Which one is the PSA 3.5 and which is the 7?

Sean · #1 10-20-2016, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T206Collector

If there are no creases, then what is it that looks very clearly to be a wrinkle in the top of the 3.5?

+1 I thought that the wrinkle was clear.

Bpm0014 · #2 10-20-2016, 01:31 PM

Cards should either be graded :

"authentic"

"authentic-trimmed"

"authentic-altered"

"fake"

MattyC · #3 10-20-2016, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

Cards should either be graded :

"authentic"

"authentic-trimmed"

"authentic-altered"

"fake"

+1

DeanH3 · #4 10-20-2016, 01:46 PM

To me all this reinforces the old adage of buy the card not the holder. The thousands that can be saved by purchasing the 3.5 vs the 7 in incredibe.

This also raises another thought I had. One's opinion is influenced by what side of the coin you're on. As a submitter, I'd be frustrated and upset at the 3.5 grade. As a buyer, I'd be delighted at the 3.5 grade. I can relate to both sentiments. I guess I'm guilty of wanting my cake and eating it too.

Edited to add. BEAUTIFUL card A.J. And I understand your bewilderment.

ajjohnsonsoxfan · #5 10-20-2016, 01:59 PM

yes plan to resubmit at a later date and will crack this time. Don't think a straight review in holder will get the job done. Card was originally in a SGC 60 holder and I think they were about right.

Sean1125 · #6 10-20-2016, 02:08 PM

Here's a much more high quality scan. Maybe that isn't a wrinkle or crease, but it sure looks like a scratch at a minimum to me. Hopefully this gives us a better understanding of why this card obtained this grade.

ajjohnsonsoxfan · #7 10-20-2016, 02:32 PM

I've looked with loop no scratches or creases. That Goldin scan was blown out and color saturated.

We'll see what happens on the re-do. It's a travesty outside of a least a 5 holder

ullmandds · #8 10-20-2016, 02:53 PM

how much $$$ does each "redo" cost?

JollyElm · #9 10-20-2016, 02:53 PM

New adage: Those who live by the TPG, die by the TPG.

Sean1125 · #10 10-20-2016, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

+1 I thought that the wrinkle was clear.

There is very obviously a surface problem on the 3.5. That's why it is a 3.5 and it isn't the staining. I still concur with you and my earlier post. Looks like a crease or wrinkle on the 3.5 and was simply missed by the OP.

ajjohnsonsoxfan · #11 10-20-2016, 01:37 PM

Hey Leon - I saw your original post before you edited and agree nor was I offended. Although, I happen to really enjoy the registry (I think it fosters a community of like minded collectors), I also try and buy the card not the holder even if that higher graded but "lessor" card would give me a bump on the list.

My post was to point out the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of grading in general especially with some issues like Cracker Jacks (and to have some fun at my expense). I think consistency is the most important aspect of the value proposition of a TPG as the collector relies on his/her experience and historical transactions of past grades to figure out value.

Sean and others thanks again for playing along. Impossible to be 100% accurate with less than stellar scans. There's no creases on the card though. The line you mention can't be seen by the naked eye and is only picked up by the scanner. It's a "snail trail" of missing color pigments on the paper similar to line across top red border between red background and white border. Anyway the reason given for the 3.5 by the grader was back staining. I obviously disagree with the grade and will march on and play the game in trying to right the wrong.

Sean1125 · #12 10-20-2016, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

Hey Leon - I saw your original post before you edited and agree nor was I offended. Although, I happen to really enjoy the registry (I think it fosters a community of like minded collectors), I also try and buy the card not the holder even if that higher graded but "lessor" card would give me a bump on the list.

My post was to point out the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of grading in general especially with some issues like Cracker Jacks (and to have some fun at my expense). I think consistency is the most important aspect of the value proposition of a TPG as the collector relies on his/her experience and historical transactions of past grades to figure out value.

Sean and others thanks again for playing along. Impossible to be 100% accurate with less than stellar scans. There's no creases on the card though. The line you mention can't be seen by the naked eye and is only picked up by the scanner. It's a "snail trail" of missing color pigments on the paper similar to line across top red border between red background and white border. Anyway the reason given for the 3.5 by the grader was back staining. I obviously disagree with the grade and will march on and play the game in trying to right the wrong.

So you reviewed the card and for the review reason of rejection that put a sticky note on the back and said "staining"?

ajjohnsonsoxfan · #13 10-20-2016, 01:44 PM

no it's a long story and without getting into the weeds, I was told by the PSA rep who talked to the grader the reason for the 3.5 (because as you can imagine I was pretty incredulous)

P.S. I don't think my card should be a 7 by any stretch but a 5 or 5.5 is well within reason given all I've seen over the years. Against better judgement, I tried to cross in a SGC holder because of the card value and felt they were being punitive.

Sean1125 · #14 10-20-2016, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

no it's a long story and without getting into the weeds, I was told by the PSA rep who talked to the grader the reason for the 3.5 (because as you can imagine I was pretty incredulous)

You need to review again if what you are saying is 100% accurate and there is no surface issue on the card.