This...got a 9 from PSA?
 

This is a vintage card, not pre-war, but it goes to PSA's whacked out grading standards of late. I've seen so many cards I felt were under-graded (by at least one full point) since the new label and slab went live, seemingly reinforcing the idea that PSA has toughened their standards.

Then I see this, a 1970 Topps Roberto Clemente. They gave it a 9 grade. One of the big boys is selling it, and it looks like it got some very preferential treatment.

PSA 9 '70 Topps Clemente on Ebay

First of all, look at the right edge. The factory cut runs perfectly parallel to the white interior border. Now look at the left border, where the problem, as I see it, exists. If you compare the edge quality to the other three edges, it sticks out like a sore thumb. I know there are rough cuts, but that's not a rough cut. The bottom left corner shows the edge waving slightly. As you move up the border, to the point where the top of Robby's bat barrel intersects with the edge, it becomes very rough, and starts sloping inward.

Some of you guys have more experience with '70 Topps cards, or cards in general from the early 70s. Seems to me to be a pretty clear indication of trimming, and this card shouldn't have received a 9 grade, but an authentic grade.

I agree it's overgraded, but disagree with your assessment of what's wrong. The right edge doesn't look completely parallel to the white border to me. The amount of gray on the right side seems narrower at the bottom and wider at the top, to me. Given that, and the reverse effect on the left side, I would say the card is diamond cut, which is to say the 2 side edges are parallel to each other, but not perpendicular to the top or bottom edges.

You know, Dan, now that I look a little further down on the right edge, I see what you mean. It does seem to slope inward slightly, starting at about the belt level. You really need to look at it in higher resolution to spot it. But the edge quality seems to be maintained consistently, where I look at the left edge, and see something different altogether. The first deviation is at bat level, then there's a second at ear level where it becomes much more pronounced. Could it have been from the factory cut? I suppose so, but my Spidey senses are tingling enough where, where I in the market for a PSA 9 '70 Clemente, I would never buy this one. Be it a trim job, or a factory plate slip up, I just don't see this being anywhere near a 9 grade. The left edge brings it down substantially, and I think the seller got the benefit of the doubt here, big time.

PSA has gotten tougher on centering. A card like this may have been reholdering as the newer holders seem more desirable as folks assume they had a more rigid review. Always a possibility.

Cory

That's another issue I have with their grading methods, Cory. Many cards that qualified for a 9 grade 5 years ago would never get it now. But if somebody can take that card, send it in to be re-holdered, voila, they have a 9 that the card didn't earn on its merits. It's misleading.

Actually an easy way to see that the card, even though the image is ever so slightly oriented on the angle, is parallel, is to notice that it is not straight in the holder. The card is tilted ever so slightly clockwise, which on first glance gives the impression that it may be diamond cut or worse, trimmed.

Is Robotics-based grading far away?

The gap between science fiction and reality is getting shorter all the time.

Not really;)

As much as I dislike PSA, I have no problem with the card being graded a 9. The corners merit a 9 and the only thing I see wrong is a very slight tilt.

Cory did bring up another issue though. On cards that are 'sliders' or over graded, it’s easy to send them back to PSA for a $5 re-holder, then the buyer sees the new flip and thinks they’re getting a card that was newly graded.

As far as robot or machine technology to grade cards, the same people have been saying that for years. I’m not saying that will never happen, but I will say it will never be as good as human grading (as flawed as that is). I look for it to happen right after robots start judging beauty contests :rolleyes:

Here is a better one....
 

Attachment 243435

Note: here is the eBay link:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/MICKEY-MANTL...MAAOSw0fhXmBNg

From the Ebay link you can clearly see some glaring issues! Hint, both bottom corners and the obvious tilt to the card!

Tell me all the things you see wrong with this "freshly graded" card. So much for tougher standards!

This card SCREAMS PSA 7 big time. Unbelievable! :eek:

Peace, Mike

I still think the Clemente is not out of place in a PSA 9 holder, but I agree with you on the Mantle. I, too, was thinking a PSA 7. As mentioned earlier though, this card could have originally been graded 5-10 years ago (or more) and was sent for a re-holder. Can't really say it was 'freshly graded' without knowing for sure. PSA should put the date that it was graded in their certification verification information. It wouldn't be very hard to do at all.

C'mon Mike, this was just one of those 'crack slippers' :rolleyes:
It either slipped through or someone is smoking it.
And what IS that on the right border of the card on the back (the bottom of the holder, but right side orange border of the card itself)?

Good points....
 

David, good point on re-holder, I had not thought of that but it makes sense if it was graded a long time ago.

Taylor, I was thinking the same thing! It almost appears as a hairline crease but no way of telling unless it was "in hand". It is something though and very noticeable!

Thanks!

Mike

PS You need to use Ebay's photo to look close at the 2 bottom corners! Oh my!! :eek:

The more I collect the more I become just as happy with raw cards.

Which would you rather have? $100 Top - $3k Bottom

http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/z...pscqafwe0d.jpghttp://i816.photobucket.com/albums/z...psuacev5no.jpg

$100 top for me

Actually, since the card number is around 25,000,000, it was recently graded. My major concern with the Clemente getting a 9 is actually the back top border has a large blue mark or print defect. It should have gotten a 9(PD), IMO.

Looks like a pen mark (ink) to me?

Personally, my thought is that card was slipped in a 9 holder.

Always a possibility I guess? :confused:

It occurs to me that I have seen the right side of this card before - more than once. I typically see sides (and corners) like this when I have sent in a PSA card for crossover and I get back the dreaded "TRM" Evidence of Trim designation. Both top and bottom corners on the right side appear to almost curve outward - thus the almost perfect "points" to those corners. As I collect SGC - I have become increasingly wary of sending PSA examples to SGC for XOver when they look like this.

Based on the seller and lack of frosting, I don't think the card was switched. Although if I were PSA, I would want to buy the card back and regrade it properly. Since the shade of blue is close to the name box right below it, that's why I was figuring PD rather than MK but it could be either.

There is also a faint mark/spot, either PD or MK, beside "1966" on the back outside border.

You're likely right about it being a PD based on the color of printing ink and also likely right about it not being a switched card based on the lack of frosting, but it sure makes one wonder what PSA were thinking when they graded that card?