Here is a nicely centered 4

https://i.postimg.cc/k4hBjDHY/20190111-133928.jpg

Can't believe this card is just a PSA 5. Not complaining as I got it for a very good price and it looks mint to me.

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...ench-opc-psa-5

Wow...

Which would you take? You tell me...my card is the straight 5.

Or this? Wow...

I'm going with the PSA 5 all day. That PSA 6 comes in last of the 3 for me.

The 6 (the card, not PSA...) gets a bit of a pass because that's an old slab. But isn't part of the point of using a TPG consistency? That's proof that a 6 in 2005 is not a 6 in 2018...:mad:

Here is what someone should do:

Create a new grading company that employs the following process:

1. Create an ultra detailed MRI type card grading machine that does the highest res. Scanning of all surface attributes.

2. Have scan fed into a computer program that matches it with condition similar exemplars to generate a number grade.

3. Have a human take a good look to verify.

The human should only verify that the process worked correctly (i.e. No obvious flaws or computer malfunctions). The human does not contribute to the actual grade itself. This would make getting a consistent grade from inception much more possible.

The only thing I am not sure of is whether the initial cost would be too great currently. If so it shouldn't be for much longer.

Agree to this COOL IDEA.

Human evaluation is so subjective and controversial.

Qualifiers?
 

I have owned the Drysdale PD for 10 years and have not found the defect.
Hegan on the other hand has no PD or OF qualifier. If I had opened Leaf
packs in 1948 half of them would have gone in the trash.

.Maybe it's the print specks, but in hand they are barely visible.

Wow!! Best looking 7 I have seen.

Snow
 

About the Drysdale , in my eyes , if the ''snow'' is obvious immediately upon first glance , then at the "8" level it gets a PD . It is visible in your scan , but maybe not so bad in hand ?

..

The Drysdale looks like it has some light print snow to the left...but that could just be the scan. More proof of PSA's inconsistency Yawn...

Frustrating
 

Wow, this is an excellent thread. Although enlightening, it is also a frustrating and discouraging commentary on the current state of third party grading.

I still consider myself a newbie on this forum. After posting photos of my childhood card collection (1960s Topps) last year, some of you Net54baseball veterans strongly suggested that I submit my star cards to PSA for grading. I was going to - but life got busy - and so I put it off. Maybe it was for the best. I think I can enjoy my cards just fine without them being encased in hard plastic.:)
Marcos

And there is nothing wrong with doing precisely that. Life was a lot simpler with my collection as a kid when the cards just were what they were and didn't have judgment passed and hanging over them in a slab. I know in my day I cherished quite a few lower grade vintage cards and thought a lot less about grading, or at least the minutiae that goes into it. A card was either in pretty good shape...or it wasn't. Grading today obviously has become a subculture unto itself. I find TPG's useful when buying cards that I can't hold in my hands first (i.e. 99% of the time...), and yes if there is a card that really pops in a slab that can be nice sometimes as well - but it's certainly not a hard requirement for me to enjoy whatever baseball card is in question. Just this weekend I busted out a not-very-cheap 1956 Topps card from a BVG slab - not because I disagreed with the grade, but because there was lint or dust or something trapped between the inner sleeve and the hard plastic that made it look like there was print snow on the player's face. Voila, problem solved and now I have a much nicer looking card. If I'm not immediately planning to try to flip a card (that's rare for me anyway) I'll often liberate it from it's slab over something minor like that. I've always been that way.

Mickey
 

I saw this on eBay the other week and had to grab it... in hand there is light corner wear and a little ding on the top boarder you can only see at the right angle...but definitely the best PSA 5 I’ve owned... it’s even better centered than the PSA 8 I used to have...

And none of you can probably see this because I seem to have trouble getting normal sized scans :confused:

Got this today in a trade/cash deal...


https://i.postimg.cc/x8WSH8d7/20181011-110924.jpg

Picked up this Ryan about 2 years ago and cannot figure why it is not an 8/8.5. Have looked with a loupe several times and nothing. No reason to buy an 8 when it appears this one looks like one but for $700.

The 58 Mantle is about as close to centered as I have been able to find and I usually don’t buy 7’s.

I’ve had this card for about a year and have always thought it very sharp for the grade. OC, and with slight tilt and a rough cut, but at least 3 of those corners look like they were made by Gillette...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...0e3a9c85fc.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy the card, not the grade - stories
 

PSA is all over the place. Had a "6" on a non-sports card and resubmitted(hate playing that game) and it received a "9". Had some beautiful "8's" that came back 4's & 5's. Can't figure it out. Their inconsistency has gotten worse and customers are going to keep or sell more "raw" cards if this keeps up. The customer is #1 not the TPG's. Once the customer gets fed up and stops submitting so many cards( PSA prices have just increased as well), then maybe PSA will revisit their long term marketing strategy. And they don't give you any explanation on why the card receives the grade that it does so you have no idea. All bad teams have to change if they want people in the seats. All monopolies fall at some point if they don't change.

I disagree with none of this. I will ad that some point along that road, we may see the realized price discrepancy between PSA and SGC narrow. I hope so.

Your Berra reminded me of the one I bought last year at a really nice price due to the O/C. The back is basically miscut, but that doesn't bother me at all. Of course, looking at the scan now, the card appears to have some hazy print defects. Sure hope that's a problem with the scan or it's on the slab and not the card...

Attachment 342254

Very affordable. Because this NM-MT example of Yogi was given the "authentic/altered" label I was able to add it to my collection.
I believe it to be nothing more than a factory "rough cut".

Even though supposedly none of them were, this looks like it could be factory to me.

Wow!
 

Nice looking Campy.

Miscut on the back and they ignore their own guidelines a lot, from what I've seen. Your Berra is nice too, that one is hard to find without print snow on the dark background.

I don't know, within the past 2 years I've had PSA 5's that are nicer than other 6's, and some 6.5's that I would have topped out at 5.5 after seeing them in-hand. I cannot give them a high grade on recent consistency.

Buy the card, not the grade - stories
 

Dupe post.

And gosh, in looking at my '61 Berra again, I wonder if it is a PSA 6 that really should have been an 8 (OC). I never even considered that.

It's quite possible, because your corners look very sharp, but the centering is nothing to be concerned about at all...so it's a mystery.

Edited to add: The centering on mine (similar to yours, but probably just a tad worse) looks relatively decent, so I assume the reason mine is OC is because of the back. The green is basically touching the border.

Robert, very nice card. Not sure how I missed this when you originally posted it.

Buy the card, not the grade - stories
 

Will post this again here; was also in the pickups yesterday - but seems very appropriate.

In scouring this one with a fine-toothed comb, I can find enough stuff to where a picky grader probably could have justified the 3. But overall eye-appeal blows that out of the water. Again, I try to buy “high-end” for the grade and just try to be happy with the merits of the actual card and not the slab, but the discrepancy between not considering all factors of eye-appeal with the technical grade is a slippery slope for PSA, I think. (Someone pointed out to me yesterday also that you're kidding yourself if you don't think they treat Mantle differently). This one fits as well as any. Corners are 6-7 quality and many 5’s I looked at on eBay weren’t centered this well. The beginnings of a corner crease and some other nearly indistinguishable surface wear brought it down, though.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...63e5ab8d7f.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d0f216b9c4.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Obviously this thread is filled with tons of examples of what appear to be cards that have eye-appeal that substantially surpasses the technical grade. The question is how much of a premium are you willing to pay to get those cards that have great eye-appeal? Of course the easy answer if you can get them in the range of a 3 when it looks like a 5 or 6 it is a no brainer. But are you willing to pay almost 5/6 graded price level for the 3? Its a dilemma I've faced a number of times. I try to look at all recent graded purchases to compare the actual cards, but at the end of the day (assuming new slab) you still have a 3 you paid 5/6 pricing for, even if you like it (and other like it). If you keep track of purchases or sales vs. market, those cards put you significantly underwater, even if the optics are impressive to those who appreciate the card itself. Is there a rule of thumb people generally use?

Your point is valid. I weigh each decision on the particular card and what my situation dictates I think should be paid for it within my limits. There are times I’m willing to overpay for something that I think won’t come around again for a while, and then times I’m really, really not willing to do that. Yes sometimes it simply comes down to "how bad do I want it?" There are a number of ways to look at it, and it depends where you put what value. In the case of my ‘65 Mantle - I believe I paid around $100 more than what a “normal” nicer 3 (noticeable rounded corners) - but still a card with eye appeal - should go for. But my card looks like a 6, and to get a true 6 centered as well as the card I bought, I would be looking at spending anywhere from $500 to north of $800 based on recent sales. So I would prefer to look at it as yes, I paid a steep price for a 3 - but it’s an anomaly because the card looks nothing like a 3. If resale or trying to flip entered the equation - that would make things more difficult - but in this case it’s just a card I want to add to my PC. Same deal with a higher-end centered ‘62 Mantle 200 PSA 5 I snagged right before Christmas. I paid well more than VCP for a 5, but a hell of a lot less than a 6 - and my card looks better than half of the 6’s out there I compared it to.

It is difficult to buy nice examples of “the card and not the grade” consistently, and that’s an understatement with a player like Mantle - perhaps the single most difficult postwar player to get any kind of deal on, simply because he is so popular and if you are buying online he’s everywhere - if an undergraded or strong-for-the-grade card is out there, people are going to see it and pay attention. You are right in that the value for cards in lower grade that still retain a lot of eye appeal is ostensibly that you can get them at bargain bin prices. I think sometimes yes, and sometimes maybe not for so much of a bargain - but still in many cases you can get a card for cheaper than the card could be had for otherwise without some small hidden flaw.

Here's another way of looking at it - I paid maybe close to a "Dean's Card" price for a PSA 3 '65 Mantle. But if you spent that money with Dean you will get a PSA 3 that looks like a 3; doing it my way I got a card that looks more like a 6.

I do see your point. Sometimes I'm willing to go for this kind of thing, other times not. I'm not sure there is any grand rhyme or reason behind it for me personally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk