Wish PSA had a qualifier for creases....

[nwobhm]

A simple (C) qualifier would make things much easier on ebay. Not against buying cards with creases but when they arrive unexpectedly it sucks.

[scmavl]

I just assume if the card is a PSA 4 or less, it will likely have some degree of creases. If I want to ensure it doesn't, I buy a 5+.

[Tere1071]

The PSA 4 qualification runs the gamut. I've seen PSA 4 cards with wrinkles, rounded corners, or with a minor crease, but my Mantle and Snider are both PSA 4. Neither one has any creasing or wrinkles, plus the corners are decent. My Mantle is centered 30/70 from top to bottom and the Snider has a wax stain on the back, maybe that accounts for the vg/ex grade. I also added my SGC 4.5 Musial, which has a dinged corner at the bottom left. I suppose I wished that I had the money at the time for cards that were excellent to excellent mint, but I don't think that I did too badly.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by scmavl

I just assume if the card is a PSA 4 or less, it will likely have some degree of creases. If I want to ensure it doesn't, I buy a 5+.

Glad I am not the only collector who subscribes to this exceedingly simple concept....

[nwobhm]

I have a handful of PSA 4's. None have creases. Registration and centering are easier to see in pictures than creases.

[Eric72]

I wish PSA, SGC, and Beckett had grader's notes.

[Kutcher55]

I have seen PSA 7s and even 8s that have tiny wrinkles. It's very difficult for a card to have true surface integrity, especially it seems when it comes to cards from the 1970s.

[Tom S.]

Originally Posted by scmavl

I just assume if the card is a PSA 4 or less, it will likely have some degree of creases. If I want to ensure it doesn't, I buy a 5+.

That doesn't necessarily always hold true...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Tom S.

That doesn't necessarily always hold true...

True. Common wisdom says that 5’s will not have creases or wrinkles on the front, but that’s not always the case. I once had a ‘55 Bowman Kaline that looked like an 8 from an arm’s length; razor sharp corners - but the front had some light, but rather large for what it was - wrinkling. It was graded a PSA 5. I think that’s pretty misleading.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

What I think would actually help is not more qualifiers, but detailed grading notes - which would point out in detail why this card with a crease got a 4, while that one without one but maybe with worse corners also got a 4. While taken on it’s own yes, a crease “qualifier” would be seemingly helpful, at some point this logic goes away from the original point of the historical grades in trying to make an easy way for people to cheat, and never have to learn how to actually grade for themselves.

Think about the confusion that would be added for a “PSA 7 (C)”. So, a NM card, whoops except that it’s creased? - maybe even badly - somewhere. This is bad potentially because of the range of the type of problem. How many cards raw or even graded has someone tried to describe to you as “Well, this would be mint except for…” and then of course at some point this logic becomes absurd. Yes, this Mantle would be a 9 if it were not for the missing corner and the hole through his head. Dude, who cares? So what would a PSA 7 (C) equate to in a non-qualifier world? A 3? A 2? At some point the equality-compensation math you would have to learn with additional qualifiers would just become insane. There are entirely too many people in the hobby today as it is who do not understand how to properly weigh / discount the effects of qualifiers.

Learn how to freaking grade yourself instead would be my vote…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Think about the confusion that would be added for a “PSA 7 (C)”. So, a NM card, whoops except that it’s creased? - maybe even badly - somewhere. This is bad potentially because of the range of the type of problem. How many cards raw or even graded has someone tried to describe to you as “Well, this would be mint except for…” and then of course at some point this logic becomes absurd. Yes, this Mantle would be a 9 if it were not for the missing corner and the hole through his head. Dude, who cares? So what would a PSA 7 (C) equate to in a non-qualifier world? A 3? A 2? At some point the equality-compensation math you would have to learn with additional qualifiers would just become insane. There are entirely too many people in the hobby today as it is who do not understand how to properly weigh / discount the effects of qualifiers.

Learn how to freaking grade yourself instead would be my vote…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nailed it...

[bxb]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

A simple (C) qualifier would make things much easier on ebay. Not against buying cards with creases but when they arrive unexpectedly it sucks.

I wish PSA got rid of all qualifiers and just adjusted the grade accordingly.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by bxb

I wish PSA got rid of all qualifiers and just adjusted the grade accordingly.

How about stopping the no qualifier option for submissions?

[steve B]

PSA is just following the time honored grading used by so many dealers, especially the flea market guys who are the granite the hobby is founded on...

It's VG, except for these big creases.

Ex-Mt besides the stains.

Excellent 71 Topps! with nicely magic markered edges.

Next people will be demanding a TR qualifier, (Trimmed) with a number grade indicating how well the trimmer did it, and how even they made he centering.

Completely mint, even if it isa quarter inch short.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by steve B

....Next people will be demanding a TR qualifier, (Trimmed) with a number grade indicating how well the trimmer did it, and how even they made he centering....

Like this one...?

https://picclick.com/1964-Topps-Gian...l#&gid=1&pid=1

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by steve B

PSA is just following the time honored grading used by so many dealers, especially the flea market guys who are the granite the hobby is founded on...

It's VG, except for these big creases.

Ex-Mt besides the stains.

Excellent 71 Topps! with nicely magic markered edges.

Next people will be demanding a TR qualifier, (Trimmed) with a number grade indicating how well the trimmer did it, and how even they made he centering.

Completely mint, even if it isa quarter inch short.

Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

It didn't meet expectations. Booth seemed distracted the whole time, which put the other performers off their game.

Plus the theatre had both poor security and poor customer service!