Luckiest 9 ever?
 

Attachment 618200

9 no qualifier? And we all whine how much harder the grading at PSA has become?

If someone didn't 'rework' the image to fool us, then it is clearly a mistake made by PSA. There's really no other explanation.

It is on eBay
 

Greg Morris Graded auction ending 4-17.

Wow. What’s the stated minimum centering for a 9? 70/30?

This seems closer to 90/10.

Well, luckily there's a big giant picture for everybody to see before they bid on it.

If somebody pays a "9" price for that card (whatever that might be)...well...it's on them.

They actually have an "8" up of that card also, that looks much nicer then that "9". Both the front and back.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/32608762957...Bk9SR6S7uqfcYw

I hear high end mid series 1965 commons are quite the craze these days.

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...hmentid=618200
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...A%209%20oc.jpg
Potayto, potahto...

I’m guessing a submission from someone with “clout”

Some of us do collect the '65 Topps baseball set on the Registry
 

Only 36 diff sets on the registry current finest at 80% +......

Maybe they meant 6 and typed it upside down :p

ugh
 

If it is not altered it is a 5 at best. So bad.

I do wonder if this was just a transcribing error somewhere along the way. It's happened to me in other situations before. The grader in this case might have thought 9OC, but then forgotten to write down the OC part, or else someone didn't input it correctly into the label maker?

“John Galt I know but

who is Gary Kolb?”

said I shruggingly.:D

For sure that would be a 9OC or MC if I submitted that. I understand people can do whatever they want with their money, presumably for the Registry, but I wouldn't buy that (though I'd also be happy/ surprised if this were mine).