Just another reason why PSA SUCKS!

[VinTX]

Originally Posted by mintacular

Wow, that is amazing. Seems like they averaged things, ie. centering 8, surface 8, edges 8, corners 1 = VGEX 4?

this is atleast plausible... I know Beckett uses a system similar to this when grading cards.

[buckydent]

The image for the back of the card, makes the card look trimmed down the side. Look at the left side of the back image posted, and then compare to the right side up against the case. It has a left to right slant.

[T205]

Originally Posted by buckydent

The image for the back of the card, makes the card look trimmed down the side. Look at the left side of the back image posted, and then compare to the right side up against the case. It has a left to right slant.

Another possibility is that the back has a slight diamond cut so it makes it look like it has been trimmed. If I were a gambling man, I would place all my money on reconstructed corners. JMHO.

[steve B]

Or on corners that had been rolled and trimmed back to sharp.

I think vacuum is used as part of the encapsulating? If they wet the corners to help roll them out and not allowed enough time to dry- Or left it damp purposely so the thinner corner would be thicker- I can see the bit of vacuum forcing the residual dampness out and doing that damage.

All of which could also happen with rebuilt corners.

Still not the best advertisement for PSA.

Steve B

[cwazzy]

That sucks but it is what it is. Every grading company makes mistakes. I saw an SGC graded T206 common that had a Ty Cobb "ghost image" on the back that had been put on with an ink jet printer. This had a numeric grade and not just authentic with an altered designation. So it's not just PSA that misses them although their errors seem to get pointed out the most.

[fkw]

How do you put a T206 card through an inkjet printer?

[cwazzy]

I honestly have no idea. But apparently there are certain printers that can handle it.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Getting back to the 1952 Topps card in question, all I can say is "WOW!"

The way those diagonal cuts/tears are sized seems too coincidental to be random damage. It appears, in my opinion, they just don't make those paper restoration goops like they used to. In short, in my opinion, it shouldn't even be a 1 or a 2 but "not-holdered" or "authentic".

[dessertstormveteran]

When I first looked @ the card it didn't look that bad.... nice eye appeal overall though

[campyfan39]

Do the math. They only spend 45 seconds per card. Grading sux!

[k-dog]

Originally Posted by VinTX

this is atleast plausible... I know Beckett uses a system similar to this when grading cards.

Beckett's system is not an average. I used to think the same thing until I got some clarification from them. The truth is...if you have 8 / 8 / 8 / 1......the final grade can not be higher than one half point step above the lowest subgrade. In this case it would have to be graded 1.5 under Beckett rules.

[bsuttonosu]

Originally Posted by k-dog

Beckett's system is not an average. I used to think the same thing until I got some clarification from them. The truth is...if you have 8 / 8 / 8 / 1......the final grade can not be higher than one half point step above the lowest subgrade. In this case it would have to be graded 1.5 under Beckett rules.

Is this a new change? I thought it was 2 grades higher than the lowest subgrade? So in your example it would be a 3.

Either way, I agree, it's not an average. But I still like seeing the subgrades and wish the others would provide that detail.