Are PSA qualifiers really that terrible?

[Zan]

I see a significant price difference between (ex.) a PSA 8 and a PSA 8 (OC)

I'm just wondering how the community feels about them, and to tell me more about them since I am not an expert on PSA. SGC is my grading company of choice..

Brian

[BlueDevil89]

Qualifiers typically knock the value of the card down by two grades. PSA 8 (OC) = PSA 6

[vintagecpa]

It is a scarlet letter in the world of registry sets. Most small-budget collectors such as myself tend to target them for bigger-named players simply for the affordability.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I don't mind the ST (stain) or PD (print defect) qualifiers if I can purchase the card at a decent price. In my experience, the ST qualifier is usually a wax stain on the front of the card that can usually be removed pretty easily and the PD qualifier is usually a minor printing defect that usually doesn't distract from the card. There are exceptions to this of course, but I have found this to be true most of the time. I do not like O/C qualifiers.

[alanu]

I believe that in the registry the qualifiers knock the grade down 2 grades too.

I actually liked it when BVG/BGS used to put the 4 separate grades on their cards, it gave you a little better idea why the card received the grade it did, especially for the lower grade cards.

[53Browns]

Yes.

[CMIZ5290]

Brian- this is a very interesting thread. I myself own many, many vintage cards with qualifiers, especially t206s. First of all, you get so much more card for the money. Secondly, i own many psa 8and 9 oc t206s that don't even appear to be badly centered. The other feedback in this thread is pretty much on the money, most oc or mc qualified cards will bring prices around 2 grades lower than if they did not have a qualifier. Most collectors with high dollar collections tend to shy away from them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It depends on the card. Sometimes, on a card that is typically off center anyhow even with no qualifiers, you can pick up one with an o/c qualifier for a fraction of the price of the equivalent grade.

For example, on the one below, is it worth paying 4x for a hair better centering?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It depends on the card. Sometimes, on a card that is typically off center anyhow even with no qualifiers, you can pick up one with an o/c qualifier for a fraction of the price of the equivalent grade.

For example, on the one below, is it worth paying 4x for a hair better centering?

Personally, I would pick a 6 with perfect centering much more than this card shown. Qualifiers mean nothing to me. I tend to look at the card itself to see how it looks to me. Then again, I don't play the registry game.

[vargha]

Terrible in what sense? If you are talking about purchasing with the idea of making a nice profit on resale down the road, then it is definitely not good. Centering is the most common qualifier and is the kiss of death on value, especially in post-war cards. Pre-war is another issue altogether, where on certain issues of candy and ice cream cards, centering is all over the place and is not typically as big of a concern. But when the market offers large quantities of better looking cards, whether it is is T206 or 1955 Topps, the price will suffer on those cards that have qualifiers. The bottom line is to collect what you like and can afford. I never realized how off-center so many of the cards I bought as a kid in gum packs actually were until the advent of grading as an adult.

[Touch'EmAll]

A dealer friend who was on this PSA thing back at its infancy said the qualifiers were, "The kiss of death."

There are rare exceptions to the rule.

[wonkaticket]

They don't really bother me all that much. And sometimes the qualifers make no sense...case in point is the Mullin really any more OC than the Pelty card below...




And if you collect oddballs then cards like the Maloney with two backs get the MC.



You can still find nice centered or great looking cards due to some graders day of judgement or previous night of drinking in some cases.




Cheers,

John

[Jay Wolt]

John the T206 Mullin & Pelty are similar except for the condition.
A Mint PSA-9 has a smaller tolerance for cards being off center then lower graded ones.


Vargha, good to see you on here, its been awhile

[teetwoohsix]

I'd like them to do away with the "qualifier" , especially because, like Wonka said, they make no sense sometimes. No consistency at all. How is that Mullin OC? Look at these two cards, no OC qualifiers but wouldn't they "qualify"? Just grade accordingly...........

[bosoxphan]

The oc qualifier isnt the same across all grades. For example the centering has to be 65/35 or better in a PSA 9 card but only has to be 80/20 or better for a PSA 6 card. Hence why you'll see a PSA 9 and a PSA 6 or 7 with similar centering but the 9 has an oc qualifier and the 6 or 7 doesnt.

[leaflover]

If it wasn't for the "Kiss of Death" I would not be able to have these 3 cards as part of my collection.

[CMIZ5290]

John- do you own those t206s? If so, are any of them available?

[vintagecpa]

From my experience, the 1954 Topps set has horrible grading consistency when it comes to OC. I agree that I'd simply prefer the grading companies to reduce the numerical grade if there is a qualifier.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by bosoxphan

The oc qualifier isnt the same across all grades. For example the centering has to be 65/35 or better in a PSA 9 card but only has to be 80/20 or better for a PSA 6 card. Hence why you'll see a PSA 9 and a PSA 6 or 7 with similar centering but the 9 has an oc qualifier and the 6 or 7 doesnt.

Exactly. Basically that 9oc without the qualifier would be a 7 or worse(keep in mind the "or worse") because of the centering. Basically the centering would drag it down that far despite every other factor displaying MINT. Had that card not received the qualifier, I would suspect that if the centering fell into the 7 window, it would probably come back as a 7.5 because all other aspects were so high. Apply the half grade for whatever grade the centering would fall into.

For those with registries, I'd suggest checking your OC cards to see how low they would fall unqualified. You may get a half point back, rather than take the automatic 2 point hit.

This is all just in theory though. I don't know how PSA would actually handle this.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by vintagecpa

From my experience, the 1954 Topps set has horrible grading consistency when it comes to OC. I agree that I'd simply prefer the grading companies to reduce the numerical grade if there is a qualifier.

Because of the way the 1954s were printed, with the color running off the top, it's difficult to tell which are OC and which aren't. Hell, they all look OC to me.

[CMIZ5290]

I really love high grade t206s with qualifiers, wish i could find more!

[DanP]

Originally Posted by leaflover

If it wasn't for the "Kiss of Death" I would not be able to have these 3 cards as part of my collection.

Mike, that Aaron is a beautiful card. If you paid PSA 6 pricing on that card you got a steal. OC is misleading sometimes, in the case of your Aaron card that fact that it is a little OC wouldn't bother me. For some other cards it does really bothers me.

As far as "MC", if it's mis-cut how can the card be the same size as the others? Shouldn't it be "MP" for mis-print? Were they really cut wrong?

Most qualifiers don't bother me, I'll admit for the most cards starting around 1933 I'll try and get a better centered card. Before that I'll take what I can get!

Dan

[Section103]

This is just my opinion, but I hate qualifiers as a concept. To me, a qualifier says "this card would be a X, if not for the specified defect". Thats fine and all, but within a fraction of a second, my brain starts thinking "Thats great, but a grading company should issue a grade!" Granted, the 2 grades down is a decent rule of thumb, but I hate it. Give it an overall grade and live with it. I realize in some ways it provides "more information" to buyers and owners, but I never get the thought of "You still havent assigned a grade to this card" out of my mind." I'd still consider buying a qualified card, but I promise I'd crack it out and resubmit every single time.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by Section103

This is just my opinion, but I hate qualifiers as a concept. To me, a qualifier says "this card would be a X, if not for the specified defect". Thats fine and all, but within a fraction of a second, my brain starts thinking "Thats great, but a grading company should issue a grade!" Granted, the 2 grades down is a decent rule of thumb, but I hate it. Give it an overall grade and live with it. I realize in some ways it provides "more information" to buyers and owners, but I never get the thought of "You still havent assigned a grade to this card" out of my mind." I'd still consider buying a qualified card, but I promise I'd crack it out and resubmit every single time.

I still believe that if PSA were starting their business today they would not use qualifiers. They'd do just what SGC does and consider the "qualifiers" in the final grade. Or maybe not, maybe they would add more qualifiers like: "SC" Soft corners, "DE" Dents, "SS" Surface Scuffs", etc.
Dan

[Section103]

Originally Posted by DanP

I still believe that if PSA were starting their business today they would not use qualifiers. They'd do just what SGC does and consider the "qualifiers" in the final grade. Or maybe not, maybe they would add more qualifiers like: "SC" Soft corners, "DE" Dents, "SS" Surface Scuffs", etc.
Dan

My T206 Cy Young Portrait was a 10! With qualifiers for rounded corners, creases, stains and print defects.

[sreader3]

I agree with Rich V. I do not like the qualifier system. A "qualifier" is nothing but a defect in a card. Thus, the card should be downgraded according to the severity of the defect. If you are going to have a qualifier system, why not have a crease (CR) qualifier or a corners (CO) qualifier? Are these defects fundamentally different than, for example, a centering defect (OC, MC)?

I will go a step further. I don't think cards that are trimmed should be rejected for "evidence of trimming." Instead, a card should be downgraded according to the severity of the trim. Perhaps two grades for a minor trim and four grades for a severe trim. I personally would prefer a sharp looking EX-MT card with a minor trim that cannot be detected with the naked eye than VG card with rounded corners and creasing. Yet due to TPG's refusal to assign a numeric grade to the former, the latter is considered more valuable.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by sreader3

I will go a step further. I don't think cards that are trimmed should be rejected for "evidence of trimming." Instead, a card should be downgraded according to the severity of the trim. Perhaps two grades for a minor trim and four grades for a severe trim. I personally would prefer a sharp looking EX-MT card with a minor trim that cannot be detected with the naked eye than VG card with rounded corners and creasing. Yet due to TPG's refusal to assign a numeric grade to the former, the latter is considered more valuable.

One of the major reasons for TPG's was that they would detect (where possible) alterations made to a card. That, "objective" grade evaluations and detection of counterfeits were the reasons to have a "trusted" third party that set a standard. Even SGC, which doesn't use qualifiers, designates altered cards with an "A" for authentic. One can then evaluate just how "nice" that altered card is based upon a visual inspection. But they will have the knowledge of its alteration.

[Gradedcardman]

With respect to qualifiers, for myself and my t206's I don't worry about it. I love the set and the hunt so it will always be a work in progress to complete. As stated before it is also a cost factor. With respect to newer sets where the cards are more plentiful and the manufacturing was better, then yes I care. I have a PSA registry set consisting of cards from 1971 and up. For them I want them all without qualifiers.

Hope that made sense, trying to watch hockey and type !!

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by sreader3

I agree with Rich V. I do not like the qualifier system. A "qualifier" is nothing but a defect in a card. Thus, the card should be downgraded according to the severity of the defect. If you are going to have a qualifier system, why not have a crease (CR) qualifier or a corners (CO) qualifier? Are these defects fundamentally different than, for example, a centering defect (OC, MC)?

I can't say that I agree. Sure, I'm not a fan of the qualifier system, but I understand it in principle. OC, PD, MC and OF I guess I'm ok with because they're giving the grade that the card is in through no fault of the owner or any previous owners as it would've came from the pack. The MK is absolutely ridiculous. It's a defaced card, there should not be a qualifier for that.

[Gradedcardman]

Just a followup. When I submit cards for grading I ask for no qualifiers. The "mark" they will not ignore but the balance of qualifiers they will adjust for. I have always found the non qualified cards easier to sell or trade.