Hmmm, another really bad PSA 8… Yaz rookie…

[luciobar1980]

This has to be the worst looking 8 I’ve ever seen…those corners look like a 6 AT BEST…

https://www.ebay.com/itm/26652393441...mis&media=COPY

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

This has to be the worst looking 8 I’ve ever seen…those corners look like a 6 AT BEST…

https://www.ebay.com/itm/26652393441...mis&media=COPY

It already shows ended and goes to another listing.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It already shows ended and goes to another listing.

On the right edge of the top blue band you can hit 'View original listing'.

[G1911]

This is the quality of expertise PSA brings to the table. Thank God they are here for us all to outsource our eyes and opinions too.

[vthobby]

SGC 3 or 4 all day.

Ugh!

[savedfrommyspokes]

Any ideas on what year that card was graded? 1995-1998?

[jchcollins]

Old slab for sure, but yeah - that’s bad.

PSA has always had difficulty with grading consistency for average Joe customers submitting nice, and especially marquee cards. That slab might be from the early 2000’s, but I’ve also seen very recent slabs with cards that look like an 8 in PSA 4’s, and some others that look like 7’s which were given 9’s. Grading as a subjective discipline is more inconsistent right now than it’s been in some time, IMO, and it’s not just PSA.

While my PC will always likely have a good mix between raw and slabs, the headaches lately seem to be a good argument for the former and holding off on your submissions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JustinD]

I saw this card being discussed in chats for the opposite reasons.

I see the smudged right corner, but is this a 2?

[luciobar1980]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I saw this card being discussed in chats for the opposite reasons.

I see the smudged right corner, but is this a 2?

I have often thought it would be good to assign a “technical grade” and a “visual appeal” grade. I mean there MUST be something going on with this card that isn’t visible in a 2D scan, right? It’s either that, or, this was an actual error and this card is not actually supposed to be a 2. I feel those are really the only 2 possibilities.

[G1911]

I suspect this one is a 2 because of the V shaped paper loss next to the corner ding on the back. That still feels too harsh though, seems to easily merit the 3 at least on the technical scale.

Cards that look like this are why I can never picture myself going high grade. The tiny visual difference is just not worth it.

[Bigdaddy]

If the Volpe card was a T206, would it be a 2?

Maybe I'm missing it somewhere, but I've not seen written evidence from the TPGs that they grade older cards and newer cards on different scales.