Certified, Qualified and Glorified!!!

[JollyElm]

It seems a miscut is when part of the picture/border/etc. is 'missing.' If something is 99.9% off centered, but nothing is actually missing, it gets the OC. If a hair of the picture or actual border (not the 'white areas') is missing, it gets the MC.

In my 1969 WL Mantle in this thread, a tiny bit of the round number bubble on back is cut off, so it was deemed MC.

Edited to add PSA's definition:

MCdefinition.jpg

[MikeGarcia]

..there seem to be no hard fast rules...
..

[JollyElm]

Is the back miscut?

[irv]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Is the back miscut?

I noticed a card just the other day that had the MC qualifier and thought for sure the back must be way off with evidence of another card there but nope, it was clean.

I'm guessing some graders at PSA don't know the difference between MC and OC?
Shocking, I know.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by irv

I noticed a card just the other day that had the MC qualifier and thought for sure the back must be way off with evidence of another card there but nope, it was clean.



I'm guessing some graders at PSA don't know the difference between MC and OC?

Shocking, I know.

A card doesn’t have to show a portion of the adjoining card on the sheet to get the MC qualifier. Per PSA, cards with an “atypical cut for the issue” make up the standard. So in other words, they can give that qualifier to any card they want to if it looks odd to the grader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Elberson]

I picked up a Schmidt rc at a steal......

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Elberson

I picked up a Schmidt rc at a steal......

Nice. With that card, tilt is usually more of a problem than the centering. Early 1970’s cards in many cases were condition doozies, and this particular one is a poster child for that, IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ASF123]

Hi, I'm new around here...this thread is fascinating. How on earth has PSA maintained the level of hegemony in the market that it has, given how obviously arbitrary and inconsistent its grades are? To say nothing of the trimming scandal, which somehow hasn't seemed to affect its credibility in the market. *And* the incentives that it has to keep the population of 10s and even 9s artificially low. Talk about a naked emperor. It's baffling to a newcomer.

[cornhusker]

Ok. Probably a dumb question but I'll pose it anyway. Are there any PSA cards with multiple qualifiers? I've never taken notice of any. Of 40 million cards graded I would expect some OC card to also have a mark, stain, or print defect right? Of course miscut and off center would not make sense but I might expect some of the other combos. Example is the '68 mantle with ST on the top of this thread is also OC correct?

[JollyElm]

A couple of recent additions...

1982 Topps #21 Ripken RC that looks fine to me. This is exactly what 99.99% of cards coming out of packs looked like that summer, so I have no problem with it. And the 1962 Mantle has 'invisible' wax/gum residue on it...I guess. Can't see anything. What's pretty cool about the 'highlight' cards from that year (Stan the Man, The Killer, etc.) is the overlooked fact that they have the full player stats by season on back. The players' regular cards only showed full stats from the previous season and career totals.

1962mantle318ST1982ripken21PSA9oc.jpg

[Tere1071]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It seems a miscut is when part of the picture/border/etc. is 'missing.' If something is 99.9% off centered, but nothing is actually missing, it gets the OC. If a hair of the picture or actual border (not the 'white areas') is missing, it gets the MC.

In my 1969 WL Mantle in this thread, a tiny bit of the round number bubble on back is cut off, so it was deemed MC.

Edited to add PSA's definition:

Attachment 371158

Ah, the difference in grading companies-

berraspahn.jpg

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Tere1071

Ah, the difference in grading companies-

Attachment 413137

..Agreed ....we all learned fairly quickly where to send our lesser-centered '50s cardboard......I'm over-the-top mentally unbalanced about side-to-side centering but strangely I can tolerate this type of T-to-B like your Berra and Spahn ; ..

..

[Tere1071]

I'm over-the-top mentally unbalanced without qualifiers! I've always been more about having stronger corners than centering. For the 53 Bowman set, one either accepts what they find or uses quite a bit of patience, discretion and money to build a set with perfect centering. I can live better with more at the top than having less, side to side I have some with 15/85, but I am completely happy with 65/35.

I have 2 Spahns- this one and a BVG 3 which has nice corners and perfect centering, but it has a 2 inch horizontal line wrinkle starting from the left side and running near the mitt. The BVG 3 has better eye appeal, but the PSA has strong borders and no creases or wrinkles. This week the BVG 3 is my keeper, next week-who knows?

[JollyElm]

A quartet of (for me) coolness...

The 1972 Morgan and Cepeda cards are just a tad/touch/smidgen too high top to bottom to get straight grades. Oh well, but I'm ecstatic to have them. The 1969 Johnny Bench is a wonderfully celebrated (see, I took my own advice https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277906) card that has what should have been easily-wiped-away (see-through) gum residue on the front...and I mistakenly bought the '59 Dark (which looks pretty frickin' nice), because I came to the hurried conclusion that it was a high number. Missed it by THAT much...

[JollyElm]

Take a ride on the stain train...

1957 Topps tough series Danny Kravitz has a small amount of non-problematic wax/gum residue of back. The 1964 Frank Malzone Stand-Up has a tiny bit of the obligatory wax/gum stain on its blank back, and both the 1965 Killebrew and 1966 high number Mahaffey look as clean as a freshly Windexed window. No matter how much they're tilted in the sunlight, I can't pick up even a hint of a 'stain.' Perhaps there's an unseen bit of residue that's only visible when the cards are actually in-hand and not in a slab?? Dunno...