PSA submission advice about "marked" card

[jh691626]

Hi all--

I was hoping to gather the collective wisdom of the group on a weird PSA submission question.

In 1972, the country Manama (now Bahrain) made a stamp of Pele that is a large and very nice product. A few of these have previously been authenticated and graded by PSA.

I have a few of these. One does not have a postmark. The others have postmarks but are in nice shape. Please see photos.

Here is my question: will the ones with postmarks receive a MK designation? Or will they just grade it as usual? I was planning to try to ask PSA but thought someone on here might know immediately.

Thank you for any thoughts! Jeff

[raulus]

As far as I'm aware, they will give you a qualifier.

It's always worked that way for me with similar situations. Can't imagine this one will be any different.

Edited to add: I know that PSA is trying to get away from qualifiers these days, and I think they've cut down on them a lot. So it's possible they might just give you a "1" or "Authentic". But my recollection is that marks are the one area where they have retained qualifiers. So I suspect you'll get a number grade, plus the MK qualifier. Unless it's in really terrible shape, in which case you might get PSA 1 MK, or just plain Authentic.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by raulus

Edited to add: I know that PSA is trying to get away from qualifiers these days, and I think they've cut down on them a lot.

Really? My understanding is that it's been just the opposite...

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Really? My understanding is that it's been just the opposite...

Well, they announced a change.

https://blog.psacard.com/2021/06/24/...lifier-policy/

"Characteristics such as Centering, Staining, Print Defects and Focus will typically impact the numerical grade rather than carrying a qualifier. The qualifiers will be used infrequently and at the discretion of the grading staff when they feel it’s in the card’s best interest to apply a qualifier."

But I suppose it's possible that any given submitter's experience may vary from the announced policy.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by raulus

Well, they announced a change.

https://blog.psacard.com/2021/06/24/...lifier-policy/

"Characteristics such as Centering, Staining, Print Defects and Focus will typically impact the numerical grade rather than carrying a qualifier. The qualifiers will be used infrequently and at the discretion of the grading staff when they feel it’s in the card’s best interest to apply a qualifier."

But I suppose it's possible that any given submitter's experience may vary from the announced policy.

I remember that - my sense was that by eliminating the "no qualifiers" request, they would be proliferating the numbers of cards with qualifiers. Anecdotally it seems to me that that's happened, but maybe some members have tracked that and actually have some data? That would be interesting to see.

[steve B]

This is a case where PSA is clueless.

The unmarked ones are obvious, but many countries, especially places like this make a lot of money selling stamps to collectors. In most cases, the "cancelled" stamps will have full gum on the reverse, and have never been on a piece of mail. They're what's called cancelled to order. If you know how, you can buy thousands at a time all "cancelled". Sometimes the "cancel" is actually printed on as part of the design.

Something presented as issued shouldn't be stuck with a modifier or downgraded for something that was there from the beginning.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I remember that - my sense was that by eliminating the "no qualifiers" request, they would be proliferating the numbers of cards with qualifiers. Anecdotally it seems to me that that's happened, but maybe some members have tracked that and actually have some data? That would be interesting to see.

Interesting theory, and I concur that absent the countervailing announcement, I agree that we would see more qualifiers, and not fewer.

But if I'm reading it correctly, the impetus behind no longer allowing "no qualifiers" requests was a general shift in the policy around qualifiers, to use them very sparingly. In effect, it was no longer really necessary to request "no qualifiers", because that feature comes standard, more or less.

Although I suppose we can always debate what constitutes "in the best interests of the card" when it comes to when PSA actually does decide to apply a qualifier. As far as I'm aware, cards don't really have best interests. But maybe I just haven't gotten into the game with anthropomorphizing my cards.

[jh691626]

Thank you so much (they do seem like "pre-printed" postmarks with no sign of actual use, as discussed) to everyone for all of your thoughts! Jeff

[JamesGallo]

I just got a 1915 Cracker Jack card graded PSA 1 MK. I always find it silly that they even bother to put that qualifier on a PSA 1 card. That being said it was my understanding that they were going to phase them out.

James G

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

I just got a 1915 Cracker Jack card graded PSA 1 MK. I always find it silly that they even bother to put that qualifier on a PSA 1 card. That being said it was my understanding that they were going to phase them out.

James G

I understand qualifiers on manufacturing imperfections like PD, OC, MC. Never understood the logic for MK or ST that denote after production damage just like a crease or corner wear. It’s always funny on a 1 where it’s doubly absurd.