Ok what do you think? This can't be a PSA 2!

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

I'm sure most here are more versed in the nuance of PSA's grades than I, so I want to know your thoughts on whether I should pay the $150 to have this card reviewed. For the life of me, (especially after comparing to my other cards) can't figure out how this is only a "2". The corners are fairly sharp. There's no staining. Centering looks 85/15 or better. All good except for the one crease.
Here's what the website says for a PSA 4: card's corners may be slightly rounded. Surface wear is noticeable but modest. The card may have light scuffing or light scratches. Some original gloss will be retained. Borders may be slightly off-white. A light crease may be visible. Centering must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.
I'm thinking it's gotta a shot for a 4! What do you think?

[Luke]

This does look like a lot of PSA 4s. But it looks like a lot of SCG 35s too. Nice card either way.

[kmac32]

Looks like a crease on the front right side of the card. Probably the reason for the good 2 rating

[the 'stache]

I agree that the big crease in the upper right corner, another tiny crease above the 'A' in Cracker, and to a lesser extent the centering, have lowered the grade on the card. You might bump the card a half grade, but I don't see it getting a 4. Save your money, imho. It's a beautiful card.

[dtp717]

That is a beautiful card at any rate. Very nice.

[iwantitiwinit]

That's a significant crease on the right side of the card and it's one of a few. Merits a 2 in my opinion, I wouldn't resubmit.

[Jacker_ Cracks]

Beautiful card A.J. and without the usual product staining of the 14's.

[uniship]

that right there is one helluva fantastic card - nice pick up!

[Leon]

Technically graded correctly. My perfect kind of card to buy- Low technical grade and really great aesthetic appeal. Who cares about the number except for the registry collectors?

[sniffy5]

AJ, when it comes to the 1914's, all bets are off with PSA. I have the complete set, and I have 2's that look like 4's and I have 4's that could be 1's. It all depends on who submits them, among other things. I would seriously hold off on resubmitting it. As Leon points out, you have a great looking card there. Mission accomplished. As for the grade, you have your entire life to think thru whether or not to regrade. No rush at all. Besides, there is no rhyme or reason with TPG. Look at the Caldwell you got from me and the one you sold. Those grades made little sense. Expect the same nonsense again from Psa.

[btkpath]

AJ,

I wouldn't want you to suffer through life with such a low grade card in your collection. Let me do you a service and take it off your hands !

Beautiful card and great acquisition!

[MattyC]

PSA seems to be grading much stricter than their stated grade definitions this year (and it appears going forward). The prevailing vibe I get, and this is just based on my own experience and that of a handful of buddies who submit and review quite often, is that they are getting stricter and stricter. Going by those definitions on their site, I've encountered many cards with harsh grades this year. Just an observation that might help manage expectations and thus potentially avoid disappointment. I do think the stricter grading is resulting in many great cards in lower-grade holders for collectors to obtain, and such value for the technical grade is a good thing. That card is outstanding for the grade and hits the eye like a much higher technical grade card. Must have been a fantastic feeling to get that baby for anything near the going rate for 2s. Congrats on an awesome piece.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Leon

My perfect kind of card to buy- Low technical grade and really great aesthetic appeal. Who cares about the number except for the registry collectors?

Just read this post; could not say it better. Right on.

[RGold]

Originally Posted by MattyC

PSA seems to be grading much stricter than their stated grade definitions this year (and it appears going forward). The prevailing vibe I get, and this is just based on my own experience and that of a handful of buddies who submit and review quite often, is that they are getting stricter and stricter. Going by those definitions on their site, I've encountered many cards with harsh grades this year. Just an observation that might help manage expectations and thus potentially avoid disappointment. That card is outstanding for the grade and hits the eye like a much higher technical grade card. Must have been a fantastic feeling to get that baby for anything near the going rate for 2s. Congrats on an awesome piece.

If you submit for review, for example, a PSA 4.5 and it doesn't bump, how does that translate into PSA must be getting stricter? Seems to me that they are grading the same. Especially considering, that they may have already bumped the card a half grade already.

[MattyC]

I do get the insinuation/assumption, but I am basing my observation on the strictness of their grading on a couple of friends. Two of whom routinely sub hundreds of raw cards a month, and the other two have reviewed about fifty very high-end pieces this year. I have held a couple of those reviews in hand, and even an ex grader with a conservative eye whom we all speak to said past grading regimes would likely have bumped the strongest of those review candidates, hence the vibe that things are tighter as of late. When it comes to my own cards, I am not much of a reviewer, actually, since I don't do much Registry stuff for GPA and don't sell much unless going after a big piece; I am a big fan of the card over holder philosophy (as evinced by all my lower-grade stuff

[irishdenny]

Mr. Johnson,

I know that we as a "Collective Community", can sometimes be a bit facetious. With that said, and I do mean this with All Sincerity...

There's Only 2 Things wrong with Your Mr. Wagner:

1. He's Not Mine.

2. He's Not Dressed for Success! He needs a bit of Black to go along with All that Red... I do Believe that SGC can Help You out... And put him into some Slick Attire!

[RGold]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I do get the insinuation, but I am basing my observation on the strictness of their grading on a couple of friends. Two of whom routinely sub hundreds of raw cards a month, and the other two have reviewed about fifty very high-end pieces this year. I have held a couple of those reviews in hand, and even an ex grader with a conservative eye whom we all speak to said past grading regimes would likely have bumped the strongest of those review candidates.

Not insinuating anything other than your logic seems faulty. Most everyone that submits cards for review believes the cards deserve a bump. If they do not bump that indicates to me PSA is grading the same.

I know three friends who submit to PSA hundreds of cards a month. They seem to think the grading standards are about the same. So I guess our anecdotal evidence is a tie.

To come to your conclusion, PSA would have to start downgrading many cards which we know they won't do.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Great looking card but that is a wicked crease.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The failure of a card to bump means only that they aren't grading easier. It could be consistent with grading the same or grading tougher.

[glynparson]

They are grading very strict on 8-10. Below that I feel they are fairly accurate on the 1-5 grades. It's the 6-7 that have a lot if gorgeous cards that one time would have been lock 8s.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

They are grading very strict on 8-10. Below that I feel they are fairly accurate on the 1-5 grades. It's the 6-7 that have a lot if gorgeous cards that one time would have been lock 8s.

Or at least a 7?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

or at least a 7?

56 Mantle PSA4.jpg
1956 Mantle PSA4 back.jpg

[MattyC]

That Mantle is outstanding! I don't know (and definitely wouldn't care!) if there is any issue in-hand that needs a loupe to see, which holds it back from a 7+. A stupendous buy for anything near average 6.5 money. Haven't looked at the 6s on VCP but I have to imagine that blows most if not all of them out of the water.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MattyC

That Mantle is outstanding! I don't know (and definitely wouldn't care!) if there is any issue in-hand that needs a loupe to see, which holds it back from a 7+. A stupendous buy for anything near average 6.5 money. Haven't looked at the 6s on VCP but I have to imagine that blows most if not all of them out of the water.

I never even bothered honestly, didn't much care either.

[sebie43]

.

[the 'stache]

Peter, that Mantle is gorgeous! What a great pick up!

[auggiedoggy]

Originally Posted by kmac32

Looks like a crease on the front right side of the card. Probably the reason for the good 2 rating

Bingo!

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by glynparson

They are grading very strict on 8-10.

I'm not sure I am buying in to that. I will give an example of a 1952 Topps card I have that is a 9 o/c, falls within the 9 guidelines on the front, and misses on the back. According to the PSA population report, there are only 2 of this card graded a 9 and both have qualifiers. Imagine my surprise when I randomly checked the population report, and now a straight 9 is graded. So, out of the blue a 1952 Topps card appears and grades a 9? My guess is an 8 was resubmitted and got a nice jump in grading. It pays to keep high volume submitters happy.

[glynparson]

A mint 9 on a 1952 Topps does not mean they are getting easier. Ever hear of the Rosen 1952 Topps find or the fact that unopened 1952 packs were not the toughest thing in the world in the late 80's thru mid 90's (not saying they were easy, but they existed)(Usually low or mid series). There are mint 1952 Topps out there that were never graded. Also one example really does not sway an argument that they are not being tougher. I have submitted about a thousand cards this year, how many have you? I also speak to many of the major dealers, I am friends with for over 25 years, and they echo my sentiments. You can believe what you want based on them grading one card a mint 9 but you would be wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

4 sharp has 62,000 psa 10s. Wonder what he thinks.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

4 sharp has 62,000 psa 10s. Wonder what he thinks.

He must be a frequent flyer in the ER with paper cuts.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

strangly enough the crease is very hard to see with the naked eye and the scan happened to magnify it. Crease not withstanding the other positives of the card I think would outweigh the crease downgrade and get at least a 3 and possible 4. I live in Los Angeles and it's an hour drive to PSA HQ in Irvine. They have a same day review for $150. I'm going to do it next month and let you all know what happens!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Unless you are selling it why drive two hours and spend $150 for the possibility of getting a 3 instead of a 2?

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

@peter_spaeth mostly because I think it deserves a higher grade. no plans to sell...but then again you never know! If I get a 3, would trade someone for a 2 + something else...etc.

[iwantitiwinit]

What if u get a 1.5?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

@peter_spaeth mostly because I think it deserves a higher grade. no plans to sell...but then again you never know! If I get a 3, would trade someone for a 2 + something else...etc.

If it doesn't come back higher you can just submit it again!! And if you really get good at it maybe you can just set up an EFT from your bank account to theirs. It's more efficient that way.

and btw, I have never heard of an @peter_spaeth.... On this board he merely goes by Peter Spaeth. I go by Leon Luckey, the technical person and moderator for Net54baseball is Brian McQueen..my auction partner goes by Scott Brockelman,......you get the idea..

[glynparson]

i would hope he would say it is tighter than in the past. i would unfortunately not bet on it. my posts when referring to any grading service are about the average submitters submissions, unless otherwise noted.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

i would hope he would say it is tighter than in the past. i would unfortunately not bet on it. my posts when referring to any grading service are about the average submitters submissions, unless otherwise noted.

Yeah, in the good old days it might have been 75,000 10s. Times are hard.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Leon

and btw, I have never heard of an @peter_spaeth.... On this board he merely goes by Peter Spaeth. I go by Leon Luckey, the technical person and moderator for Net54baseball is Brian McQueen..my auction partner goes by Scott Brockelman,......you get the idea..

The @ is used to indicate a comment is directed at a specific person.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by glynparson

A mint 9 on a 1952 Topps does not mean they are getting easier. Ever hear of the Rosen 1952 Topps find or the fact that unopened 1952 packs were not the toughest thing in the world in the late 80's thru mid 90's (not saying they were easy, but they existed)(Usually low or mid series). There are mint 1952 Topps out there that were never graded. Also one example really does not sway an argument that they are not being tougher. I have submitted about a thousand cards this year, how many have you? I also speak to many of the major dealers, I am friends with for over 25 years, and they echo my sentiments. You can believe what you want based on them grading one card a mint 9 but you would be wrong.

Thanks for your insight Glyn. I have been involved in collecting for 35 years or so, and yes I have heard of the Rosen find. Most of us have I imagine. I'm not sure why how many cards I have submitted for grading has anything to do with why I think that PSA, from time to time, will give a bump on a card to a volume submitter. For the record I have not submitted any cards for grading, again, not that that really matters. ? Your background and expertise I'm sure is vast, and with the circle of friends you travel in, you and they certainly have your fingers on the pulse of the hobby / business much more than I do. I have enjoyed your comments on the board in the past, and will in the future as well.