Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[GasHouseGang]

I would have to guess #3, only because the top border is a bit thinner than the others.

[jayshum]

My guess is #3.

[JollyElm]

Any 'Black Friday' guesses?

[JollyElm]

As Hxcmilkshake said, this one is particularly brutal. Just a hair separates them all, and the winner/loser is somehow #5. Look again at how nearly identical they all are, tops and bottoms!! As Scooby Doo said, "Yoinks!!"



The good news is I grabbed #5 for my ever growing PSA 9 (some qualifiers welcome) high numbers set for about twenty two bucks total. The only straight 9 I see on ebay looks incredibly similar to this one and is listed at $123.99 plus tax and shipping, so it would end up costing you almost $140. I will take mine any day of the week!!

[swarmee]

Here's an interesting thread from the PSA forum:
https://forums.collectors.com/discus...-carter-update

PSA not giving MC qualifiers on cards with miscut backs for some sets and not others. We all know they're lax on 1955 Bowman because the printing of that set usually had bad front/back alignment, but it also seems they're doing that with 1976 Topps cards. Consistently inconsistent; so much for "grading standards." Hopefully their corporate takeover will fix crap like this.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by swarmee

PSA not giving MC qualifiers on cards with miscut backs for some sets and not others.

In my experience, PSA has always been hit or miss with cut problems on the back. I have a '66 Koufax that (to me, anyway...) is clearly MC on the back. PSA gave it a straight 6.