Guess the grade?

[irv]

I just received these cards today and although I don't have the experience/knowledge that most do on here, I thought I would put that knowledge/experience to the test.

These cards were slabbed by PSA and that is all I am going to tell you for now. Tell me what grade each card received and why and I will post the full pics with the PSA grade later/tomorrow. (Cards were posted alphabetically by first name)

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

well knowing that doing this by scan is practically impossible and you didn't give us back images I would guess 5,4,6 in the order you posted. Though I am worried about the marks on Smalley's top border and he may actually be a 3 or trimmed!

[irv]

Oops.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

well knowing that doing this by scan is practically impossible and you didn't give us back images I would guess 5,4,6 in the order you posted. Though I am worried about the marks on Smalley's top border and he may actually be a 3 or trimmed!

Backs are all good with no visible marks, stains or anything else I can notice. (There are no qualifiers either, just to be clear)

I am actually surprised by the lack of guesses? Are people afraid they might be wrong or is it something else.

Your guesses are interesting, Scott, and likely close to what I would have guessed as well.

Forgot to add, but didn't want to give out much info, 2 of the cards were recently graded from raw/new submits.

[Stonepony]

4,5,6

[gregr2]

3-4-4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David W]

3,4,5

[111gecko]

4,5,5.5

[bnorth]

4,4,6

[vthobby]

4, 2, 6

Peace, Mike

4, 4, 5

[Vintagevault13]

3, 3, 4

[BearBailey]

5,4,5.

[HawkFan70]

4,5,3

[uniship]

4,2,5.5

[deeg23]

I'm gonna go with 4 - 3 - 5

[irv]

Exactly what I thought.

Most picked the highest graded card as their lowest graded card.
As you can see from the pics, the image is faded/blurry and has scuff marks on the front, and what the scan doesn't show, are the 2-3 indents and a slight indent/scratch as well.

The Silvera is super clear with no such marks on the surface, and only the top right corner brings it down, imo.

The Smalley, which I also pick as the top card is the lowest graded.
Other than that top border, which Scott noted, (which is hardly anything), is, imo, the best looking card with the sharpest corners. My only fault I find with it, is it could be slightly dirty or has off white borders, but it does look like it could be a cream front as well?

The Silvera and Shea were recently submitted raw to PSA according to the seller and the Smalley was submitted some time ago.

I have noticed these differences in grades before, but other than my Kuzava card, I haven't scratched my head like this in a long time.

Thanks for playing along.

[dclarkraiders]

I was in the process of guessing when the actual grades were posted. I was to low on all of them except Smalley which I guessed correctly and Kuzava which I guessed a 5. Giving Kuzava a 3 seems harsh to me.

Thanks for posting

Duane

[radman]

apologies; didn't refresh

[irv]

Originally Posted by dclarkraiders

I was in the process of guessing when the actual grades were posted. I was to low on all of them except Smalley which I guessed correctly and Kuzava which I guessed a 5. Giving Kuzava a 3 seems harsh to me.

Thanks for posting

Duane

Like you can see for yourself, there is no consistency when it comes to grading.
I also believed, as I have noted it many times, that newer graded cards are graded much harsher than older ones, but that is definitely not the case here.

Reading about the grading fees, the the lack of consistency, and all the other issues with TPG's has really disheartened me lately and has me thinking I'll likely never send mine in to get slabbed?

I mean, I have been trying to learn/educate myself since joining to see where my cards, especially my more valuable ones, might grade at, but I am not, especially now, in a hurry to do so.

If I could get the TPG who graded my Shea card, and if he was in the same more forgiving mood, then I might consider it, but knowing I could also get the opposite, non consistent result, then it would be a waste of money and time, imo.

I honestly can't see paying $700, or what the fee is, for my Mantle knowing it is just going to be placed in a PS-1 slab when I know I would pay a lot less for one of my commons that will, in all likelihood, grade much higher.

Just my opinion, nothing else.

[jchcollins]

This thread again echoes the themes of many that I have seen or commented on in the past year or so. While I think there is a point to professional grading or at least trusting the big 3 TPG's to an extent when buying cards sight-unseen, there is still more than ample proof on what a subjective endeavor any kind of grading is, and how discrepancies still exist all over the map. PSA for example as many others have pointed out, today grades many cards 3's and 4's that would have been at least a 5 ten or fifteen years ago, and then...some not still. Dingy 5's and 3's that look more like 6's are still not uncommon.

My own advice to collectors if you are like me and go typically for the mid-grade stuff, is go study some of the older books, Becketts and Sport Americanas and SCDs, etc. on their grading scales back in the 1980's or even earlier. Sure it's still very subjective, but the key is making peace with that subjectivity and what it means / how much it matters for you as a collector. There are certain aspects to grading that should be automatics, or "givens": A card that is O/C 90-10 is not Mint, a card that has a major crease and not a barely perceptible wrinkle is not Excellent, etc. But for other areas of grading, the subjectivity is impossible to totally get rid of. Corner wear for example, is still a very subjective aspect of grading. Say a card is perfect in terms of centering and surface, and the only defect noticeable is corner wear. At what point does an EX card get downgraded to VG-EX or even VG or worse? This still varies widely in my experience from collector to collector and certainly from professional grader to professional grader. Does a card get downgraded more severely if it has one corner that is more noticeably worn than the others, simply because cards with even wear on all four corners are more pleasing to the eye? This kind of thing isn't even addressed by TPG guidelines that can be found online, so far as I know. PSA provides pictures representative of the grade (they are all '52 #311's, of course...) to show the progression in eye appeal as based on the grade, but there are not really super-specific details about levels of corner wear in the fine print. Once you get below about EX in any case, the descriptions on allowable corner wear are very high-level and leave a lot up to the person doing the grading to interpret. What does "significant" rounding of the corners mean to you? Does it mean they are ugly when held at an arm's length? A foot away from your eye? Under a loupe and extra magnification? I started collecting "old" cards in the late '80's and for a lot of those years I never even saw 1950's cards that did not have some degree of corner wear. Most of the supply even of stars and HOFer's in glass display cases at the LCS back then were not PSA 8 or higher quality cards. They were mid or lower grade and appreciated more for what they were, IMO. This vs. the trend today that led to a slogan - where more people are concerned about the grade on a flip than the actual card in the case.

At the end of the day, keep studying TPG cards, but I think that more collectors should learn how to grade for themselves and form their own standards as based on reasonable variations of the accepted ones. I know for me in my mind the difference between EX and VG just based on corner wear, but since I understand how variable and inconsistent this is - I try to take into account other things when looking at cards for sale in person or online. "Oh this guy is calling this card EX, and I can see why he might think that, but for me the corners would be only a 4 at most..." then reason if the price matches my standard for grading more, or the seller's. While I do prefer to buy graded cards online if they are more than a couple of bucks and I cannot hold them in my hands first, I will buy raw cards from online sellers with good reputations if I can get a decent scan and at least some insight into how they graded the item - even in certain cases when I do not agree with their final assessment of grade.

Thanks because I like posts like this. Guessing TPG results is as good of a parlor game as anything else, I guess. Just FYI I would have been way wrong on my guesses here as well. Nice '52s.

-John

[irv]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Thanks because I like posts like this. Guessing TPG results is as good of a parlor game as anything else, I guess. Just FYI I would have been way wrong on my guesses here as well. Nice '52s.

-John

Well said.

And thank-you!

[quitcrab]

3,4,5
Scott

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I had the Shea lower because I thought it had surface damage, again the problems of doing this by scan. pretty happy with my grades considering the handicaps of doing it this way.

[irv]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

4, 2, 6

Peace, Mike

Originally Posted by uniship

4,2,5.5

Originally Posted by deeg23

I'm gonna go with 4 - 3 - 5

From what I have learned/seen since joining this site, I, if it were me guessing, would have picked around these grades as well.

Originally Posted by dclarkraiders

I was in the process of guessing when the actual grades were posted. I was to low on all of them except Smalley which I guessed correctly and Kuzava which I guessed a 5. Giving Kuzava a 3 seems harsh to me.

Thanks for posting

Duane

I agree, the Kuzava looks much nicer in hand, and when I received, I couldn't figure out the grading with this one? I purchased it already graded so it was win for me. (Better pic below)

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I had the Shea lower because I thought it had surface damage, again the problems of doing this by scan. pretty happy with my grades considering the handicaps of doing it this way.

It does, Scott. Those marks you see are scuffs and like I mentioned, it has clear dents/marks in 3 places that you can't see in the scan. This card was generously graded, and then some!

I also liked your guesses. Like I mentioned earlier, mine would have been very close as well if these weren't my cards.

[Neal]

3, 4, 4.5