Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[steve B]

Number 2 seems to have the fewest print defects. So I'll go with that one.

[JollyElm]

And the loser is...



Each and every one of the other seven cards coulda/shoulda had the PD qualifier, too, or none of the eight should've had it at all. SMH.

[swarmee]

#1 and #3 have the oldest cert numbers. So it could have been something they originally downgraded for, and then changed their assessment before grading the others. It definitely has a minimal amount of PD compared to some of the others, although seems to have one directly on Hank's forehead.

They are still giving PD qualifiers away. I got one on a 1980 Topps variant with a hard to see fisheye in "Red Sox" that dropped it from an 8 to an 8(PD).

[LeftHandedDane]

I've never understood why the TPG's don't scan every card that they grade, and then when a new submission is received, once they have completed their assessment and have a preliminary grade in mind, the grader can call up scans of prior versions of the same card that were given the same grade, as well as ones given the next grade (or half grade) up or down, which can be used as to test the consistency of grading across individuals and over time. It would also improve the consistency in the application of PD, OC and other qualifiers. Just one more example of the lack of "P" in "PSA".

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by LeftHandedDane

I've never understood why the TPG's don't scan every card that they grade, and then when a new submission is received, once they have completed their assessment and have a preliminary grade in mind, the grader can call up scans of prior versions of the same card that were given the same grade, as well as ones given the next grade (or half grade) up or down, which can be used as to test the consistency of grading across individuals and over time. It would also improve the consistency in the application of PD, OC and other qualifiers. Just one more example of the lack of "P" in "PSA".

They don't have anywhere near the time to do something like that. Most graders I believe spend less than 60 seconds on each card. And look how behind turn-times already are for PSA...

[JollyElm]

Okay, let's keep the 1961 Topps MVP train a-rollin'...

(I randomly placed these cards in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout.) The card on the lower left is graded PSA 7. How in heck it doesn't have a PD qualifier is beyond me. Was this card a PSA 8 PD or 9 PD, but the 'no qualifiers' box was checked and it magically became a straight 7????? Who the freak knows, because it looks like Mr. Cub was using a snowblower.

Here's the contest. I pointed out which card is the PSA 7, so of the remaining five cards, two are PSA 8, two are PSA 9 and one, only one, is a PSA 9 PD. Which is it?? (The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Here's the contest. I pointed out which card is the PSA 7, so of the remaining five cards, two are PSA 8, two are PSA 9 and one, only one, is a PSA 9 PD. Which is it?? (The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

Ok, at the risk of being shown very wrong, I'll play it:
#'s 2 & 6 are the 8s on account of the corners
#'s 3 & 5 are the 9s as the sharpest and least fish eyes (although the top L corner of #5 looks like a problem)

That leaves #1 as the 9PD (which could fit as it has the most bubbles aside from the 7, and they're placed worse: one near his face, and big ones in all the readable areas of the card (big ones at his name, at 'MVP' and 'National'). I agree with swarmee above that they are tougher on marks that subjectively take more away from the overall appeal, and I think anywhere that the eye is naturally drawn to is the default reference point for that, so face and text areas).

[chalupacollects]

Me I have:
1 - 9D
2 - 8
3 - 9
4 - 7 - the gimme
5 - 9
6 - 8