Are PSA qualifiers really that terrible?

[bosoxphan]

The oc qualifier isnt the same across all grades. For example the centering has to be 65/35 or better in a PSA 9 card but only has to be 80/20 or better for a PSA 6 card. Hence why you'll see a PSA 9 and a PSA 6 or 7 with similar centering but the 9 has an oc qualifier and the 6 or 7 doesnt.

[leaflover]

If it wasn't for the "Kiss of Death" I would not be able to have these 3 cards as part of my collection.

[CMIZ5290]

John- do you own those t206s? If so, are any of them available?

[vintagecpa]

From my experience, the 1954 Topps set has horrible grading consistency when it comes to OC. I agree that I'd simply prefer the grading companies to reduce the numerical grade if there is a qualifier.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by vintagecpa

From my experience, the 1954 Topps set has horrible grading consistency when it comes to OC. I agree that I'd simply prefer the grading companies to reduce the numerical grade if there is a qualifier.

Because of the way the 1954s were printed, with the color running off the top, it's difficult to tell which are OC and which aren't. Hell, they all look OC to me.

[CMIZ5290]

I really love high grade t206s with qualifiers, wish i could find more!

[DanP]

Originally Posted by leaflover

If it wasn't for the "Kiss of Death" I would not be able to have these 3 cards as part of my collection.

Mike, that Aaron is a beautiful card. If you paid PSA 6 pricing on that card you got a steal. OC is misleading sometimes, in the case of your Aaron card that fact that it is a little OC wouldn't bother me. For some other cards it does really bothers me.

As far as "MC", if it's mis-cut how can the card be the same size as the others? Shouldn't it be "MP" for mis-print? Were they really cut wrong?

Most qualifiers don't bother me, I'll admit for the most cards starting around 1933 I'll try and get a better centered card. Before that I'll take what I can get!

Dan

[Section103]

This is just my opinion, but I hate qualifiers as a concept. To me, a qualifier says "this card would be a X, if not for the specified defect". Thats fine and all, but within a fraction of a second, my brain starts thinking "Thats great, but a grading company should issue a grade!" Granted, the 2 grades down is a decent rule of thumb, but I hate it. Give it an overall grade and live with it. I realize in some ways it provides "more information" to buyers and owners, but I never get the thought of "You still havent assigned a grade to this card" out of my mind." I'd still consider buying a qualified card, but I promise I'd crack it out and resubmit every single time.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by Section103

This is just my opinion, but I hate qualifiers as a concept. To me, a qualifier says "this card would be a X, if not for the specified defect". Thats fine and all, but within a fraction of a second, my brain starts thinking "Thats great, but a grading company should issue a grade!" Granted, the 2 grades down is a decent rule of thumb, but I hate it. Give it an overall grade and live with it. I realize in some ways it provides "more information" to buyers and owners, but I never get the thought of "You still havent assigned a grade to this card" out of my mind." I'd still consider buying a qualified card, but I promise I'd crack it out and resubmit every single time.

I still believe that if PSA were starting their business today they would not use qualifiers. They'd do just what SGC does and consider the "qualifiers" in the final grade. Or maybe not, maybe they would add more qualifiers like: "SC" Soft corners, "DE" Dents, "SS" Surface Scuffs", etc.
Dan

[Section103]

Originally Posted by DanP

I still believe that if PSA were starting their business today they would not use qualifiers. They'd do just what SGC does and consider the "qualifiers" in the final grade. Or maybe not, maybe they would add more qualifiers like: "SC" Soft corners, "DE" Dents, "SS" Surface Scuffs", etc.
Dan

My T206 Cy Young Portrait was a 10! With qualifiers for rounded corners, creases, stains and print defects.

[sreader3]

I agree with Rich V. I do not like the qualifier system. A "qualifier" is nothing but a defect in a card. Thus, the card should be downgraded according to the severity of the defect. If you are going to have a qualifier system, why not have a crease (CR) qualifier or a corners (CO) qualifier? Are these defects fundamentally different than, for example, a centering defect (OC, MC)?

I will go a step further. I don't think cards that are trimmed should be rejected for "evidence of trimming." Instead, a card should be downgraded according to the severity of the trim. Perhaps two grades for a minor trim and four grades for a severe trim. I personally would prefer a sharp looking EX-MT card with a minor trim that cannot be detected with the naked eye than VG card with rounded corners and creasing. Yet due to TPG's refusal to assign a numeric grade to the former, the latter is considered more valuable.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by bosoxphan

The oc qualifier isnt the same across all grades. For example the centering has to be 65/35 or better in a PSA 9 card but only has to be 80/20 or better for a PSA 6 card. Hence why you'll see a PSA 9 and a PSA 6 or 7 with similar centering but the 9 has an oc qualifier and the 6 or 7 doesnt.

Exactly. Basically that 9oc without the qualifier would be a 7 or worse(keep in mind the "or worse") because of the centering. Basically the centering would drag it down that far despite every other factor displaying MINT. Had that card not received the qualifier, I would suspect that if the centering fell into the 7 window, it would probably come back as a 7.5 because all other aspects were so high. Apply the half grade for whatever grade the centering would fall into.

For those with registries, I'd suggest checking your OC cards to see how low they would fall unqualified. You may get a half point back, rather than take the automatic 2 point hit.

This is all just in theory though. I don't know how PSA would actually handle this.