Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[JollyElm]

Surprisingly (well, to me at least), it's card #2. Funny thing is, the last 3 cards on the bottom row all seem to be closer to the top than the winner...




But the good news is I bought it for significantly less than a tenth of what straight 9's regularly go for, so I am very happy to have picked it up. Here it is without the tilted scan...

1972carew695PSA9oc.jpg

[JollyElm]

Today's episode is called What About Bob?...

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

Here are eight 1961 #388 'Bob' Clemente cards (random screenshots) that all have at least one side pretty close (marginally close?) to the border. All are graded PSA 8...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which of these 8 very similar (all within a hair of each other as far as nearness to a border is concerned) Clementes is the only one with an OC designation cursing it??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

[Hxcmilkshake]

6. If not 6 I give up

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Jstottlemire1]

Card 5 is my guess.

[Baseballcrazy62]

I would say #6 as well.

[Thecafewha]

My guess is #4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I'll guess #1.

[Mark70Z]

It’s #1...

[Prof_Plum]

guess #5

at least we seem to have narrowed it down to 1, 4, 5, or 6

[JollyElm]

Happy Halloween. It's 10/31, which obviously points to today's winner (loser). Of course, I mean 10 minus (3+1) equals six. Okay, that's an awful streeeeetch. Oh well.




It's spooky (get it?) that although the distance from the border seems pretty universal across most of these cards, the one that's closer to the bottom gets tricked, while the ones closer to the top get treated to a whole bagful of candy. Here's a comparison of five of them...

[jchcollins]

Sheesh, that's really splitting hairs. Centering minutiae on cards that are in high grade to start with I think is part of the slightly fraud-tinged aspect of professional grading that we all put up with. 80/20 vs. 55/45 is one thing; clearly most people can tell the difference there, but in this example, card 5 looks to have worse centering to me than card 6. I guess it could be the angle of the scan, but the difference here is a few points, not like 20 or 30. To me on a card that is decently centered to start with, but you can tell it's not perfect or "dead nuts" centered - it's all just antimatter. What if the "o/c" card has better color or registration? This to me leads to a card selling for more online because of a slab, where in a shop or at a show that wouldn't be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I value professional grading - especially for buying cards I cannot hold in my hands first - but for the "o/c" card in that example to likely be worth half or less than the non qualified card in a marketplace like eBay makes no sense.

[JollyElm]

Curious.
With other things being pretty much equal, the 'problem' area is the right border, but the PSA 9 OC has a bit more room there than the straight 8 does...



...and I won't even mention how significantly wider the left side white area is on the 8.

From PSA:
MINT 9
Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

NM-MT 8
Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Curious.
With other things being pretty much equal, the 'problem' area is the right border, but the PSA 9 OC has a bit more room there than the straight 8 does...



...and I won't even mention how significantly wider the left side white area is on the 8.

From PSA:
MINT 9
Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

NM-MT 8
Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

This to me is the "expertise" of professional grading which occasionally smacks of fraud. There is materially no difference in those cards, and had they been graded side by side, I bet would have received the same grade.

[JollyElm]

In keeping with the season, today's episode is called Eight graders a-gradin'...

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

Here's an octet of 1972 #255 Julius Ervings (random screenshots of his 'Rookie Light' card) that all have at least one side pretty close to a border. All are graded either PSA 8 or PSA 9...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which of these 8 relatively similar cards is NOT what the Doctor J ordered? Which one has an OC designation cursing it??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

[cardsagain74]

I've never understood their need for the "OC' qualifier anyway. It's interesting to have beckett break down the four main qualities of a card together, but I don't know why PSA only points out typical poor centering out of those four basics. Why that, but not a nicely centered 3 being "5 RC" instead (for rounded corners) too?

Just doesn't seem to be needed, especially since it's fairly obvious why a card with all other aspects like an 8 (except for some 85/15 centering) is being graded a 6

[Vintagevault13]

I never get these right, but here goes nothing. I vote #6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hxcmilkshake]

Going for 2 in a row. 7.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[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.)

[todeen]

For the Ted Abernathy, I am guessing top row middle. It appears the blue gnats around Ted and Wash are more frequent, and the "P." is blurry/imperfect.

[Hxcmilkshake]

5. Has some discoloring in the borders.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Prof_Plum]

#5, bottom row, middle - only because the dark shadow stripe to the left of his face and neck, (running top to bottom) seems a bit more pronounced

[bnorth]

#5 also. The print spot to the left of the W on his hat.

[JollyElm]

And the winner/loser is #4. Truly mind blowing...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And the winner/loser is #4. Truly mind blowing...

Herein lies the fallacy of professional grading. Anyone who argues for 2 seconds that grade is somehow objective is out of their mind...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Let's call tonight's episode Reds SCARE...

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

This time it's a little bit different. Five of these cards are graded PSA 9 and one is graded PSA 8...but all of them have the dreaded OC qualifier...that is, except for one. Which of these six cards is the only one NOT cursed by the OC designation??

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

[Mark70Z]

#4... Now, what’s my prize?

[Hxcmilkshake]

5

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

With every new thing like this that involves ‘72 Topps, the more convinced I become that it just might be the worst centered set of all time. Also the tilt issues! Last year I gave up a better centered copy of the Bench card in question here for one that was slightly worse off centered, but had better color and image. I suppose this means at heart I’m not a total centering freak...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

The one I kept. For purposes of this contest, I will guess number 5 is the one with the OC designation; although in truth we all know it could be any of them.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deweyinthehall]

4

[JollyElm]

Words fail me, so simply get a frickin' load of the 'winner' of this one...

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Words fail me, so simply get a frickin' load of the 'winner' of this one...

Man, thought for sure I had that one. Maybe one of these times I’ll get ONE right.

[JollyElm]

This one isn't a guessing game, but just another example to show how grading has clouded some of our minds. I grabbed up a 1973 Schmidt RC in PSA 8 OC, and it was basically half the price (or less) of what a bunch of PSA 7s on ebay (I obscured the cert numbers) are listed for (obviously, it's not a perfect comparison, because these aren't sold prices). The centering on most of these is pretty damn similar (especially with regard to that left side) to one another. A lot of graded card people don't want to have qualifiers on their slabs, so they insist on having 'straight' grades...but at what cost? A 'lower' grade straight 7 that is centered the same way as the 8 OC, AND at twice the price???? Crazy town.

[jchcollins]

This becomes where grading is only an opinion, and treating it as more than that is them taking your money for fraud. That 8 (OC) is not centered demonstrably worse than several of those 7’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Today's episode is called Whitey as the Driven Snow...

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

This is all about eights. All 8 of these cards are graded PSA 8, but only one of them has a PD (print defect) qualifier, just one. But I don't want you to guess which one it is. Your job this time is to look at this octet of Fords and simply decide which one or two of the 8 cards you would take if you were allowed to walk away with one for free. That's it. In other words, which card or cards do you consider to be the best of the bunch??

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

These cards come from 8 different sources and there's a bunch of snowfall in the backgrounds, but I didn't adjust anything too much. Just a little contrast here and there to make them a bit more consistent across the (Chairman of the) Board.

[Hxcmilkshake]

3

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Hxcmilkshake]

I mean 6

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[NYYFan63]

7


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nick55]

5

[irv]

#1

[MarcosCards]

I like #6. No fish eyes or white specks — with decent centering corners.

[GeoPoto]

5


Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

The 'rules' have been updated a bit to provide a little more flexibility. Instead of choosing one card, you can select the two cards you feel are the best 8's from the group.

[hcv123]

1st choice #6
2nd choice #1