Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[Gorditadogg]

That makes no sense at all. Card 1 and 2 are virtually identical and card 3 looks better than the other 2. I think all you can do is trust the grading companies and buy the holder.*

*sarcasm

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[irv]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Triple Threat??

This is just a random posting, but what we have here are three very similar 1969 Topps Roberto Clemente #50 cards with nice side-to-side centering, and one side (top or bottom) a little (too?) close to the border for some collectors' tastes.

Would you pay way over ten times as much for a card that may only be a hair better in the centering department...because it has a straight grade without a qualifier???

It could just be the scan but the 3rd one, or the far right one, looks a tad blurry to me. Is that what is referred to as registration?

Originally Posted by ASF123

Or, you could pay about $25 for this one like I did. But hey, you do you!

EDIT: And HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN EVEN WHEN I ROTATE THE PHOTO 90 DEGREES BEFORE SAVING IT TO UPLOAD???

Trying do a full rotation then saving it or a slight crop then saving it or if the scan always turns out like the one above, safe it with it leaning to the right to see if it uploads correctly?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by irv

It could just be the scan but the 3rd one, or the far right one, looks a tad blurry to me. Is that what is referred to as registration?

Yeah, without knowing too much, we could refer to that as having problems with the registration, but all three of the images are only screenshots, so it could simply be a result of the seller's scanner (and the lack of a CCD element, to be specific) causing the blur. There isn't enough info available to make a determination.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

That makes no sense at all. Card 1 and 2 are virtually identical and card 3 looks better than the other 2. I think all you can do is trust the grading companies and buy the holder.*

*sarcasm

I should have included this in my Clemente post...

275. Slimperceptible (also Scantily Bad)
A card whose centering is only a mere hair worse than another virtually identical card, but unlike that one, it gets a dreaded OC qualifier on the label.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I should have included this in my Clemente post...



275. Slimperceptible (also Scantily Bad)

.

Yeah, I assume it's the PSA card that got the OC. Still ridiculous the $$ difference between the two. They are basically the same card.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Yuppers, that's why I jumped at the middle one. This card is usually OC side to side, so seeing one centered that way with just a slight hitch in the top-to-bottom department made my eyes light up. Sharp as heck corners with a clear-as-day image. Like you said, it is virtually identical to the nearly $4,000 card on the left. Remarkable...



In this crazy market, it's important to make 'elevator grabs' of these all-time greats when the opportunities present themselves.

[JollyElm]

I'll just put this here. With only the tiniest bit of difference in the top-to-bottom and side-to-side centering, the card on the bottom sold for just about eighteen times as much as the card on top. Eighteen times as much!! Were these cards not slabbed, 99.99% of us would've looked upon them as essentially being the same exact card, but once PSA deems one 'OC,' the perceived value plummets.

1970nolanryan197comp.jpg

There's a happy ending, however, as I immediately jumped on and bought the top card the moment I saw it listed!!!

[JollyElm]

Today, I harken back to post #141 (and the ensuing follow ups there), to show an oddity I ran across. Graded versions of the 1961 Topps #160 Whitey Ford card are so often found with qualifiers attached to them (with an inordinate amount of 'PDs'). Here's mine (I'll refrain from screaming about how much I disagree with the assessment. Been there, done that.)...

1961ford160psa8pd.jpg


But then I looked at the POP reports for Whitey, and I was stunned even more. Take a look at the number of cards in higher grades, as a percentage, that received qualifiers. Yowza!!!!! Almost half of all 9's have a qualifier attached, and 39% of all 8's have one.* That's gotta be some sort of a curiously strange record.

1961fordpopreport.jpg

This entire post was off the cuff, so can anyone think of other cards that have been hammered as much as the wonderful Mr. Ford??


*The overall percentage across all grades is just about one in ten, a hair shy of 10%.

[Mbjerry]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Today, I harken back to post #141 (and the ensuing follow ups there), to show an oddity I ran across. Graded versions of the 1961 Topps #160 Whitey Ford card are so often found with qualifiers attached to them (with an inordinate amount of 'PDs'). Here's mine (I'll refrain from screaming about how much I disagree with the assessment. Been there, done that.)...



Attachment 478340





But then I looked at the POP reports for Whitey, and I was stunned even more. Take a look at the number of cards in higher grades, as a percentage, that received qualifiers. Yowza!!!!! Almost half of all 9's have a qualifier attached, and 39% of all 8's have one.* That's gotta be some sort of a curiously strange record.



Attachment 478342



This entire post was off the cuff, so can anyone think of other cards that have been hammered as much as the wonderful Mr. Ford??





*The overall percentage across all grades is just about one in ten, a hair shy of 10%.

Interesting. And interesting thread! Glad it got brought back the top. I learned something today... Don't ignore the ones with qualifiers! Lol

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk