A Tale of Two Slabbies

[JollyElm]

I'm just confused. The card on the right is mine, the Grote is not. They share almost the exact same centering, both with a slight tilt (the top of Jerry going a bit to the right and Pete headed to the left) and equal if not identical spacing at the bottom. (FWIW, the back of the Rose is slightly O/C, but nothing that should lead to a qualifier.)

1972groterose.jpg

Both cards are recent grades, so they were both scrutinized under the 'newer' PSA standards, yet the Grote (which is ridiculously hard to find centered top to bottom) received no qualifier and the Rose got hammered. I'm happy, I guess, that Pete was slabbed O/C, because it allowed me to pick him up for virtually nothing, but the value of the Grote card was increased exponentially by the grade it received. Weird.

I guess there's no real purpose to this thread other than to just stress my bewilderment at the lack of consistency displayed here (yes, I know it's merely two cards).

[irv]

Just further proof, imo, that PSA is the most inconsistent grading company out there.

I've seen things from them in just 2 short years, since just joining this site, that just makes me shake my head.

[swarmee]

Agreed; both should have gotten the OC treatment or neither should have. I think I remember an article that say that the grader only calculates the centering if they think it might be off-centered, so it's not an automatic deduction unless it tips off the grader to dig further.
But since it's an easily measurable quantity on cards with borders, they should be consistent about it.

[Empty77]

I don't like the o/c on that one. The deficiency there is not pronounced enough to greatly affect the overall appeal on that card, which to me is what the Q's are supposed to be about...

[glynparson]

Backs also matter in the equation. With that said at its worst point the rose is absolutely more oc. Not a fan of the qualifier if the back is not to oc would say straight 8 maybe 7 depending on the measurement.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Perhaps the grader looked closer at the star card than the (low-pop) common.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Empty77

I don't like the o/c on that one. The deficiency there is not pronounced enough to greatly affect the overall appeal on that card, which to me is what the Q's are supposed to be about...

That (re)raises the general question then on why even have qualifiers as part of the grade at all? I would much rather have them 'qualify' an "Authentic" card and even a "Poor" card (when it's not obvious) then tell me something I can see with my own eyes. Borderless cards might be a different story though.

[Baseballcrazy62]

Any chance you can show the backs of the cards? I have been burned because the back of the card is o/c. I know they are a little more forgiving on the centering on the back of the card than on the front.

[MarcosCards]

Yeah, this thread does not help me with my reluctance to submit (to PSA) cards from my childhood collection that I’ve recently taken interest in. This, and too many other threads, about PSA’s inconsistency. Sad.

[JollyElm]

Here's the back of the Rose card. (The Grote isn't mine, so I have no access to it. In fact, it seems to have disappeared from ebay, but I can't find it in the sold/completed auctions section. A private sale? If so, some seller did quite well for himself.)

PSA standards for centering on a 9 are "90/10 or better on the reverse," so this card fits those parameters.

1972rose559back.jpg

[Steve D]

Well, even if it were a straight-9, the Rose, IMHO, isn't worth "full-9" price, due to the pronounced diamond-cut.

Steve

[Baseballcrazy62]

I agree with the diamond cut analysis. I have submitted cards with similar diamond cuts and only realized it after the fact when the card arrived back from PSA. You might be able to resubmit and ask for no qualifier on your submission request.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by tschock

That (re)raises the general question then on why even have qualifiers as part of the grade at all? I would much rather have them 'qualify' an "Authentic" card and even a "Poor" card (when it's not obvious) then tell me something I can see with my own eyes. Borderless cards might be a different story though.

Not a fan of qualifiers in general. I think it was a silly decision. I guess the PSA brain trust was sitting at a round table discussing ways to generate revenue, and this idea for creating Q options won the day.

But to me they failed to appreciate the inherent illogical-ness that their own behavior on the matter highlights. Consider that there is no such thing as a 10(oc). Why? Because naturally even they recognize it would be absurd to have a card grade that is shorthand for "This would be a 10 except for [fill in the blank]". But if that's absurd, why is it not absurd to have "this would be a 9 except for..." etc, etc. It is silly to my mind.