Undergraded Cards

[JollyElm]

As a variation hound, this PSA 4 card has bothered me forever. It looked like the best one I had (centering aside, obviously, which is a tiny bit better than it looks, because the plastic border is blocking a bit of the white), so it was the first one sent in for grading. The PSA 6 is included for comparison purposes...

1969PiratesRookies567noblackoutlinePSAfaded.jpg

I still can't for the life of me understand how it got tossed into the VG pit!! That usually indicates a crease or wrinkle, but there is none. The only anomaly I can detect is a very tiny straight line 'indent' in the gloss (visible by tilting it in the light) that was undoubtedly just a part of the printing. Corners are epically sharp, back is fine, so I guess it's time to stop using my blacklight to illuminate my Hendrix posters and put it to work seeing if there's something somewhere that my human eye is unable to detect.

[robw1959]

Look at the left-to-right centering. I think that's what probably limited the grade because otherwise, I think it looks as good as or even better than the 6.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Look at the left-to-right centering. I think that's what probably limited the grade because otherwise, I think it looks as good as or even better than the 6.

Yeah, absolutely. That's certainly true, but this was submitted with qualifiers allowed, so I was expecting/hoping for a 7+ OC. But a four?? That drops it from 'no creases/wrinkles' to 'with creases/wrinkles,' I believe, since there aren't any issues present that would drop it that far without creases/wrinkles being present.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

there aren't any issues present that would drop it that far without creases/wrinkles being present.

Maybe they thought that the printing discoloration on the bottom left (faded orange field) was some kind of surface wear rather than just a printing defect.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Maybe they thought that the printing discoloration on the bottom left (faded orange field) was some kind of surface wear rather than just a printing defect.

It's virtually identical to the PSA 6 in coloring, etc., and no surface wear. They were printed that way. It's gotta be something hidden in the blacklight.

[jb67]

Some great looking cards being posted. This Aaron while correctly graded per PSA standards (very tiny wrinkle at the very top of card) it certainly looks under graded.

[rugbymarine]

I love threads like this. I don't have any pre-war items that fit the bill, so here's some vintage. Some wax on the 58 Brooks. I'd put this 57 Kaline up against a lot of 8's and 9's that I've seen from that set. My 71 Kaline shows the drastic change in standards on post-war issues with challenging borders (71 Topps, 62 Topps, 55 Bowman). 10 years ago, I bet that's at least a 6, maybe a 7.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Coming soon to an auction near you.

[ClementeFanOh]

Hi all- I lack your tech expertise to upload here, so I'll just comment that
the most consistent thing I'm seeing from both PSA/SGC is brutal treatment
of cards that have even the most faint creasing. I own a 71 Topps basketball
Oscar Robertson that got a 4 from PSA (new label). I buy the card not the
holder, so I'm happy own it- but it's grotesquely undergraded. Turns out
that, if you hold it against a window at high noon and train the Hubble
telescope on it just right, you can make out a wrinkle that is the size of an
ant. Great...

I wish slabbers would adopt the "call overturn" language from NCAA football
(or is it NFL?). Unless a flaw is "clear and convincing", it doesn't count
against! And, just like with those replay idiots in the booth, if it takes 3
minutes and 6 camera angles to maybe find a problem, it is NOT "clear and
convincing"- no flaw:!!

I feel better.

Trent King

[RCMcKenzie]

Nice BL, Rob. They may have dinged it for tobacco stains and pencil writing? Top right?

To me, grading is for Topps era cards. Here's one I got yesterday in Sterling. Not a bad card for a 3.