world. If anyone else has a dissenting opinion, they are wrong. There's no room for negotiation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Next week - I can go any night except Friday night.

The following week, Wed-Friday are no good for me.


Lets get it going! We need a quick locale decision.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Getting a reservation at Luger's can be a chore. Maybe Michael can get lucky and get us a 6:45 seating for 6 or 8, and then the first ones to say "I'm in" will dine together. If we are looking for a table for 12 or 14, it may not work.

Okay, I'm in!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

No question that Lugers has the best steak. No question. It may be too difficult to get in, however. I've been to Morton's and Sparks and Michael Jordan's recently and Sparks is the best followed by Morton's. Mike, Morton's is very good, I'm surprised you heard negative news about the place.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

i'll call Amex & Luger's both, and see if i can get something for this week (excluding friday)...

i'll keep you guys posted.

my boss (who told me Morton's is horrible) suggested the steakhouse opened by the lawyers from smith & willinsky...Borelli's? somthing with an italian name...

anyway, let's make this happen this week.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

we could do either a 4:45pm or 9:45pm at Luger's...i myself am perfectly fine eating that late, how do you guys feel?

also, Amex has tables held at many restaurants in the city, we could do any of these if we wanted (i edited the list down to a few steakhouses)...


Maloney & Porcelli
37 E. 50th St.


Mesa Grill
102 Fifth Ave.


Michael Jordan's The Steak House NYC
23 Vanderbilt Ave.


Morton's, The Steakhouse
551 Fifth Ave.


One If By Land, Two If By Sea
17 Barrow St.


Ruth's Chris Steak House
148 W. 51st St.


Smith & Wollensky
201 E. 49th St.


Sparks Steakhouse
210 E. 46th St.


Strip House
13 E. 12th St.


Tavern on the Green
Central Park W.


The Palm
837 Second Ave.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

While Barry is probably salivating at the prospect of the early early bird 445 pm special, most of the rest of us are eating lunch by then.

I've been to all of those mentioned above; in making a choice I think it important to find a place that is actually quietish - that is ultimately the point of the meal. Therefore, while I love the Palm, unless we get a private room with 16 guys, it's out.

Michael Jordan's is above average but is a) convenient to those who will be taking the 4 train; and b) is relatively quiet. The rest of the places listed are mostly dogs for steak (other than Sparks but even if you get a res the wait is intolerable). A better place in my mind is BLT Steak which is not far from Morton's. Morton's I've been to a number of times and find it to be pretty damn good. In terms of steak solely, I'd rank Luger's first, Sparks second, BLT third, Morton's fourth, Palm fifth and Jordan's last.

PS: I believe Maloney and Porcelli is the restaurant named after the lawyers for the owners of Smith & Wollensky.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

i am friends with the executive chef at BLT steak...that could be an option.

man this is always so tuff...haha.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Two points- no, I would pass at 9:45, but I've been to Luger's dozens of times so if you guys want to go for it, I'm fine.

One complaint I have about our previous dinners, most notably the last two: the noise level in the places we picked was intolerable; I couldn't hear anybody and I was screaming to be heard. Anybody know a little more low key place?

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

barry- i hear what you are saying (no pun intended)...

the place i mentioned above, that the lawyers from Smith & Wollensky opened is:

Maloney & Porcelli
37 E. 50th St.

my boss highly recommends it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, excuse the pun but I hear you. I hated picking Ninos because of the noise but I was relegated to find a cheap place that would hold us all. That's what we were stuck with. Jordan's and Morton's (and BLT if Mike can get us in) are all reasonably quiet - especially if we eat at 630ish.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Mike, we both made the same lame pun at the exact time. Damn.

M & P is fine with me.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I learned the hard way about having a dinner with people you want to chat with. Two or three years ago I had our Net54 Dinner at a bar. It was so loud you had to yell into the persons ear sitting next to you in order for them to hear. Last year, and this year, I have requested no music of any kind and a private room....just our normal loud voices. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

All the places we've gone to have had good food (and Michael knows how to order, he's a pro) but they are kind of touristy, and those places are loud. I would gladly eat a simpler meal in exchange for much less noise. But I just know Brooklyn restaurants, and we'll never get you guys into Brooklyn.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, I eat lunch at the diner by the Brooklyn fed court all the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There are several diners in the neighborhood. Do you remember which one? Is it the Greek diner just past Cadman Plaza, or the one on Montague Street?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Yes, the Greek-owned diner across from Cadman Plaza. I must have eaten lunch there 100 times thus far.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The food there is good. Once in a while we go there for dinner, but not that often. Perhaps not a Net54 place.

But I do know a good pub on Atlantic Avenue between Clinton and Henry called The Waterfront that my wife and I go to most Fridays. It has a very large selection of imported draft beer, good ribs and burgers, great calamari, chile, etc., pretty cheap and a tad noisy but not terrible. We could easily get a table for 8 and it would be fun. It's just a few blocks from my apartment and I would invite anyone over who wants to come. Just a thought, I'm open-minded.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

jeff- that is funny, how we used the same pun at the same time...great minds think alike!

at this point, i'm up for anything (dinner-wise)...

tomorrow i'll call my friend who cooks at BLT Steak, and also call Maloney & Porcelli to see about availability...

barry- i would totally be open to Brooklyn, i lived there for 4 years, and know a few good places there myself (Heights Cafe on Montague)?

let's all touch base tomorrow night, or monday and see what's up.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

it seems correct to me......the speaker has about 1/2mm of the bottom blocked by the groove which gives the optical illusion that it is shorter than reality...that card is NOT OC...it needs to be 70/30 to be considered OC...

also a 5% leeway is given to the front centering minimum standards for cards which grade NM 7 or better (the usual 65/35 becomes 70/30 for the OC cutoff for high end cards)

and that is exactly why the next card got an OC, it is more then 70/30 off.....it is simple really...

was this a bash PSA thread? because the posted examples dont fit your post....

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Scott, no, this thread was not meant to bash PSA. I was actually wondering why the Speaker did not receive an MC qualifier.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

if you blow up the scan, you can measure the white borders, and the top and bottom borders fall between a ratio of 60/40 and 65/35...remember, because the overall grade without centering would be a 7, then this card gets 5% leeway, so it can be up to 70/30 centering, and still not get the OC....

the lajoie is about 80/20, its not close to 75/25, so its not really debatable that it received an OC...



edit..Jeff to receive a MC, the card must be obviously diamond cut, or another image must be on the original card....since the speaker displays neither of these characteristics, its not a MC (or OC for that matter)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Scott, fair enough. That was really the info I was looking for in the first place. But because the cut on the Speaker seems to hit the words printed below, isn't that enough for the MC?

[Archive]

Posted By: scott fandango

yes, if a name is cut off, it may earn a MC...but when you blow that scan up, you can see that the plastic ledge obscures the view, leading one to believe it may be miscut, when in fact the entire name is there...

but i can see your concern, due to funny scan...