Grading and tilt / diamond cuts

[jchcollins]

I think this as a topic before has been visited, but not recently. What are your thoughts on how PSA handles cards with tilt or diamond cutting issues? They would not appear to penalize for it.

This ‘72 (the psycho’s seem to be a set rife with these issues) which arrived today was not bad enough for me to notice it before I pulled the trigger on the card, so I’m not complaining. But clearly the issue is there - in this case I believe it is tilt (image skewed slightly to the left) and not a true diamond cut. I have a raw ‘73 Schmidt that is the same way. Both to me not overly noticeable unless you stare at the card for a while. In the case of this Carew, I looked again on eBay and it seems difficult to find this particular card at all without some combination of tilt or a centering problem.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bxb]

John I believe PSA does not penalize for diamond cuts or uneven cuts unless they exceed the defined centering guidelines for each grade. That being said I have submitted raw cards that came back "miscut" and on repeat submission were graded, some OC, some not any qualifier. There definitely is a component of subjectivity to the grading process.

This problem plagues many sets, including the ones I collect such as the 53 Bowmans, which has many cards with uneven cuts. Finding a nicely centered card is a challenge and usually sell at a premium, hence the saying "buy the card, not the holder".

[vintagetoppsguy]

My personal opinion is that Carew should have had a MC qualifier.

[swarmee]

Not a miscut qualifier, factory miscut (usually ungraded unless you allow for Authentic to be slabbed) as you can see the right edge is very slanted compared to the rest of the card, especially at the bottom. The MC qualifier is for cards that have part of the adjoining card showing on it or is so severely off-center that there is almost no border to speak of.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The MC qualifier is for cards that have part of the adjoining card showing on it or is so severely off-center that there is almost no border to speak of.

I've seen literally thousands of diamond cut cards with MC qualifiers. Does this card deserve the MC qualifier? Why or why not? My answer is no, it does not deserve the MC qualifier.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-Topps-...8AAOSwk4hcfaAc

[swarmee]

Look at the back; there is no border on the back side. That's why it got the MC qualifier, as well as showing part of the adjoining card. That is a textbook MC. There are some issues where they are a little more forgiving, like 1955 Bowman, where the front and back were almost always slightly misaligned.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Look at the back; there is no border on the back side. That's why it got the MC qualifier, as well as showing part of the adjoining card. That is a textbook MC.

I see what you're seeing, but I disagree that it's deserving of a MC qualifier. MC means miscut. That card is not miscut, it is a misprint. The back of the sheet wasn't printed to line up with the front of the sheet (or the front of the sheet wasn't printed to line up with the back of the sheet - however you want to look at it). In other words, if you're saying it's miscut, then how could it have been cut differently to avoid the issue? It couldn't have because it has nothing to do with the cutting process. It's has everything to do with the printing process. If PSA wants to qualify it, they should use the PD (print defect) qualifier, not the MC qualifier. Now if the front matched the back, then we're talking about a MC, but the front is pretty well centered - aa printing issue, not a cutting issue.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

...as you can see the right edge is very slanted compared to the rest of the card, especially at the bottom...

Yes, and this is why the Carew should have been designated with a MC qualifier. It's textbook definition of miscut. Look at the Joiner card next to the Carew. Almost the same cut. Why did Joiner get a MC qualifier and not the Carew? A lot of it probably had to do with the submitter, but that's a whole different conversation.

[Fuddjcal]

personally, I think the carew was trimmed at the right bottom and that card should never have got an 8. The diamond cut is not very apparent, but the trimming is easy to see.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

personally, I think the carew was trimmed at the right bottom and that card should never have got an 8. The diamond cut is not very apparent, but the trimming is easy to see.

The top left cut matches the bottom right cut. Look at my red lines. That card is diamond cut. Am I really the only one that sees that?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yes, and this is why the Carew should have been designated with a MC qualifier. It's textbook definition of miscut.

Textbook does not equal PSA definition. PSA has two different definitions for miscut, which seems to be the confusion you're having.
The MC qualifier: Cards that exhibit an atypical cut for the issue, which may result in portions of more than one card being visible due to its oversized nature, will be designated "MC."

The other miscut, which is what you're talking about: "N-8 Miscut - This term is used when the factory cut is abnormal for the issue, causing the card’s edges to deviate from their intended appearance. Grading fees are not charged in this instance."
Seems that you're fighting just to fight, not to understand the difference. PSA should have not graded the Carew card at all (or given it Authentic) if the card is not square. I agree that they're INCONSISTENT with this practice. I have gotten many cards returned ungraded that have a much lower angle deviation than this card. In fact, someone posted a PSA 9 from 1972 with a much worse rhombus look to the cuts that should have also not been graded on their forums.
As for the Joiner, show me a scan of the back.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The top left cut matches the bottom right cut. Look at my red lines. That card is diamond cut. Am I really the only one that sees that?

very nice with the red lines, yes, now I see it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Textbook does not equal PSA definition. PSA has two different definitions for miscut, which seems to be the confusion you're having.
The MC qualifier: Cards that exhibit an atypical cut for the issue, which may result in portions of more than one card being visible due to its oversized nature, will be designated "MC."

The other miscut, which is what you're talking about: "N-8 Miscut - This term is used when the factory cut is abnormal for the issue, causing the card’s edges to deviate from their intended appearance. Grading fees are not charged in this instance."
Seems that you're fighting just to fight, not to understand the difference. PSA should have not graded the Carew card at all (or given it Authentic) if the card is not square. I agree that they're INCONSISTENT with this practice. I have gotten many cards returned ungraded that have a much lower angle deviation than this card. In fact, someone posted a PSA 9 from 1972 with a much worse rhombus look to the cuts that should have also not been graded on their forums.
As for the Joiner, show me a scan of the back.

Man, you're hard headed. By your own words, PSA doesn't grade diamond cut cards, but 2 are posted in this thread. How many more do you need to see to know this isn't true?

Re-read the OPs original question. "What are your thoughts on how PSA handles cards with tilt or diamond cutting issues?" Can we just agree that the answer to the question is that they're inconsistent?

[swarmee]

Ummm. I think that word is boldfaced in my quoted text. Yes, I agree with that.
Do you understand the difference between the two definitions of 'Miscut' that PSA uses and why the Carew doesn't deserve an MC qualifier?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Do you understand the difference between the two definitions of 'Miscut' that PSA uses and why the Carew doesn't deserve an MC qualifier?

That's the difference in the two of us, John. I don't care what PSA says, you do. I don't rely on PSA's opinion, it means nothing to me. I don't care what PSA thinks my cards "might" grade. If it gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that PSA thinks your card grades a (fill in the blank), then great for you. I'm not knocking you for that. Some people need that. I don't. There is a whole world of card collectors out there that don't give a CRAP about PSA or their opinion.

The Carew is miscut whether PSA wants to label it as such or not. PERIOD! Below are some raw cards that are listed as miscut (and rightfully so), but you say they're not miscut according to PSA's definition. Tell you what, you email the seller and explain to him that he's wrong, that his cards are not miscut and why. Let us know how it works out for you.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Topps-...cAAOSwrYRcgCEQ

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Topps-...IAAOSwlG5cgCE1

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-Topps-...kAAOSwYu1cgCIE

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Topps-...QAAOSw4uhcgCD4

Those are all FACTORY CUTS. They are NOT TRIMMED.

[swarmee]

You obviously do care. But you keep bringing up straw men that I'm not debating you on to attempt to confuse the issue: PSA does not consider factory miscuts to be trimmed. You have said in previous posts that you expect PSA to have given those cards the MC designator. I have proven to you why they do not do that.
Hell, I have as many complaints about PSA as you do. You think I'm a homer? Read through some of my previous posts. I prefer them as a grading company to the other two, but that doesn't mean I think they walk on water.

Sorry, I'll let you get back to the bash, bash, bash, obfuscate, bash that you seem to enjoy.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Have a good evening, John

[jchcollins]

Just checking back in on my post. Wow...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Collectorsince62]

Who cares about the miscut, I want to know what the player in the background is doing.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I see what you're seeing, but I disagree that it's deserving of a MC qualifier. MC means miscut. That card is not miscut, it is a misprint. The back of the sheet wasn't printed to line up with the front of the sheet

I know what you are saying, this is very common with vintage cards. The front is 80/20 one way, but the back somehow is perfectly centered? I don’t think PSA accounts for this. Yes, it is a misprint, and as a necessary byproduct of removing the card from a full sheet, it is going to be either OC or MC depending on how severe the issue is. Honestly I would kind of agree with them that it’s wise not to make it more complicated with the qualifier. Technically that would be a “misaligned” sheet. It would do nothing but confuse collectors who already are often woefully misinformed on the specifics behind even the centering qualifier - even more.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It's textbook definition of miscut.

No it’s not. It’s the textbook confusion between tilt or a diamond cut, but not “miscut.” Textbook definition there would be so O/C there is no border on one side, or there is part of another card showing. That of course is the “practical” textbook definition and the one used in the popular culture of collecting. PSA’s actual textbook definition is much more vague, what with the whole “atypical cut” language. That in my mind is just their way of being vague so they can call something miscut and not have to explain. I have another ‘53 Topps card that isn’t miscut but was graded PSA 5 MC even though there is a sliver of the top border you can still see - and the back is not a problem at all. It is at most 95/5 OC but is not miscut. Who knows.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Ok, so a little more on the Carew (my card) after I did some more study of it over the weekend and some comparisons to other regular cut vintage Topps cards post-57 (that I know not to be trimmed).
Just as an aside, it always perplexes me when people accuse cards that they have not seen or held personally of being “trimmed” based only on an online scan. I guess you can take things proportionally and digitally measure and draw your own conclusions - but jeez. PSA may get MC or diamond cut issues wrong or at least not consistent - but rarely do they miss when parts of a card are actually missing - even with a 1 mm or less trim job.
Back to the Carew - I thought it was just tilt at first, but in looking at it further, I will agree it’s a true diamond cut side-to-side. The angle of tilt at the bottom and top is not as severe as the proportion the sides would indicate. And in measuring it up against the other cards that I referenced - things get really weird. It’s also overall WIDE side to side. The cut at the top is 2 1/2 inches or very close - how the top should be. But then at the bottom the card is too wide - maybe by 1mm or even a tad more - in comparison to at least 3 other cards that all match each other exactly. I’ve never owned any significant diamond cut card (and certainly never a PSA graded one) before - so have never paid this much attention.
For the discussion that has already occurred, I will agree that at a minimum PSA is inconsistent, and the card could be technically called miscut. They do not seem to do this on higher grade cards, although in doing my research this weekend I’ve realized my Carew may be a bit of an egregious example that should have gotten the qualifier. I’ve seen 1965 Topps cards in PSA 10 slabs with slight tilt, so as a “hot button” issue for PSA I think it can be safely said this is not one of them.
My thing now with this Carew is what to do with it. I was being sloppy and did not notice the diamond cut when I bought it. I do have another one (without this bizarre problem) for my set on the way in a PSA 6 slab. It’s slightly o/c top to bottom, but doesn’t have the wacky border proportions. Honestly though I’m intrigued by this PSA 8 and other than that issue it’s a beautiful card with a nice image and sharp corners. I may just keep it as a “variation” on my ‘72s - at least for a while. I do remember thinking in the past that this set was full of such issues - tilt at least if not diamond cut. I searched for a long time to find the ‘72 Nolan Ryan #595 without at least some tilt in mid-grade.

What would you do if you were me with this PSA 8 Carew?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tschock]

It is a mis-cut card, PSA designations be d*mned. It is not even a diamond cut card, it is a hexagonal cut card since there are clearly 6 sides, or at least 6 (reasonably) straight edges. If a card that is supposed to have 4 sides actually has 6, how can it not be 'mis-cut"?

If I were you and you are happy with the card, keep it. If you aren't happy with the card, find someone who bows to the PSA gods and sell it to them as a PSA graded 8.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by tschock

If I were you and you are happy with the card, keep it. If you aren't happy with the card, find someone who bows to the PSA gods and sell it to them as a PSA graded 8.

Yeah you lost me on the whole four versus six sides thing. As to whether or not to keep it, I am leaning towards your suggestion on the latter. Will depend on the PSA 6 I have on the way and how that treats my eyes. But yeah,given what I paid for this card I’m not inclined to keep it the more I look at it. Damned eBay...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

What would you do if you were me with this PSA 8 Carew?

If you're happy with the PSA 6 once it arrives, keep it and re-list the 8 on eBay.

On another note, I agree with Taylor about the 6 sides.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

John, would you post your PSA 6 Carew alongside the 8 from the original post?

[jchcollins]

Here they both are. And dammit, the 6 arrived today and has an edge ding (lower right) which I ALSO didn’t notice. I’m wondering if I should get rid of them both and start over. Clearly I was asleep or something last week when buying cards. The 6 could probably be a 7 otherwise...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Those 72s are so squirrelly! I don't think I will ever try to collect them! If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't have seen the edge ding on the 6 you are referring to (still not sure that I totally do). I always thought I had a discerning eye, but I am also missing most of what has been said about the diamond cut/tilt/miscut on that 8. Looks like you have two decent cards to me, though I do like the 6 a little better...but you know how I am.

[swarmee]

Some people think the 8 looks like this, aka "six-sided":

   _________________

  /                      |

 /                       |

 |                       |

 |                       |

 |                       |

 |                       /

 |                      / 

 |                     /

 -------------------  

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Some people think the 8 looks like this, aka "six-sided":

   _________________

  /                      |

 /                       |

 |                       |

 |                       |

 |                       |

 |                       /

 |                      / 

 |                     /

 -------------------  

Thanks for the illustration, that does help. I guess if I owned it I would just be blissfully ignorant. I do see that the image is tilted, but that is all that my eye can really detect. Like I said in an earlier post, I thought my eye was more discerning. Kudos to the OP for posing the question to begin with.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

And, most importantly of all, is the guy in the background practicing his golf game??

[jchcollins]

LOL, I can’t take it anymore. Both cards will be for sale on eBay tomorrow. If you are interested in either of them, PM me for my user ID. But yeah I’m going to need to get close to 8 money for the “6-sided” 8. Lesson learned - blow up scans and pay closer attention next time...:-(


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Ok, so a little more on the Carew (my card) after I did some more study of it over the weekend and some comparisons to other regular cut vintage Topps cards post-57 (that I know not to be trimmed).
Just as an aside, it always perplexes me when people accuse cards that they have not seen or held personally of being “trimmed” based only on an online scan. I guess you can take things proportionally and digitally measure and draw your own conclusions - but jeez. PSA may get MC or diamond cut issues wrong or at least not consistent - but rarely do they miss when parts of a card are actually missing - even with a 1 mm or less trim job.
Back to the Carew - I thought it was just tilt at first, but in looking at it further, I will agree it’s a true diamond cut side-to-side. The angle of tilt at the bottom and top is not as severe as the proportion the sides would indicate. And in measuring it up against the other cards that I referenced - things get really weird. It’s also overall WIDE side to side. The cut at the top is 2 1/2 inches or very close - how the top should be. But then at the bottom the card is too wide - maybe by 1mm or even a tad more - in comparison to at least 3 other cards that all match each other exactly. I’ve never owned any significant diamond cut card (and certainly never a PSA graded one) before - so have never paid this much attention.
For the discussion that has already occurred, I will agree that at a minimum PSA is inconsistent, and the card could be technically called miscut. They do not seem to do this on higher grade cards, although in doing my research this weekend I’ve realized my Carew may be a bit of an egregious example that should have gotten the qualifier. I’ve seen 1965 Topps cards in PSA 10 slabs with slight tilt, so as a “hot button” issue for PSA I think it can be safely said this is not one of them.
My thing now with this Carew is what to do with it. I was being sloppy and did not notice the diamond cut when I bought it. I do have another one (without this bizarre problem) for my set on the way in a PSA 6 slab. It’s slightly o/c top to bottom, but doesn’t have the wacky border proportions. Honestly though I’m intrigued by this PSA 8 and other than that issue it’s a beautiful card with a nice image and sharp corners. I may just keep it as a “variation” on my ‘72s - at least for a while. I do remember thinking in the past that this set was full of such issues - tilt at least if not diamond cut. I searched for a long time to find the ‘72 Nolan Ryan #595 without at least some tilt in mid-grade.

What would you do if you were me with this PSA 8 Carew?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would cross the 8 out with black sharpie and label it a 7, put it in my box and call it a day.

[jchcollins]

Card is already sold. I lost about $20, calling it a day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk