Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[hcv123]

#4 and #8. I'm gonna pick #4

[jchcollins]

I am going to guess #7, but again could be any of them. Classic PSA randomness. I am going to guess that whichever one it is is an older slab.

[JollyElm]

And the very puzzling winner/loser is...



As Shaggy would say, "Yoinks!!!!"

[NiceDocter]

This may have been addressed here before but I am still a novice at the graded card game. I have seen a lot of cards that are pretty decently centered on the front but not at all on the back...... couldn’t this account for some of these grades or is that not the way they operate?

[Hxcmilkshake]

Let's see if I can make it 2 in a row....4!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[deweyinthehall]

I haven't gotten one of these right yet, so like George Costanza I'm going to dp the opposite, go against my instincts and pick not the one which appears most OC to me, but the one that appears the least. I'm going with #8...Serenity Now!!

[GasHouseGang]

I haven't gotten one either. I'll guess #7. But it never seems to be based on what the card actually looks like!

[JollyElm]

I gotta say, it's a little depressing that more people aren't participating in this thread. Oh well, what can you do.

The winner/loser (by a mere hair??) is good ole contestant number 1...



No discernible tilt and pretty acceptable side-to-side centering for a tough HOF'er high number, so I'll take it!

[JollyElm]

For my money, this is one of the best cards of the 70's. A horizontal layout with the crowd wonderfully blurred in the background (Dave Kingman has a similar looking card), coupled with the fact that the hairy-armed Garvey captured the MVP award that year, makes it a quintessential piece of 1974 cardboard. With apologies to Billy Crystal, let's call tonight's episode You Look Garv-uh-lous...

(These cards were randomly placed in three rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)


Pictured here is a sextet of 1974 Topps Steve Garvey cards. Each one of them has been graded as a straight PSA 9, except one - only one - which was deemed PSA 9 OC. In looking at the entire group, they all seem perfectly fine for those of us in the non-OCD crowd. Really marvelous. None jump out as OFF CENTER!!!!!!

So, which one got the OC qualifier?

(The top row contains cards #1 and 2, the second row 3 and 4 and the bottom row has cards 5 and 6.)



(On a side note, the average price of the five straight PSA 9's pictured here is almost six times as much as what the one with the OC on the label cost. Six times as much!!! Truly stunning.)

[Gorditadogg]

#4 is off center obviously. The others are fine.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I should stumble across the right one sometime. I'll guess #2.

[Hxcmilkshake]

4!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

I guess sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Number 4 is the winner/loser...




But the good news is it only cost me $36, so I jumped at it. The cards pictured sold for (in no particular order) $203.15, $171.50, $190.01, $151.50, and $305.00, so I'm quite happy to have the 'cheap' one.

Here's what it looks like in hand, by its lonesome. Beautiful. Although technically accurate for the grade, what pack-opening baseball card collector would ever immediately describe it as off-center??

1974garvey575inhand.jpg

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I guess sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Number 4 is the winner/loser...




But the good news is it only cost me $36, so I jumped at it. The cards pictured sold for (in no particular order) $203.15, $171.50, $190.01, $151.50, and $305.00, so I'm quite happy to have the 'cheap' one.

Here's what it looks like in hand, by its lonesome. Beautiful. Although technically accurate for the grade, what pack-opening baseball card collector would ever immediately describe it as off-center??

Attachment 416669

You're absolutely right. No one would describe that as OC. I'm going to only have OC's in my 1974 set if that's the standard.

[Gorditadogg]

That was a nice pickup for $36, Jolly. I came in late to this thread, what do we win for guessing right?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

That was a nice pickup for $36, Jolly. I came in late to this thread, what do we win for guessing right?

You get a jar full of angry wasps...with an ill fitted lid.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

You get a jar full of angry wasps...with an ill fitted lid.

Haha, I will let it ride- double or nothing on the next one.

[Oscar_Stanage]

What a great thread!
I was not able to guess any of the pictures correctly, lol.

I would not buy a slabbed card with a qualifier unless i planned to remove it. It seems silly, but I just don't want a special designation, even though it's only optics.

the best advice i have gotten withe respect to TPG is to "buy the card, not the grade". So if the market gives me a discount because of what is stamped (arbitrarily) on a label, then so be it! I primarily buy raw cards, saves me from all the hassle.

[JollyElm]

It's time for another episode of everyone's favorite game show. Let's call this one Ep, Ep and Away...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here are eight different 1972 Topps #715 Mike Epstein cards, a tough high number that is notorious for it's image virtually always floating up towards the top border with the result being an excess amount of white at the bottom. Each and every one of them here has that very same (nearly identical) deviation. All have been graded as either a straight PSA 8 or a straight PSA 9, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier. Which one is it?

Which card got the Mike drop??



(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

Put down the cranberry sauce and make your choice!!

[Hxcmilkshake]

This one is particularly brutal. I'll say #8

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

So Jolly, I am not well versed on the 72s. What is ideal top to bottom centering? Should the distance from the top of the card to the top of the arch match the distance from the bottom of the name box to the bottom of the card?

In any event the best centering is on card #4.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

So Jolly, I am not well versed on the 72s. What is ideal top to bottom centering? Should the distance from the top of the card to the top of the arch match the distance from the bottom of the name box to the bottom of the card?

Sorry, missed your question. I imagine what you described is probably how they do measure it, but visually speaking, I personally prefer it to have a touch more room at top than at the bottom.

[JollyElm]

It's time for another episode, so let's call this one Ryan's Nope...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here are eight different 1974 Topps #20 Nolan Ryans, one of history's finest looking baseball cards. Every one of them has at least one side that's pretty close to the border, so if one is deemed to be off-centered, then all of them must be, right? NOPE!! Each has been graded as a straight PSA 8, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier thrown at it. Which one is it?

Which card got beaned by a fastball??



(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

[jchcollins]

I'll guess #7.

[Kutcher55]

#7 would be my guess as well. btw, no offense, but you can't have "1974 Topps" and "one of history's finest looking baseball cards" in the same sentence. Although I do agree it's a great photo of the Ryan Express.

[Gorditadogg]

Oh the OC is #5.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

Well, crap, Jolly. I am not really interested in that jar of bees you've been saving for me. I will feel I'm a winner though if you will answer the question I posed to you earlier in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Hxcmilkshake]

7 for me Dog!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Kutcher55]

Curious what's up with #8 on that group of '74 Ryans. The color makes it look almost like a variation. Is that just a matter of photo lighting or is there something more to it?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Curious what's up with #8 on that group of '74 Ryans. The color makes it look almost like a variation. Is that just a matter of photo lighting or is there something more to it?

These are all just screengrabs, so it's probably nothing but the lighting involved with the original picture or scan.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Curious what's up with #8 on that group of '74 Ryans. The color makes it look almost like a variation. Is that just a matter of photo lighting or is there something more to it?

Would agree with Jolly it's probably just the lighting in the pic, but I will say 70's cards can have some funky color variations. Not this one, but the '76 Ryan - I've had at least 3 of in the past year - and the color has not been the same on any of them. One was darker, one was lighter - one had way better focus. I think the decade of the 1970's was probably Topps' worst effort as far as overall quality control. They were literally all over the place.

[JollyElm]

And the winner/loser is lucky/unlucky #3...



I know it's an old label and all, but it looks like the only one with the O/C designation is perhaps the best centered of all eight cards. At first glance it is clearly better centered than four of them. And take a look at the closest point any part of the image comes to the very edge of the card in each of the pictures. Arguably, the space on #3 is the widest.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And the winner/loser is lucky/unlucky #3...







I know it's an old label and all, but it looks like the only one with the O/C designation is perhaps the best centered of all eight cards. At first glance it is clearly better centered than four of them. And take a look at the closest point any part of the image comes to the very edge of the card in each of the pictures. Arguably, the space on #3 is the widest.

Smh!!!! Is the back oc? Maybe the grader actually flipped the card over??

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

That’s ridiculous!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Fastball...or Passed Ball??

Here is a little something that goes to the heart of the matter, the reason why I started this thread in the first place. The strangeness involved with 'straight' versus 'qualified' grades.

Here are four randomized 1968 Topps #177 Nolan Ryan rookie cards. The grades are PSA 4, PSA 5, PSA 6, and PSA 7 OC. The corners make it pretty obvious which one is the 4, but the other three have the same type of centering top to bottom, and are very, very similar side to side, with one of them being just a hair better. They are all unquestionably off-centered to anyone's eye (regardless of PSA's self-imposed guidelines for each separate grade)...



So, although the trio of cards are very comparable to each other, the straight 5 and 6 would most likely sell for a cr*pload more, simply because they don't have a qualifier ("Oh, the horror!!!") on the label.

This isn't a contest or anything, but for the heck of it, based on a close examination of corners, centering, and whatever else is important to you ('eye appeal' is a tough factor here, because the four scans were cobbled together and may or may not be truly accurate), which of these four cards would you be most happy with?? Or how would you rank them best to worst? Or just make random comments about whatever you want.

(The top row contains cards #1 and 2, bottom row has cards #3 and 4.)

[Harliduck]

I'd go 2, 1, 3, 4...probably no surprise from me based on the Ryans I posted...corners mean the most to me. I'd be happy as hell with ANY of them...


These and the 74 Ryans yours? Cool just to see that many together...

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I'd go 2, 1, 3, 4...probably no surprise from me based on the Ryans I posted...corners mean the most to me. I'd be happy as hell with ANY of them...


These and the 74 Ryans yours? Cool just to see that many together...

Actually, none of those 1974 Ryan are mine. I believe I have a total of three PSA 9 1974 Ryans, two are OC and one is a (snowy) PD, but all look pretty frickin' nice.

[Gorditadogg]

I would go 4, 2, 1, 3. I would guess 2 is the 7OC and 4 is the 6.

I don't think I'd be happy with any of those cards in my collection but 4 has more room on the right edge so that would be my first choice. 68s look terrible with corner wear so 3 is out. 2 has the best focus so that one has some appeal as my 2d choice.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I would go 4, 2, 1, 3. I would guess 2 is the 7OC and 4 is the 6.

I don't think I'd be happy with any of those cards in my collection but 4 has more room on the right edge so that would be my first choice. 68s look terrible with corner wear so 3 is out. 2 has the best focus so that one has some appeal as my 2d choice.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Agree 100%

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Triple Threat??

This is just a random posting, but what we have here are three very similar 1969 Topps Roberto Clemente #50 cards with nice side-to-side centering, and one side (top or bottom) a little (too?) close to the border for some collectors' tastes.

(For background info, this card is usually found off-centered, but it is 'always' with regard to left-to-right, not top-to-bottom, centering.)

But here's the interesting part:

• One of them sold for $3,674.40 (which would amount to just about $4,000 with 8.5% tax and shipping added).

• One of them sold for $3,360.00 (which would amount to just about $3,660 with 8.5% tax and shipping added).

• And one of them cost less than $250 total (including tax and shipping).




Would you pay way over ten times as much for a card that may only be a hair better in the centering department...because it has a straight grade without a qualifier???

[ASF123]

Or, you could pay about $25 for this one like I did. But hey, you do you!

EDIT: And HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN EVEN WHEN I ROTATE THE PHOTO 90 DEGREES BEFORE SAVING IT TO UPLOAD???

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by ASF123

Or, you could pay about $25 for this one like I did. But hey, you do you!

EDIT: And HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN EVEN WHEN I ROTATE THE PHOTO 90 DEGREES BEFORE SAVING IT TO UPLOAD???

Frickin' beautiful. Bob's your uncle!!!

[Hxcmilkshake]

No. I go for best eye appeal within my budget

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

That makes no sense at all. Card 1 and 2 are virtually identical and card 3 looks better than the other 2. I think all you can do is trust the grading companies and buy the holder.*

*sarcasm

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[irv]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Triple Threat??

This is just a random posting, but what we have here are three very similar 1969 Topps Roberto Clemente #50 cards with nice side-to-side centering, and one side (top or bottom) a little (too?) close to the border for some collectors' tastes.

Would you pay way over ten times as much for a card that may only be a hair better in the centering department...because it has a straight grade without a qualifier???

It could just be the scan but the 3rd one, or the far right one, looks a tad blurry to me. Is that what is referred to as registration?

Originally Posted by ASF123

Or, you could pay about $25 for this one like I did. But hey, you do you!

EDIT: And HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN EVEN WHEN I ROTATE THE PHOTO 90 DEGREES BEFORE SAVING IT TO UPLOAD???

Trying do a full rotation then saving it or a slight crop then saving it or if the scan always turns out like the one above, safe it with it leaning to the right to see if it uploads correctly?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by irv

It could just be the scan but the 3rd one, or the far right one, looks a tad blurry to me. Is that what is referred to as registration?

Yeah, without knowing too much, we could refer to that as having problems with the registration, but all three of the images are only screenshots, so it could simply be a result of the seller's scanner (and the lack of a CCD element, to be specific) causing the blur. There isn't enough info available to make a determination.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

That makes no sense at all. Card 1 and 2 are virtually identical and card 3 looks better than the other 2. I think all you can do is trust the grading companies and buy the holder.*

*sarcasm

I should have included this in my Clemente post...

275. Slimperceptible (also Scantily Bad)
A card whose centering is only a mere hair worse than another virtually identical card, but unlike that one, it gets a dreaded OC qualifier on the label.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I should have included this in my Clemente post...



275. Slimperceptible (also Scantily Bad)

.

Yeah, I assume it's the PSA card that got the OC. Still ridiculous the $$ difference between the two. They are basically the same card.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Yuppers, that's why I jumped at the middle one. This card is usually OC side to side, so seeing one centered that way with just a slight hitch in the top-to-bottom department made my eyes light up. Sharp as heck corners with a clear-as-day image. Like you said, it is virtually identical to the nearly $4,000 card on the left. Remarkable...



In this crazy market, it's important to make 'elevator grabs' of these all-time greats when the opportunities present themselves.

[JollyElm]

I'll just put this here. With only the tiniest bit of difference in the top-to-bottom and side-to-side centering, the card on the bottom sold for just about eighteen times as much as the card on top. Eighteen times as much!! Were these cards not slabbed, 99.99% of us would've looked upon them as essentially being the same exact card, but once PSA deems one 'OC,' the perceived value plummets.

1970nolanryan197comp.jpg

There's a happy ending, however, as I immediately jumped on and bought the top card the moment I saw it listed!!!