![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Um...that is why I specifically said, "Rule of thumb says a PSA 8 OC (with some exceptions, of course) would be/could be called a straight PSA 6 if the submitter asked for no qualifiers."
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Darren, with the thread title I though it would be about how you recently got into graded cards.
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I do agree with the thread title.
It seems that everyone is so focused on getting their beautiful vintage cards in plastic and for someone, somewhere, to put a number on the card to say how nice it is. I always have and always will appreciate that feel of cardboard in my hand while enjoying my hobby and the memories from my childhood. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
How about which one does your eye like the best? I think, based only on what I can see from the small photos, that card 1 would be my pick.
__________________
Looking for: Unique Steve Garvey items, select Dodgers Postcards & Team Issue photos |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
For my eye, card #4 would probably be the best of the OC's. And it has/had the added benefit of being the lowest priced of all except for the vaunted #6.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree, if these were Mantle's and you added a couple zero's to your example, I would buy #4 with the grade. Nobody want's those OC's. They are graded kryptonite. worthless. Nobody like em. AND HOW DO WE CRACK THE SGC & PSA cases. I only ruin cards when I try.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
IMO, SGC cases are tougher than PSA to bust because the plastic I think is weaker. I damaged a card last month for the first time in busting probably at least 100 TPG slabs. The rub was that the face of the case itself started to shatter (this does not normally happen...) and the resulting little pieces which broke off were razor sharp and unfortunately pressed directly into the cardboard beneath. About a $250 mistake in 30 seconds. Oh well at least no women, children or animals were harmed...
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-01-2019 at 11:13 AM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
Successful transactions with: Double-P-Enterprises, Thromdog, DavidBvintage, Desert Ice Sports, Kurtz Kardz, Cooperstown Sportscards, BBT206 and tenorvox! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'd love to know how to crack open cases. Any tips?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks so much for the tutorial! Much appreciated!
Last edited by Fuddjcal; 02-01-2019 at 11:17 AM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
No problem. There are also more than a few Youtube videos out there which can show you how to do it.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I am definitely a relatively new convert to the graded world. When I saw what ebay prices were for ungraded cards as compared to their graded counterparts, the switch was made. Why pay $25 for an ungraded card that looks pretty decent, when I can find a PSA 8 for only a little more?? This gives me peace of mind and allows me to have a good idea of what I can sell the card for if the need arose.
It's unfortunate that the TPG's handle 'problems' so weirdly, though. If a card is an 8 and is OC, just call it what it is, PSA 8 OC. Why give the option of making it a straight 6???? It's the same off-centered card. It would've been marvelous if all graded cards were given the suitable qualifiers they deserved (everyone who grew up collecting cards before the 1990's/2000's knew that centering and quality control was not Topps' strong point) from the very beginning. No tweaking things. That would have made cards without qualifiers even more desirable, because no funny business would be involved. A PSA 7 would truly be a PSA 7, and not a PSA 9 OC that was sent in to be graded 'without qualifiers,' for example (I know, I know, you can see the centering with your own eyes, but that's besides the point). Unfortunately, it's too late to unring the grading bell.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 01-31-2019 at 02:38 PM. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
To me, calling it "what it is" as you phrased it, would in fact be calling it a 6 in your example---since the grading standards were written before the concept of permitting voluntary qualifiers, if something has centering worse than is permitted for 8s, then it's not an 8. End of story. There can be no such thing as "this is an 8 except for this one thing that makes it not an 8", to me, that's what adds all the frustrating confusions. For instance, almost nothing is more annoying in my mind than someone advertising a 9oc card with the description something like "It's like a 9! Only one graded higher", meanwhile in my head I'm saying, 'No, you have what would be a straight 7, which is bested by a hundred or so straight 8s, a dozen straight 9s, and one GEM, and it is very, very much not "like" as good as any of those'... Whatever its original intent, the whole voluntary qualifier thing seems now in practice like a gimmick to draw different people in and perpetuate the nuisance of resubmitting and re-slabbing. If my power to dictate, I would end the practice entirely (well, with ultimate power I would go back in time and undo all that had been done and never let that door open in the first place)--and be left saying to someone, 'look, you've got a card that has a variety of characteristics that make it a 6, and that's that.' |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I can see this side of it as well. In 1990 there was no PSA. I probably would have thought the concept of qualifiers was absurd. No, that card is not NM because it's too far O/C. Instead it's Excellent...
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-01-2019 at 06:31 AM. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Check out https://www.thecollectorconnection.com Always looking for consignments 717.327.8915 We sell your less expensive pre-war cards individually instead of in bulk lots to make YOU the most money possible! and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thecollectorconnectionauctions |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
@ Darren, As the owner of that 61 pirates team PSA 4, I would be happy to trade you for your 8OC and pay you $1 more. Good deal on your side.
Now, look at the 55's (sorry about the bad/ small pix). But Mays (4MC) and Roberto (6OC) are IMHO closer that the technical grades suggest. But I was happy to purchase them for significant discounts to the straight grades. Same goes for Teddy Ball Game (2), which b/c of a tiny red dot gets knocked down to what in the PAST (2 holders ago) could have been a 3 or maybe 4. Last edited by cesarcap; 02-09-2019 at 09:57 AM. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Anyway, glad to read this thread. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another one for the brilliant minds at PSA... | HOF Auto Rookies | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 12 | 02-06-2016 07:30 PM |
Card Grading vs. Autograph Grading | scooter729 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 08-20-2014 12:52 PM |
Authenticators changing their minds | Runscott | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 12 | 04-09-2014 07:04 PM |
Mint Grading, or is it the grading of mints? | brianp-beme | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 10-30-2010 09:11 AM |
GAI Grading | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 01-18-2003 09:50 AM |