Why I like qualifiers

[pokerplyr80]

The OP did mention MC and not OC which is for the more drastic miscuts. Still a nice upgrade from a 2.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

The OP did mention MC and not OC which is for the more drastic miscuts. Still a nice upgrade from a 2.

ahhhh...but still!

[bn2cardz]

As pointed out this is a MC not OC. MC is used when ever the card is cut so that it shows a bit of the next card or in the very least text or photo is cut into.

Those that don't like MC or OC cards won't buy the card no matter what it is graded. They can see that flaw very easily. My point is that to me I prefer MC cards to regular.

When I have my Miscuts graded I want it to be graded fairly on the rest of the aspects. In this case there could possibly be other miscut e98 Macks, but this would be the best graded miscut. If you don't like miscuts it won't matter to you.

I understand if someone doesn't like qualifiers in their collection, but they can just simply not buy them. I can't easily distinguish a grade of a card that is miscut but graded by SGC merely off the assigned grade. I have to look very hard for other flaws.

When a grading company lumps factory "flaws" in with the post manufacturing flaws it can unfairly represent the card to an entire aspect of the hobby. That aspect is those of us that actually like factory flaws/errors. For a more thorough thought about this check out Frank's "Thoughts About A Grading Proposal" thread.

[bn2cardz]

I will say that this may seem like I am against SGC because they don't do any qualifiers, but I actually prefer them when it comes to my t205's and t207's. PSA still doesn't checklist the backs of these like they do for t206's (where they go all the way down to factory numbers). I really run into a conundrum when I have a Miscut (or other qualifier) that is a t205/t207 on who to use.

Good thing I don't grade very often (this is my first submission in over a year).

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I will say that this may seem like I am against SGC because they don't do any qualifiers, but I actually prefer them when it comes to my t205's and t207's. PSA still doesn't checklist the backs of these like they do for t206's (where they go all the way down to factory numbers). I really run into a conundrum when I have a Miscut (or other qualifier) that is a t205/t207 on who to use.

Good thing I don't grade very often (this is my first submission in over a year).

Very weird Andy. I like PSA for T206 now, but still like seeing T205 and 207s in SGC holders. I don't know why though.

[Tripredacus]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

As pointed out this is a MC not OC. MC is used when ever the card is cut so that it shows a bit of the next card or in the very least text or photo is cut into.

This definition can then only apply to cards that have like borders. For cards with a full white boarder, it can be cut the same as a card with full bleed or a pattern/color border, yet have a different designation.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

This definition can then only apply to cards that have like borders. For cards with a full white boarder, it can be cut the same as a card with full bleed or a pattern/color border, yet have a different designation.

If the card has a full bleed the rules are slightly different because it doesn't become MC until it is obvious that it has gone into the next card, or that the text is cut into.

[scooter729]

I agree with liking the OC cards, when the appearance is still respectable. In a case like this one (wish I had a better scan handy), it allows me to get a card with NM-MT corners for much lower than a PSA 8 would've cost, and still presents well with solid R/L centering. So,

[Luke]

The scan is o/c too! That's a beautiful card!