Undergraded Cards

[robw1959]

Here's a fun post. In a salute to the "new" grading standards that we have all experienced as buyers and sellers, please post the card that you think is the most severely undergraded, and give your opinion of how many points under the norm it received. I'm not asking you to create your own grading standards; just go with what has already been established for the reputable grading companies over the long term, compare your graded card to those standards, and subtract the difference between what your card received and what the standards say it should have received in points.

I'll start with a card that should be hard to beat in terms of undergrading. As you can see, this '34 Goudey Hank Greenberg rookie card only got a 1.5. However, with no creasing, wrinkles, erasures, or paper loss, according to the PSA standards, I think it should have gotten a 5.5. So in my opinion my "under" points on this card would be a whopping 4 points. Now let's see your most undergraded card, and please stick to vintage.

[vthobby]

Beautiful Greenberg!

I wish they had graded Satch as high as 2.5. I totally understand the tape but the card is pack freash and has amazing eye appeal. Colors pop off the card!

Oh Well! I love it either way!

IMG_9108 copy 4.jpg

IMG_9108 copy.jpg

[G1911]

Greenberg seems overly punished for the toning. Paige looks correct to me

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

Beautiful Greenberg!

I wish they had graded Satch as high as 2.5. I totally understand the tape but the card is pack freash and has amazing eye appeal. Colors pop off the card!

Oh Well! I love it either way!

Attachment 498607

Attachment 498608

Great Card Mike

[Zan]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Here's a fun post. In a salute to the "new" grading standards that we have all experienced as buyers and sellers, please post the card that you think is the most severely undergraded, and give your opinion of how many points under the norm it received. I'm not asking you to create your own grading standards; just go with what has already been established for the reputable grading companies over the long term, compare your graded card to those standards, and subtract the difference between what your card received and what the standards say it should have received in points.

I'll start with a card that should be hard to beat in terms of undergrading. As you can see, this '34 Goudey Hank Greenberg rookie card only got a 1.5. However, with no creasing, wrinkles, erasures, or paper loss, according to the PSA standards, I think it should have gotten a 5.5. So in my opinion my "under" points on this card would be a whopping 4 points. Now let's see your most undergraded card, and please stick to vintage.

Is there a wrinkle across his face and nose?

[joejo20]

This auto is a 10 if you ask me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jobu]

My E106 Chase is probably my best candidate, a 2 that looks like a 5 and doesn't have any issues to explain the 2 that I have been able to find.

[3-2-count]

Joe, Kamm’s signature is exquisite. Beautiful card!

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Zan

Is there a wrinkle across his face and nose?

There is something going on there.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Jobu

My E106 Chase is probably my best candidate, a 2 that looks like a 5 and doesn't have any issues to explain the 2 that I have been able to find.

It looks very nice. What is that mark on the back above the O in AMERICAN CARAMEL CO? Is it a scratch?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Joe, Kamm’s signature is exquisite. Beautiful card!

Yes and Uncle Jimmy's collection too!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Zan

Is there a wrinkle across his face and nose?

I don't think so. It looks too straight of a line to me, like maybe a small horizontal print line there?

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by G1911

Greenberg seems overly punished for the toning. Paige looks correct to me

It's a thought that the card was downgraded due to toning, but I never have even considered that idea. In hand, this card looks much brighter and much less toned than the scans show. So if the downgrade was due to toning, it's quite harsh, as you say, because there just isn't that much toning on it. The borders also appear much brighter in hand.

[Collectorsince62]

Still mystified by this one (of one).

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by joejo20

This auto is a 10 if you ask me.

The beauty of the signature doesn't play in an auto grade. The reason it got an 8, I would say, are the gaps in the tail of the W and the m.
And that's one reason many collectors don't care about the auto grade, or will ask PSA to just put AUTO AUTH if the auto doesn't receive a 10.

[Hirbonzig]

Beautiful cards that don’t deserve the lowball grade. Would be nice if the graders could put a note about why they arrived at such a grade.

[Belfast1933]

Great OG post idea! Please help me… why did Teddy get no love here? I just can’t find the flaws enough to grade this a 4. But I don’t have the eye that many of you do…

Good grade? Or did the grader just have a bad day??

[Carter08]

I’ll take Ted if you’re ever interested! The t206 drum is really confusing. Hidden paper loss?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

Great OG post idea! Please help me… why did Teddy get no love here? I just can’t find the flaws enough to grade this a 4.

Normally a 4 would be a great looking card with a slight crease, even under magnification tilted under a light source. But your image is way too small to tell anything. You need to repost it at a hosting website and then link the URL, rather than upload the file to the board.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I’ll take Ted if you’re ever interested! The t206 drum is really confusing. Hidden paper loss?

Looks like a pinhole which I believe is automatically a 1.

013.jpg

013 - Copy.jpg

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Looks like a pinhole which I believe is automatically a 1.

Used to be. More recently, pinholes are getting PSA 2s when spotted, PSA 7s when missed.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Used to be. More recently, pinholes are getting PSA 2s when spotted, PSA 7s when missed.

LOL....
I specialize in low grade cards!!
This one should have been a 2!

[CobbSpikedMe]

Nice card Leon.

If these cards are low grade then what I collect should grade out with negative numbers because my stuff is a wreck compared o these gems.



.

[mrreality68]

Great cards and great threads.

I am not sure if any of mine is that far off. Mine look to be within my thought of grades

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Used to be. More recently, pinholes are getting PSA 2s when spotted, PSA 7s when missed.

Can you post a recently graded example with anything higher than a 1? That policy is/was so arbitrary as cards with significant corner wear or paper loss arguably are missing more cardboard than those with a pin or staple hole and many (like the pictured example and the previously posted Drum back have far superior eye appeal!)

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Used to be. More recently, pinholes are getting PSA 2s when spotted, PSA 7s when missed.

Yeah, graders have a bad day when they miss a defect, not when they find one.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[lowpopper]

Soon as PSA starts giving out PH qualifiers, this is an immediate crackout

Originally Posted by hcv123

Can you post a recently graded example with anything higher than a 1? That policy is/was so arbitrary as cards with significant corner wear or paper loss arguably are missing more cardboard than those with a pin or staple hole and many (like the pictured example and the previously posted Drum back have far superior eye appeal!)

[lowpopper]

Wow @ that auto. Inkwell for days

Originally Posted by joejo20

This auto is a 10 if you ask me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lowpopper]

Multiple horizontal creases

Originally Posted by G1911

Greenberg seems overly punished for the toning. Paige looks correct to me

[robw1959]

That's an incredible looking 2!

Originally Posted by Jobu

My E106 Chase is probably my best candidate, a 2 that looks like a 5 and doesn't have any issues to explain the 2 that I have been able to find.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

Multiple horizontal creases

I don't know about that. What are you seeing that I am not seeing?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by robw1959

I don't know about that. What are you seeing that I am not seeing?

I can't say for sure that they are wrinkles but that's what they look like and what I think Greg probably sees.

012.jpg

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Here's a fun post. In a salute to the "new" grading standards that we have all experienced as buyers and sellers, please post the card that you think is the most severely undergraded, and give your opinion of how many points under the norm it received. I'm not asking you to create your own grading standards; just go with what has already been established for the reputable grading companies over the long term, compare your graded card to those standards, and subtract the difference between what your card received and what the standards say it should have received in points.

I'll start with a card that should be hard to beat in terms of undergrading. As you can see, this '34 Goudey Hank Greenberg rookie card only got a 1.5. However, with no creasing, wrinkles, erasures, or paper loss, according to the PSA standards, I think it should have gotten a 5.5. So in my opinion my "under" points on this card would be a whopping 4 points. Now let's see your most undergraded card, and please stick to vintage.

When I see a nice looking 1.5, I immediately look for the crease / wrinkle. Almost always the reason, in my experience. I think that I see one horizontally across Greenberg's face, matching with others observations. I love 1.5's like this, great looking card for a nice discount!

[Jobu]

That, and the stuff between American and Leagues look to me to be standard card patina - not marks or scratches.

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

It looks very nice. What is that mark on the back above the O in AMERICAN CARAMEL CO? Is it a scratch?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Can you post a recently graded example with anything higher than a 1?

I know a few years ago I probably saw 5 different cards with pinholes get PSA 2s. I went back on Net54's search and couldn't locate images. I will check blowout next, and if not, keep an eye out for them in the future.

Here was the PSA 7 case I joked about. Too bad the images have aged out.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=pinholes

[GasHouseGang]

I feel this is at least one grade too low.

[Gorditadogg]

Reverse grading is also fun. I don't know if you can see the crease that goes through this card, from Yogi's hands through Hank's chest and then under Mick's chin. Even without the crease, that is a lot of corner wear for a 4.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I can't say for sure that they are wrinkles but that's what they look like and what I think Greg probably sees.

Attachment 498732

Probably light scratches there, except for the straight horizontal line across his face, which I think is a tiny print line.

[JollyElm]

As a variation hound, this PSA 4 card has bothered me forever. It looked like the best one I had (centering aside, obviously, which is a tiny bit better than it looks, because the plastic border is blocking a bit of the white), so it was the first one sent in for grading. The PSA 6 is included for comparison purposes...

1969PiratesRookies567noblackoutlinePSAfaded.jpg

I still can't for the life of me understand how it got tossed into the VG pit!! That usually indicates a crease or wrinkle, but there is none. The only anomaly I can detect is a very tiny straight line 'indent' in the gloss (visible by tilting it in the light) that was undoubtedly just a part of the printing. Corners are epically sharp, back is fine, so I guess it's time to stop using my blacklight to illuminate my Hendrix posters and put it to work seeing if there's something somewhere that my human eye is unable to detect.

[robw1959]

Look at the left-to-right centering. I think that's what probably limited the grade because otherwise, I think it looks as good as or even better than the 6.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Probably light scratches there, except for the straight horizontal line across his face, which I think is a tiny print line.

It's so hard to tell from a picture what is really going on, but it looks like there is another line going from Hank's right ear to the top of his lip. And there is a "W" on his right cheek.

[Leon]

This one might be a grade or so low.....

[Wanaselja]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I can't say for sure that they are wrinkles but that's what they look like and what I think Greg probably sees.

Attachment 498732

Yes, I see multiple wrinkles as well. There might be another at the top border that runs down and through the D is his hat.

[NYYFan63]

Originally Posted by Leon

This one might be a grade or so low.....

Wow - that card looks amazing & looks better than some 3’s I have seen…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LOUCARDFAN]

The very light tape stain on the back kept this at a PSA 2. I have seen PSA 5’s that don’t look near as nice.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Look at the left-to-right centering. I think that's what probably limited the grade because otherwise, I think it looks as good as or even better than the 6.

Yeah, absolutely. That's certainly true, but this was submitted with qualifiers allowed, so I was expecting/hoping for a 7+ OC. But a four?? That drops it from 'no creases/wrinkles' to 'with creases/wrinkles,' I believe, since there aren't any issues present that would drop it that far without creases/wrinkles being present.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

there aren't any issues present that would drop it that far without creases/wrinkles being present.

Maybe they thought that the printing discoloration on the bottom left (faded orange field) was some kind of surface wear rather than just a printing defect.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by LOUCARDFAN

The very light tape stain on the back kept this at a PSA 2. I have seen PSA 5’s that don’t look as nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely a nice 2.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by NYYFan63

Wow - that card looks amazing & looks better than some 3’s I have seen…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Razor sharp corners.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Maybe they thought that the printing discoloration on the bottom left (faded orange field) was some kind of surface wear rather than just a printing defect.

It's virtually identical to the PSA 6 in coloring, etc., and no surface wear. They were printed that way. It's gotta be something hidden in the blacklight.