It's all about the registry

[Beercan collector]

Ouch .. And the card is not even mint

[Peter_Spaeth]

The genius -- intended or not -- of Joe Orlando.

I have been corrected. The registry was Rocchi, with help from Baker -- not Orlando.

[JollyElm]

(The sound of hurried footsteps all across the country as everyone runs with hope in their hearts to the 1975 Topps set binder to check out what condition their Dave Roberts card is in.)

[Casey2296]

-
I only wish I had graded 10s of cards that were worthless when I was a kid so I could sell them and buy HOFers between 1909-1914 all day long.

[ejharrington]

I wanted the 1975 PSA 10 Jose Cruz card for my PC but not for $33k.

[samosa4u]

That's messed up ...

[bmattioli]

The obsession to own a "10" is becoming crazy. Why??

[tjisonline]

Imagine being enough of a moron to pay $33k for a PSA label in plastic w/ a “near mint” card in it. Pathetic and embarrassing.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by bmattioli

The obsession to own a "10" is becoming crazy. Why??

I have a graded notables/stars/HOF Cubs collection and I'm out there happily snapping up 8's of autos and rare(ish) variations for next to nothing.

Except for players I'm excited about, I just need a card for the collection.

The newer collectors and some people that only want the high-end treat 8's like they're trash and in many cases they can go for the price of the raw version. Go figure...card still looks amazing.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Ouch .. And the card is not even mint

Not centered enough for a 10, that's for sure.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Not centered enough for a 10, that's for sure.

Tell me how you think this card does not meet PSA's centering standards.

Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus and full original gloss. A PSA 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse.

Maybe you're thinking the BGS 50/50 requirement for a BGS 10 centering subgrade, and like 52/48 for a 9.5. That's not how PSA grades centering.

Add: I decided to blow it up in paint and calculate the centering on the front. Left border: 266-194 pixels = 70. Right border: 1564-1499 pixels = 65. That's like 52/48 centering. Maybe it's an optical illusion for you?

I do agree that it's not a Gem Mint 10, but for these reasons: 1) Blue ink splotch PD on right side in green field. 2) Cyan alignment way off (as seen in PADRES). 3) Other minor blemishes in print quality (blue streak halfway between border and D in DAVE), plus white fisheye under R.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Tell me how you think this card does not meet PSA's centering standards.



Maybe you're thinking the BGS 50/50 requirement for a BGS 10 centering subgrade, and like 52/48 for a 9.5. That's not how PSA grades centering.

Add: I decided to blow it up in paint and calculate the centering on the front. Left border: 266-194 pixels = 70. Right border: 1564-1499 pixels = 65. That's like 52/48 centering. Maybe it's an optical illusion for you?

I do agree that it's not a Gem Mint 10, but for these reasons: 1) Blue ink splotch PD on right side in green field. 2) Cyan alignment way off (as seen in PADRES). 3) Other minor blemishes in print quality (blue streak halfway between border and D in DAVE), plus white fisheye under R.

I measured the width of the green borders where they meet the blue and got 54/46. So yeah, within tolerances. Just eyeballing it, I thought it was well past 55/45 side-to-side, so maybe I am not that good with the colored borders.

As far as blemishes, there is also a fish-eye on the bottom right corner. All in all I wouldn't pay $33k for the card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wouldn't trust cards like this not to be microtrimmed. Even back then, big bucks for getting them into the 10 holder, and no expense to buy them. I am guessing a lot of these very low pop common 10s are altered. Just my opinion.

[Snowman]

I love it when the cucks of the hobby fight over trash cards like these. So funny

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I wouldn't trust cards like this not to be microtrimmed. Even back then, big bucks for getting them into the 10 holder, and no expense to buy them. I am guessing a lot of these very low pop common 10s are altered.

While the nice, sharp Topps 1975 Dave Roberts card priced at $2 at your local card show is most certinly not trimmed. Draw your own conclusions. (Mine would be that the higher the price of the card, the more likely trimming may be part of its "provenance".)

[Peter_Spaeth]

None of it matters -- whether it's trimmed, whether it's deserving of the 10, whether broken out of the slab and laid next to 10 of the same card that used to be 9s you could tell the difference (and I bet you could not). As I say, the flip is now the commodity.