Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[GasHouseGang]

I would have to guess the third one in row one. It even looks like a bit of a diamond cut.

[bnorth]

First card in row 2.

[deweyinthehall]

#4?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

2nd card from left on top. It's O/C in two directions.

[perezfan]

Why do these professional idiots downgrade so severely for centering...

But make no such deductions for poor focus, bad registration, or cards being cut short?

All of these are original attributes of the card, as it was manufactured (and not anything remotely related to condition or “wear and tear”).

Yet they only care about centering. In today’s environment, I’d much rather own a card that’s off-centered than an unfocused image, or one that’s cut short and moves around in the Holder.

Odds are the “maraca card” was trimmed, just to improve the illusion of centering. Seems so pointless and dumb to rely on these “impartial” fools when our eyes are just as good or better than theirs. Sorry to derail the fun and games.

[JollyElm]

And the winner/loser is #2...



...but I got it at a great price, and it looks beautiful to my eyes. (Stringent PSA 9 guidelines aside) I would never consider this type of centering to be anything but 'fine and normal.' Love it!!!

1972erving255psa9ocX.jpg

[JollyElm]

Today's episode (a tough one at that) is called Print Defect or Grader Defect...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Here is a sextet of 1957 Topps tough series #293 Ted Abernathy cards. All are graded PSA 9 (There are only 4 different examples at the PSA Auction Prices Realized site, one for sale on ebay, and one recently sold on ebay, so these six represent all of the 9's readily available for easy viewing, so I didn't purposefully grab pics to throw anyone off the scent. These are the 'only' ones out there.). The 'negative' similarities of the group include most are a tiny bit short side to side and there are usually some tiny bluish 'gnats' buzzing around the pics. No back print issues come into play. Here's where it gets tough...only one of them has a PD (print defect) qualifier, just one. Which of these 6 virtually identical PSA 9 cards is cursed by the PD designation??

You can take a wild guess if you want to (go for it!), but I'd love to hear why you think your selection deserved the qualifier.

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)