Mind. Blown.

[hcv123]

PSA giveth and PSA taketh away and many run like sheep (myself sadly included) to have them do it again because as incompetent and inconsistent as they are - they are a business reality!

I would agree for a card like that to get a 1.5 there would/should have to be a crease there - I would argue that even with a hard to see crease a 1.5 is harsh.

Do an interesting experiment - bust the card out - reinspect - take great pre resubmission scans and resubmit - then report back here. Be curious to see how different it comes back.

[jchcollins]

I'd totally pop that and send it to SGC. Even if it has a wrinkle you missed, that's one hell of a harsh grade. Looks like a 6 to me.

[Bigdaddy]

Very nice card, despite PSA's harsh judgement.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by hcv123

PSA giveth and PSA taketh away and many run like sheep (myself sadly included) to have them do it again because as incompetent and inconsistent as they are - they are a business reality!

That's what baffles me as someone just coming back into the market. Why are people still playing along with PSA's game? It seems to be just a feedback loop where people go along with PSA because it's a business reality, and it's a business reality because people go along with PSA. How long can that be sustainable?

[jchcollins]

There will be people who disagree with this, but on big name / marquee cards, I think they deliberately sometimes give them ridiculous grades knowing that more likely than not, the card will get resubbed. This definitely happens with Mantle cards. Send it in, in that holder for a review - and I would not be surprised if it comes back like a 4.

[jayshum]

I'm not familiar with the Milton Bradley designation for 1968 Topps cards. Can someone explain what that is and how you can tell the difference from regular 1968 Topps cards?

[jchcollins]

The Milton Bradley cards were parallels of certain 1st and 2nd Series '68 Topps cards that were be made to be included with this game. Depending on what you read, some sources say they were actually manufactured in 1969, not '68. The main differences are the backs are yellow instead of darker / more orange like regular '68 cards. And because of the printing layout - usually on the short side of the card - sometimes there is a solid white streak / line on the end of the border - as can be seen in the OP's scan on the card that received the unfair grade.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The Milton Bradley cards were parallels of certain 1st and 2nd Series '68 Topps cards that were be made to be included with this game. Depending on what you read, some sources say they were actually manufactured in 1969, not '68. The main differences are the backs are yellow instead of darker / more orange like regular '68 cards. And because of the printing layout - usually on the short side of the card - sometimes there is a solid white streak / line on the end of the border - as can be seen in the OP's scan on the card that received the unfair grade.

John - thanks for posting the info about the 1968 Milton Bradley cards. I'm guessing they are much rarer so probably unlikely I have any in my 1968 Topps set, but maybe I'll take a look through it just in case.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by jayshum

John - thanks for posting the info about the 1968 Milton Bradley cards. I'm guessing they are much rarer so probably unlikely I have any in my 1968 Topps set, but maybe I'll take a look through it just in case.

I'm not sure if they are rarer, but price wise I think they are more or less the same as the regular Topps cards. Here is a pic of the back differences; don't know why but this is not to scale (the cards are the same size). The MB version is on the right.