Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[jchcollins]

I'll guess #6.

[MrPosadas]

#1 seems to have some light surface damage along with some fish eyes but #6 is the one screaming PD the most to me.

[jchcollins]

I may revise my guess to #5. Just looked at a bunch of graded '61 MVP's on eBay, and it seems that PSA takes the white fish eyes as a given - whether or not there are a few of them or a ton of them. The only ones I saw get the PD qualifier had black ink smudges on them in addition to the fish eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

5

[steve B]

Number 2 seems to have the fewest print defects. So I'll go with that one.

[JollyElm]

And the loser is...



Each and every one of the other seven cards coulda/shoulda had the PD qualifier, too, or none of the eight should've had it at all. SMH.

[swarmee]

#1 and #3 have the oldest cert numbers. So it could have been something they originally downgraded for, and then changed their assessment before grading the others. It definitely has a minimal amount of PD compared to some of the others, although seems to have one directly on Hank's forehead.

They are still giving PD qualifiers away. I got one on a 1980 Topps variant with a hard to see fisheye in "Red Sox" that dropped it from an 8 to an 8(PD).

[jchcollins]

My only ‘61 MVP card at the moment. Looks like someone off shot is washing dishes next to Willie with all those bubbles. Never considered it a super egregious problem I don’t guess...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LeftHandedDane]

I've never understood why the TPG's don't scan every card that they grade, and then when a new submission is received, once they have completed their assessment and have a preliminary grade in mind, the grader can call up scans of prior versions of the same card that were given the same grade, as well as ones given the next grade (or half grade) up or down, which can be used as to test the consistency of grading across individuals and over time. It would also improve the consistency in the application of PD, OC and other qualifiers. Just one more example of the lack of "P" in "PSA".

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by LeftHandedDane

I've never understood why the TPG's don't scan every card that they grade, and then when a new submission is received, once they have completed their assessment and have a preliminary grade in mind, the grader can call up scans of prior versions of the same card that were given the same grade, as well as ones given the next grade (or half grade) up or down, which can be used as to test the consistency of grading across individuals and over time. It would also improve the consistency in the application of PD, OC and other qualifiers. Just one more example of the lack of "P" in "PSA".

They don't have anywhere near the time to do something like that. Most graders I believe spend less than 60 seconds on each card. And look how behind turn-times already are for PSA...

[JollyElm]

Okay, let's keep the 1961 Topps MVP train a-rollin'...

(I randomly placed these cards in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout.) The card on the lower left is graded PSA 7. How in heck it doesn't have a PD qualifier is beyond me. Was this card a PSA 8 PD or 9 PD, but the 'no qualifiers' box was checked and it magically became a straight 7????? Who the freak knows, because it looks like Mr. Cub was using a snowblower.

Here's the contest. I pointed out which card is the PSA 7, so of the remaining five cards, two are PSA 8, two are PSA 9 and one, only one, is a PSA 9 PD. Which is it?? (The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Here's the contest. I pointed out which card is the PSA 7, so of the remaining five cards, two are PSA 8, two are PSA 9 and one, only one, is a PSA 9 PD. Which is it?? (The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

Ok, at the risk of being shown very wrong, I'll play it:
#'s 2 & 6 are the 8s on account of the corners
#'s 3 & 5 are the 9s as the sharpest and least fish eyes (although the top L corner of #5 looks like a problem)

That leaves #1 as the 9PD (which could fit as it has the most bubbles aside from the 7, and they're placed worse: one near his face, and big ones in all the readable areas of the card (big ones at his name, at 'MVP' and 'National'). I agree with swarmee above that they are tougher on marks that subjectively take more away from the overall appeal, and I think anywhere that the eye is naturally drawn to is the default reference point for that, so face and text areas).

[chalupacollects]

Me I have:
1 - 9D
2 - 8
3 - 9
4 - 7 - the gimme
5 - 9
6 - 8

[JollyElm]

And the curtain falls...




Here's a clear as day shot of the 'terrible' card in question. The back has nothing of note on it, and after extreme scrutiny, the only anomalies I can see on the front are a few obvious white spots and a hair-thin bluish 'print line' running across the bridge of his nose (as close to invisible as you can get). None of this stuff appears even remotely close to making the card PD-worthy, so I'm at a loss...




It's strange, but no matter how many times I scan the card, that bottom left corner looks like there's a blatant problem there, but it's not the case at all. It wouldn't cause an ebullient ebay seller to scream "Razor Sharp!!!," but it is pretty darn good. Perhaps the way the overly bright light is hitting the (not perfectly flat?) corner in the scanner is creating an optical illusion? I dunno. Here's an un-retouched, close-up cell phone shot of what the corner truly looks like...

1961banksmvp485cornerX.jpg

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And the curtain falls...

the only anomalies I can see on the front are a few obvious white spots and a hair-thin bluish 'print line' running across the bridge of his nose

You know, although it seems easy for us to fixate on fisheyes (happens to me b/c I despise them) what if it really is the odd issues like the blue line thing that is the difference maker for PDs? Note also that the PD card in your earlier example of the Aarons had unusual dark markings in the blue on the left side that look in the scan like 'scuffs', and also what appears as some sort of odd printing defect 'spots' below the left eye and also nose...both these examples could also validate the concept that they grade hardest on things that affect the face area.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's strange, but no matter how many times I scan the card, that bottom left corner looks like there's a blatant problem there, but it's not the case at all. It wouldn't cause an ebullient ebay seller to scream "Razor Sharp!!!," but it is pretty darn good. Perhaps the way the overly bright light is hitting the (not perfectly flat?) corner in the scanner is creating an optical illusion? I dunno. Here's an un-retouched, close-up cell phone shot of what the corner truly looks like...

That is weird and totally fooled me. On the scan I was like 'that ain't no 9', but the phone pic does look much sharper.

[JollyElm]

***

[JollyElm]

Tonight's contest...

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

I selected six cards that have (at least) one side (with apologies to Yes) close to the edge, and all are graded PSA 8...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which card is the PSA 8 OC??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

[Hxcmilkshake]

#3!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

Another vote for #3


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Just.Rachel]

#6 ?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

3 is too obvious so I will go with 5.

[rats60]

They are all too far o/c to be eights. I am going to say 4 because it looks nice but is o/c top to bottom.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Daring to be different.......#1.

[JunkyJoe]

#3

(if not #3, then #4)

[JollyElm]

And the winner is...



Which again brings me back to the same old place. If card #4 is considered off-center, then shouldn't all of these cards (save for maybe one of them) be PSA 8 OC's???? I'm assuming that the 'no qualifiers' box was not checked, because if the rule of thumb of a 2 grade drop was in play, then the cards in question would have originally been PSA 10 OC's...which makes no sense. (Yes, I know the 2 grade drop isn't always the case. Sometimes it might be just a 1 number drop.) Of all of these cards, the only one with a qualifier looks by far the best to me, and it's not even close.

[jchcollins]

Ouch. #3 definitely should have the qualifier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Harford20]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Ouch. #3 definitely should have the qualifier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And my biggest concern is that this card is the "newest" of the grades.

Dave

[JollyElm]

With apologies to Joshua from "WarGames," shall we play a game?

Here is an octet of (random screengrabs) 1962 Topps Mickey Mantle cards. Seven of them are graded PSA 3, and one, only one, is a PSA 5. Which one is it?

(Usual rules apply. No cheating. Top row has cards #1, 2, 3, 4, bottom row has #5, 6, 7, 8.)

[Just.Rachel]

I'm gonna guess #7....but idk

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

#6, which I am certain is wrong because I never get these correct!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MrPosadas]

I am not the best at this game either but it’s fun to take a stab at getting it right. Going to say #5

[jchcollins]

Based just on the pics, I would guess #5 as well as it has less corner wear than the others - but will acknowledge particularly with this issue - it’s a crapshoot. I used to have a copy of this card that was perfectly centered, and looked like it could have been a 7 candidate - that was only graded a 5 in the new lighthouse slab.

Especially over the years, depending on how old the slab is and when it was graded - I would not be surprised if any of those cards was perhaps a 5 - or more recently, if all got 3’s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I would also guess #5 is the PSA5

[hammer]

Ill try 5

[jchcollins]

Ok...how long does the suspense last?!?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Whoops!! Ha ha!! I totally forgot...

[Just.Rachel]

Wow...crazy. bottom left corner on that 5 looks pretty jacked! I'm kinda surprised that's the 5, but I guess consistency from PSA is asking a lot these days.

Thanks to the OP for doing this. It was fun.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Just goes to show, grading is a freaking scam. Thank you, Darren, for starting this thread and posting these kinds of things. If this is not case in point why people should not spend money on a slab label, I don't know what is. Collectors should be over the days of paying others money to judge what is or is not supposed to look like a good card to us.

[JollyElm]

To temporarily bring this thread full circle, here's another 1961 #554 Pirates Team PSA 8OC (the card that initiated the thread) that I recently picked up pretty cheaply...

1961pirates554psa8oc.jpg

[JollyElm]

Let's call today's contest The Brooklyn Dodgers Challenge...

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

I've selected five 1957 Johnny Podres cards (random screenshots that are pretty similar to each other) that are all graded either a PSA 8 or PSA 9...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which one has the scarlet letter(s) OC??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5.)



Disclaimer: Sorry, winners will not receive a lifetime supply of Rice-a-roni.

[GasHouseGang]

I'd have to guess #2. They all look pretty darn good.

[Hxcmilkshake]

4! I bet I'm wrong though

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

And the winner lies behind Door #1...



In this case, the thread title says it all. Although the Podres is (most likely) mathematically O/C according to PSA's corporate standards, what kid opening a pack back in 1957 (or in any year for that matter) would have ever thought, "Rats, this card is really off center. Into my bicycle spokes it goes!!"???

Plus, the top border seemingly matches (or comes within a hair of) 3 or 4 of the other cards' 'worst' borders...yet, no qualifiers for them.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Rats. There goes my career in grading

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Let's call today's contest a challenging episode of Carew's the Boss?...

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

I've selected an octet of tough 1972 high numbered #695 Rod Carew cards (random screenshots that are very similar to each other) that are all graded either PSA 8 or PSA 9...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which of these 8 nearly identical Carews is the only one with an OC black cloud hanging over it??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

Take a swing. The winner will be the envy of the entire collecting community...

[Prof_Plum]

#7 ???

[Rascal1010]

# 2

[Mark70Z]

I’d go with more than one, but since it’s only one I’d go with #7.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Take a swing. The winner will be the envy of the entire collecting community...

Ooh, this is a good one. That card is very tough, not just because of regular centering - but also because it’s so notorious for tilt problems. I had a straight PSA 8 once that looked like it had 6 edges, the tilt was so bad. I eventually “downgraded” to a PSA 7 that is much easier on the eyes.

For this contest, I will guess #2 based on the T/B centering.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk