PSA 7 Ruth Rookie in HA

[oldjudge]

This card sold last night. Does the centering on the front meet PSA's standard for a 7 (approximately 70/30 or better)?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Visually, if you double the right border and add a little bit, it looks like it's about equal to the left, but someone technically inclined should be able to check.

[samosa4u]

Old serial number and would probably grade a PSA 5 today. Still a nice card though!!

[rand1com]

They have not changed their standards on centering but are obviously stricter on overall grading. I think the centering meets the 70/30 standard they have always used for centering criteria but agree it would likely not make a grade of 7 today. Maybe a 5 or more likely a 6 IMO.

[BRoberts]

Well, we know who *didn't* buy this card.

[mrreality68]

Still a beautiful card and went for a lot less then an another 7 that sold about 2 years ago.
That one went for 2.4 million but the centering on that one was a lot nicer as well as the overall eye appeal.
Whoever won this card should be happy with the price but not the consignor

[Snapolit1]

Hate the centering. Just not an attractive card. You know what I would look at every time I look at the card? Yes, the centering. And it would never stop annoying me.

Like a beautiful woman with a bad mole on her face.

[Peter_Spaeth]

A RUTH ROOKIE and people are bitching about the centering? Come on.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A RUTH ROOKIE and people are bitching about the centering? Come on.

Makes us feel better about not having one when we can focus on the flaws for the ones that just sold at a price that we can’t afford to pay.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by raulus

Makes us feel better about not having one when we can focus on the flaws for the ones that just sold at a price that we can’t afford to pay.

1+

[ClementeFanOh]

Yes, the centering does meet the standard according to this image. I wish
TPGs (and more collectors!!) would adhere to these standards themselves.
There's a difference between being particular about centering, and believing
that anything that isn't dead centered is somehow inferior. Someone above
mentioned the card in question being a 5 or 6 today- that's the problem. It's
today's standards that are off, not older standards. Great card! Trent King

[samosa4u]

Old serial numbers are a joke! Look at this PSA 9 Gretzky rookie that also sold last night and you'll see surface damage (where it says OILERS.) Somebody paid 140K USD for this !! OMG !!!

[samosa4u]

Larger scan:

https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path[3/1/7/1/8/31718873]&call=url[fileroduct.chain]

Unbelievable

[sportscardpete]

Values of Ruth rookies are down too. So while it’s not a great 7, prices have come down from the last comp. I’d still trade my entire collection for it!

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Larger scan:

https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path[3/1/7/1/8/31718873]&call=url[fileroduct.chain]

Unbelievable

That’s pretty bad - Card typically not known to be in focus but that one is horrendous

[swarmee]

By my measurement, there are 30 pixels on the right side (center) and 85 pixels on the left side (center). That would equate to 74/26 centering, nearly 3 times heavier on the left than right. That is worse than the current limit of 70/30, but before last month PSA 7 did allow graders to allow for up to 75/25 for this grade, I believe.

I believe it would get a PSA 6 today, as it's off-centered in both directions. And that's usually what they grade cards that are noticeably off in both directions.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A RUTH ROOKIE and people are bitching about the centering? Come on.

Exactly.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Exactly.

I’m never going to own one. But this is one I definitely am never going to own.

[Snapolit1]

So if one sees a really lousy Monet or Picasso, you can’t comment on it?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

So if one sees a really lousy Monet or Picasso, you can’t comment on it?

You can criticize those hacks. But not Da Vinci.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

You can criticize those hacks. But not Da Vinci.

Did someone say Monet and Picasso?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Exactly.

I do not believe they are bitching about the centering

I think they are comparing the centering as it effected the price especially when you comparing it to the other 7 that sold a bit over a year ago and it went for $1 million dollars more.

Regardless it is a great looking Ruth and someone is a proud owner of it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

I do not believe they are bitching about the centering

I think they are comparing the centering as it effected the price especially when you comparing it to the other 7 that sold a bit over a year ago and it went for $1 million dollars more.

Regardless it is a great looking Ruth and someone is a proud owner of it.

"Hate the centering. Just not an attractive card."

That's bitching about the centering, nothing at all to do with the grade or price. Steve is entitled to his opinion, but let's not sugar coat it.

[Carter08]

I’m guessing it met an x-acto knife or two along the way.

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Did someone say Monet and Picasso?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wow that's astonishing. Not the easiest card to find.

[oldjudge]

John--Thanks for answering the question. If your measurements are correct the card does not meet the STATED PSA centering requirements for a 7. That was all I was asking.

[perezfan]

The Ruth would likely grade "5" if submitted today (by a common collector).

It might squeeze out a "6" if submitted by a well-known auction house or a close ally of PSA.