Scg

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

PSA has cracked down a bit more since the scandal. For example, card that looks like a 6 or a 7 but has a small hard to find wrinkle might get a 3 or 2.5. I've seen a lot of this. It's not really right, but given that all grading is subjective at some level, I kind of understand what they are doing. If you have something that you think is way undergraded just based on eye-appeal, it's possible you've run afoul of this. All of the big 3 TPG's make mistakes. But at least in my experience, SGC and BVG are more apt to grade a card based on the whole of it's eye appeal than PSA is. At least right now.

I completely agree that SGC has been far more consistent over the years.

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by perezfan

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

In theory. In reality, I’ve seen plenty of PSA 5’s that have subtle wrinkles somewhere. I wasn’t arguing that a card with a wrinkle should necessarily be more than a 4. But PSA lately has been giving many cards like that 2 and 2.5’s, which is a bit harsh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[perezfan]

Yeah... really harsh, if the tiny wrinkle/crease is the only flaw of significance.

I agree that they’re grading tougher now, in light of this year’s “developments”.

[Republicaninmass]

Agreed they seem stricter


Gorgeous psa 4.5 came back a 4

Perfect psa 4 came back a 3


So back they go, great gimmick

[Ben Yourg]

Here is the card,that I have been talking about.
It is a real nice blue.Not as it shows.Printing on back is nice,dark and perfectly clear.
Not as my computer shows.
Very light creases across front "Knee Level" ,and under arm pit,
to the left.And across chest.EXCEPT FOR THE KNEE LEVEL,THE OTHERS ARE VERY HARD, TO EVEN SEE?
What do you think?
Is it worthy of more,than a "POOR"?

Ben

[Bill77]

My T205 Wilbur Goode is graded the same. It really isn't anything new with PSA. I think that if your card has more than one crease PSA will just grade it a 1.

[Tom S.]

It's hard to tell from the blurry back scan, but it looks like there is a sliver of paper loss within the crease on the back of the card to the left of Tennant's name.

The PSA 1 grade would be due to that in my opinion.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Agreed they seem stricter


Gorgeous psa 4.5 came back a 4

Perfect psa 4 came back a 3


So back they go, great gimmick

this is part of the problem right here. Why are we cracking these out like idiots? How about we collect them? I find it fascinating.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

this is part of the problem right here. Why are we cracking these out like idiots? How about we collect them? I find it fascinating.

+1. A TPG honey hole . The answer is always money. Otherwise who gives a crap whether a card is a 3.5, a 4 or 5?

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I completely agree that SGC has been far more consistent over the years.

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

I once had a '58 Topps Yogi Berra card PSA 5 card that had a 1/2" diagonal crease through the upper right corner. Not a subtle crease either, and when I sent it in to them for a review, PSA refused to admit it was a grading blunder. That was about ten years ago.

[Republicaninmass]

I had one as well with paperloss that graded a 4.5. I called and sent them a scan, as I wanted it accurately graded. They said it was fine because of eye appeal.

[iowadoc77]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I had one as well with paperloss that graded a 4.5. I called and sent them a scan, as I wanted it accurately graded. They said it was fine because of eye appeal.

Ok because of eye appeal?!? Yikes. If that’s the case I have a few more to send in for regrades.