Today, I harken back to post #141 (and the ensuing follow ups there), to show an oddity I ran across. Graded versions of the 1961 Topps #160 Whitey Ford card are so often found with qualifiers attached to them (with an inordinate amount of 'PDs'). Here's mine (I'll refrain from screaming about how much I disagree with the assessment. Been there, done that.)...

Attachment 478340


But then I looked at the POP reports for Whitey, and I was stunned even more. Take a look at the number of cards in higher grades, as a percentage, that received qualifiers. Yowza!!!!! Almost half of all 9's have a qualifier attached, and 39% of all 8's have one.* That's gotta be some sort of a curiously strange record. :confused:

Attachment 478342

This entire post was off the cuff, so can anyone think of other cards that have been hammered as much as the wonderful Mr. Ford??


*The overall percentage across all grades is just about one in ten, a hair shy of 10%.

Interesting. And interesting thread! Glad it got brought back the top. I learned something today... Don't ignore the ones with qualifiers! Lol

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

Let's call today's episode Bobknobbing with Roberto...

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

Okay, I've already ventured into a short version of the 1969 Topps #50 Roberto Clemente a while back, but it is time to revisit it. Before you is an eight-spot of 1969 Bob Clemente cards. Each and every one of them has (at least) one side being (relatively?) dangerously close to a border. The particular sides differ, but they are quite similar in that specific regard.

Each and every one of these cards has been graded a PSA 8, except one - only one - received an OC qualifier.

This isn't a trick question where I am asking which one it is, but rather, given that you know one of them is a PSA 8 OC, which one or two of this octet is the most deserving of that OC qualifier?

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...328f2346_h.jpg

I think #1 and #4 are the most deserving with a slight edge to #4.

1

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

3 or 7?

I'll go with
 

#5 as the winner and #6 a close runner up

I'd say #7 is most deserving of the O/C.

By the way, I still have 4 of those 69 Clementes that I pulled from packs as a kid, and the centering on all of them look like yours.

Anyone else wanna chime in?

And away we go...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...26111bc2_h.jpg

Although all of these cards are extremely similar with regards to one side mimicking the cover of Kansas' 'Point of Know Return' album, only one received an OC qualifier and had its value tumble over the edge.

On a side note, of the collectors (who are educated in the ways of centering) chiming in with one or two guesses as to which card was most deserving of said qualifier, not a one said unlucky number 8.

Hahaha, no one got it right, because it makes no sense.

#8 might be the least deserving of an OC qualifier of the bunch.

Amazing. They should all be graded OC to me.

Let's call today's episode I Wuz F-Robbed!!!!!!!!...

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

Presented for your consideration are eight 1961 Topps #360 Frank Robinson cards. They all look exactly like every other card released in 1961, with occasional minor print anomalies and whatnot. No biggie. Each and every one of them has been graded a straight PSA 8, except one - and only one - that received a PD (print defect) qualifier.

Given that you know one of them is a PSA 8 PD, which one or two of this octet is the most deserving of the 'print defect' qualifier?

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b4ab5df8_h.jpg

1

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

#3??

1

4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(Un)lucky number six, come on down...


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...65fdfeef_h.jpg

Nobody got it correct. That's amazing.

I wonder if you gave that test to PSA graders how many would get it right.

Seems pretty random, doesn't it?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

grading sucks

Grading is really great IMO for vintage grades 1 through 5 for giving a decent opinion of the serious flaws of a card. Once the grades get above 7, it really gets hard to tell the difference between most cards if the centering is similar. I use CSG to grade my vintage player runs these days for $10.80 a card. They grade similar to BVG, well exactly like BVG since Andy Broome is in charge, but the holders are really nice. I have realistic expectations with grading and buying graded cards. I think the biggest issue are the people new to vintage who trust PSA's grade as the truth and are buying the number on the slab and not the card inside.

Let's call today's episode Aaron't You Glad You Bought Me???...

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

This time, it's really about showing how the desire to get straight grades (versus ones with qualifiers) could cost you big-time. Presented here are six 1976 Topps #550 Hank Aaron cards. They are all very similar to each other with the obligatory slight tilt of the picture, coupled with at least one edge getting pretty close to tickling a side. Top-to-bottom centering differs a bit across the group. Each and every one of them has been graded a straight PSA 8, except for one - and only one - that is a PSA 9 OC.

Here's the math: three of the PSA 8s sold for $255 apiece, one was $240 and the other $270, for an average of $255. I happily jumped on the career-capping PSA 9 OC Aaron for a C-note, $100. Think about that. For cards that look comparably identical, one of them cost a mere 39% of the price of the others, because(?) of the 'dreaded' OC qualifier.

Given what you now know, which one of these guys deserves to be priced so cheaply when compared to the others, and why?

Attachment 540293

I’ll say #4 due to the tilt.

#1

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

4

And 'twas number 2 that got Hammered (get it?)...

Attachment 540959

So, think about this for a second. The card is nearly identical to the others in the slight tilt arena, but the white thickness on its 'big and bad' side is much less egregious than most of the others, plus it is numerically in better shape (a PSA 9 compared to PSA 8s), so it is a superior card...but the qualifier alone overruled all of that and made it extremely less valuable than its compatriots.

(Yes, I understand this is in no way a perfect example of comparison, but it hits the point pretty nicely.)

I wonder if anyone will ever guess right?

Might fair better on the guessing without actually looking at the cards, as there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the grading.

I feel this way pretty often. But it's more a case of realizing what grading is and is not, and then being ok with that. For too many collectors it seems - grading is the end all, be all pronouncement of value on their card. Oh no, this nice vintage card only got a 3 - and I thought it was a 5 all day long. For those of us who have been grading informally for decades now, it's pretty much a joke when you realize that the grader's opinion is kind of like your opinion in that it could be X one day and Y the next. Clearly, even PSA doesn't really consider their flip and slab to be anything super final. If they did, then why do they encourage (and take piles of cash for...) so many resubs?

Exactamundo!

We (the hobby/collecting community) have handed control to the TPGs. They shouldn't be calling the shots, but we've let them.

Grading has become far more than it was ever really intended to be. The problem in the early 1990's was with fake cards, and altered cards that novice collectors could not recognize. Grading at least in the short term was a standard that helped with that. I don't think any hobbyists back then though ever would have said that grading should eventually become an excuse for us all to become less knowledgeable, to become more reliant upon them, and to no longer bother to be able to tell the difference in an EX and a VG card anymore. Especially for some newer collectors, it seems that is what it has become.

I think you can easily remove the "it seems" from your last line. All the newer generation have ever known and seen is TPGs and grading, and it is pretty much wired into their DNA now, like cell phones, social media, buying everything online, and on and on.

Let's call today's episode Killebrutally Honest...and it isn't a guessing game, but more of an honest opinion workshop.

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


Presented here are eight 1959 Topps #515 Harmon Killebrew cards that have grades ranging from PSA 6 to PSA 8 (pretty obvious which one is an 8, based on price alone). One, only one, has a qualifier (there's no need to tell you which).
They are each (to a varying degree) similar to one another in the fact that at least one side is off-centered enough to be pretty close to a border.


• Each card's actual sale price realized (these are screen grabs) is posted next to each contestant's number. Here's the exercise:

• You must spend your own money to ultimately purchase one of these guys.
In other words, it's not a free ride, and you don't have FU money to throw around willy nilly. Combining the centering, corner and edge sharpness, print quality, etc., with the price of each card, which do you feel is the best card to buy?? Or you can narrow it down to two finalists, if you prefer.

Which card or cards is the best way to go for you, and why?


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6b2ea9d0_k.jpg

I'd buy #2. Of the cards priced $150 or less, it has good color, centering and no major print marks. #8 is nice but would not pay that much.

Don't like #7 at all.

Mike

I would prefer #3. Centering is as good as any and it has the most total border top and bottom. #2 is close and cheaper, but I would probably pay up for #3.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

I would purchase #6, not because it's the best one. Numbers one and five have print marks that I would try to avoid. I compared number two to number six and the registration is better in the latter. Number seven has those print bubbles, which for me wouldn't be worth that price. I really liked number three the most, but due to limited funds (look at my 53 Bowmans) I have to compromise, which is why number 6 would be the card that would end up in my collection.

Phil aka Tere1071

Complete 1953 Bowman Color, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975 Topps Baseball sets under revision as the budget and wife allows

Under construction:
1970 Topps Baseball - missing over 100 cards, mostly after #450 and the three insert sets

1971 Topps Coins- 107/153

1974 Topps Baseball Washington variations

I would also pick 6 from this list, but in real life I would like a raw one in the $30 range.

#6.

That one has the best focus. #7 is the nicest of all of them of course, but not for 3x the price of #6.

#6. Good color and focus, Off centered top to bottom, but that has never really bothered me. That for the price seems reasonable to me on that one.