How is this a PSA 5 with no qualifier?

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by G1911

You are replying to jokes, not serious claims.

god….damnit

[Vintagedeputy]

Could we maybe stop with all the nonsense in this thread and get back to the discussion on the original question?

[ClementeFanOh]

Vintagedeputy-

I too believe PSA missed this one for sure, by their own standards. There
very much should be one of those dreaded qualifiers on this card. If I was
czar, PSA would be forced to drop the stupid qualifiers and reflect the
presence of the stamp in a uniform way- i.e, stamps drop a grade by 2 full
points, so the card in question could be a PSA 3 without qualifier.

2nd question you posed- there are FAR too many people on this site who
can't stay on topic, or who wish to divert the topic for their own ends. When
you bring it up, their feelings get hurt.

Trent King

[Fred]

I'd be willing to guess that people at PSA wouldn't have a clue about whether to give it the MK qualifier or not. In this case, I bet PSA just missed it.

What is the rule of thumb on back stamps/overprints as it pertains to the hobby (not grading)?

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Vintagedeputy-

I too believe PSA missed this one for sure, by their own standards. There
very much should be one of those dreaded qualifiers on this card. If I was
czar, PSA would be forced to drop the stupid qualifiers and reflect the
presence of the stamp in a uniform way- i.e, stamps drop a grade by 2 full
points, so the card in question could be a PSA 3 without qualifier.

Trent, they definitely “missed the mark” - pun intended, on this one.

I too think that qualifiers are stupid and much prefer the way SGC grades.

[jchcollins]

PSA missing some ink that should get the MK qualifier and giving the card a straight grade is hardly anything new. My LCS this summer had a nice '63 Aaron, except with pen marks on the back. It was a straight PSA 5.