How is this a PSA 8???

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

It's only a couple of lucky resubmissions away from being a 10

Maybe you could get Dmitri Young to submit it in person for you

[bosoxfan]

NO WAY it should be an 8.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

Maybe you could get Dmitri Young to submit it in person for you

Exactly!

[4k6]

It's a 4.5

[the 'stache]

Blackie, I don't know if I would call that card ugly. I would agree with you that PSA was a little generous with their grade, but it's a 1958 Topps in nice shape. And, in my humble opinion, no 1958 Topps in nice shape should ever be called ugly. That's analogous to saying "look at that ugly Rembrandt painting", or "what an ugly Playboy Playmate."

I tend to be a very tough grader, but the majority of the cards I've inspected since returning to the hobby have been modern cards. I am still developing my "eye" for grading vintage cards. I can see a card's flaws, but I do not yet have the experience necessary to accurately grade a card based on those flaws.

Here's my thinking in critiquing this card. First of all, it's 54 years old. So not only has the card been in circulation for quite a long time, the technology used in producing cards back then was different than it is today.

The card has nice eye appeal. The colors are bright, the surface of the card is free of any real damage-no stains, tears, creases or scratches. The focus of the picture is pretty nice. The centering is pretty nice for the time period (the picture slightly high and to the left); approximately 40/60 left to right, and top to bottom. The bottom edge and corners are rough, but not terrible. There's no paper loss.

I'd probably give this a 6.5, 7 tops.

[bosoxfan]

It's a good looking 6, but an ugly 8

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The bottom edge and corners are rough, but not terrible.

While agree with the majority of your statement. The bottom edge and corners are the factory cut. And while it physically appears rough, it's not the typical rough from wear and tear. It doesn't fly on modern cards, but I've seen psa many times take that into consideration with cards from the 50's, sometimes even early 60's. We may not agree with it, but it is what it is.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by novakjr

While agree with the majority of your statement. The bottom edge and corners are the factory cut. And while it physically appears rough, it's not the typical rough from wear and tear. It doesn't fly on modern cards, but I've seen psa many times take that into consideration with cards from the 50's, sometimes even early 60's. We may not agree with it, but it is what it is.

Thank you, David. This is the kind of stuff I am trying to learn. I can look at a card, and carefully grade it, but there are different standards depending on the era the card came from, and I don't know all the subtle nuances that the grading companies have "allowed for".

[bosoxfan]

Originally Posted by novakjr

While agree with the majority of your statement. The bottom edge and corners are the factory cut. And while it physically appears rough, it's not the typical rough from wear and tear. It doesn't fly on modern cards, but I've seen psa many times take that into consideration with cards from the 50's, sometimes even early 60's. We may not agree with it, but it is what it is.

The corners on the card in question are from wear and did not come from the factory that way

[JollyElm]

Yup, those corners are well worn. It didn't come out of the pack that way in '58.

[mintacular]

5.5, 6 tops