PSA Miscuts and Consistency

glynparson · #1 03-26-2011, 09:16 PM

Qualifiers should not be excusable, in exchange for a 2 grade downgrade (usually sometimes its harsher than 2 grades). Without a peak i wouldn't bet the centering is outside the standards. It is surprising what they actually measure sometimes. I agree it looks pretty off though, should not be an mc though. I don't get your statement of why it would have to be miscut front and back to get a miscut qualifier? A card doesn't need to be written on front and back to get an mk qualifier. Obviously a card with a perfect front and miscut back will have more value than the other way around. What's wrong with that? All cards with the same grade should not have the exact same value. You are making an eye appeal vs technical grade mistake that i often see when people are complaining about third party grading.

mintacular · #2 03-26-2011, 09:30 PM

All cards with the same grade should not have the exact same value.

This is where we part ways....I thought the purpose of TPGs was to quantify a cards' condition...Assuming you are not a purist, any dummy off the street should be able to buy a PSA 6 Clemente cards and expect something within the range of what that card looks like not the possibility of a badly o/c with sharp corners or well-centered card with corner wear...

The ideal TPG would have several dozen characteristics (including a differentiation between a miscut front and back) crunch those #'s and out spurts a grade....Currently, you have otherwise perfect cards with a slight speck of paper loss get a PSA 1 and also that same card run over by a Mac Truck etc with the same PSA 1 grade. While it is fun to buy and exploit that loophole I thought the point of TPGs was to quantify "eye appeal"

lentel · #3 03-26-2011, 10:27 PM

If with a t205 if the front in centered but the back of off center to the point where the left border is missing would that get an oc or a regular non qualifier grade? Would t cards be looked at different than something more recent?

glynparson · #4 03-27-2011, 06:57 AM

Than you were mistaken with the intent of third party grading. There is a difference between eye appeal and technical grade. This is a mistake made by many people. A flaw on a card that at first glance looks perfect is still a flaw, even if it is hard to detect. These are the kinds of cards I usually collect. They offer a nice looking card at a lower level, though they usually cost more than a card in the same grade range with worse eye appeal.
Your grading criteria would be impossible unless a card was graded for each specific category centering, corners, gloss, registration, etc. This would make the cost of grading substantially more along with being confusing as hell and we still wouldn't be able to put a final grade on a card because you want the exact same centering for every card in a grade. It is a buyers responsibility to ask question or ask for scans to see if the card is a 6 because of centering or wear or something else. Than a buyer needs to determine if he is willing to pay more less or the same as what the card usually brings. Third party grading was never intended to completely replace personal preference.

vintagetoppsguy · #5 03-27-2011, 12:53 PM

I think the term "miscut" is often misused. The Robinson is not a miscut. It is a misprint. The term miscut implies that the card was cut wrong. In the case of the Robinson, how could it have been cut better so that it wouldn't be a miscut? It couldn't have, because it is a misprint. In other words, the front print does not align with the back print. The front is centered 80/20 (ballpark guess) and the back is centered 100/0 - not a cutting flaw, but a printing flaw.

The term miscut should only refer to cards with mistakes in the cutting process such as diamond cut cards, wavy borders, etc. – not a mistake in the printing process.

The Robinson should have received either a PD or OC qualifier, not a MC qualifier. Just another example of PSA's incompetence.

glynparson · #6 03-27-2011, 05:54 PM

Since I have been collecting (1979) miscut has been used to describe the types you mentioned as well as card that have centering worse than 100-0. I agree from a gramatical point you are correct, however that is hobby terminology I have heard since i was a little boy. I wouldn't blame PSA for this any more than I blame them for the GEM Mint grade. In fact there are many truly miscut cards that they just flat out refuse to holder I would suppose it's because they often wouldn't fit in the holders.

ValKehl · #7 03-27-2011, 06:29 PM

Hi Glyn - I realize that you are right when you say that "there is a difference between eye appeal and technical grade," and this is what bugs me about TPG. IMO, these 2 cards illustrate this difference - I think this Matty should grade at least as high as this WaJo; but even though I think the Matty has greater eye appeal, it apparently has more technical faults.

For a card that is in lower grade (less than EX) (almost all of my vintage collection), all I want from a TPG is a slab and to know whether my card is both authentic and unaltered, or not.
Val