To Crack or Not to Crack?

[aronbenabe]

In the past I’ve cracked open cards that were submitted to PSA with the intention to sell them, and wasn’t satisfied with the results.

In such cases I’d crack open the case (very carefully), and sold the raw card, reaping more than what the graded card would have.

Here’s an example of a 1959 TOPPS F. Robinson that I erroneously submitted rejecting the qualifications option. Other than centering, this card is in NM-MT or Mint condition and probably worth more raw than graded.

Just curious what others do in such circumstances. Pardon me for the redundancy if this forum has been brought up before, but I’m relatively new here and hadn’t checked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

With those large scans, I would personally leave it as is. So many people collect graded cards these days, that a crack might actually work against you. If you tell potential buyers, "Look, it's a really sharp PSA 7 OC that got turned into a 5 because I asked for no qualifiers," you should do alright and perhaps get closer to 7 money than 5 money. The sharpness of the corners is quite evident, so it would be obvious you're speaking truth to whomever you're talking to.

Good luck!

[aronbenabe]

Good insight JollyElm. Thanks for sharing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

It's not just OC, the black field is streaky and the yellow print has terrible registration. But to your original question, you'll never know unless you crack it out. If you think it's an 8 or 9 before, send it back to PSA as a review candidate. Or trim it to make it 43/43 centered and have David Thorn send it, they won't catch it and you'll get the number you want.

[aronbenabe]

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's not just OC, the black field is streaky and the yellow print has terrible registration. But to your original question, you'll never know unless you crack it out. If you think it's an 8 or 9 before, send it back to PSA as a review candidate. Or trim it to make it 43/43 centered and have David Thorn send it, they won't catch it and you'll get the number you want.

Sarcasm is sometimes the voice of reason!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

I would leave it, but that card doesn’t bother me. I still think many people would go for a straight 5 over a qualified 7.

Qualifiers suck, but they can be very informative. I took a chance a few years ago on a ‘58 Mantle / Aaron that was a straight 2, but looked like a 5 on the front with a very clean surface and almost no print damage. Turns out it had some light album residue on the back, and the submitter had obviously requested no qualifiers. No creases, clearly not your typical “2” quality. My guess if they had not done that with no qualifiers, is that it would have been graded a 5 MK or ST.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's not just OC, the black field is streaky and the yellow print has terrible registration.

Yeah, but it’s not uncommon to see streaky fields and less than perfect print registration even on 7’s.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yeah, but it’s not uncommon to see streaky fields and less than perfect print registration even on 7’s.

Right, but he claimed it was NM-MT or Mint, except for the centering.

[aronbenabe]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Right, but he claimed it was NM-MT or Mint, except for the centering.

That’s correct, the iPhone photo (with the reflection off the plastic casing) makes that streaking look worse than it actually is. This card in its original raw state looks at least NM-MT, IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Right, but he claimed it was NM-MT or Mint, except for the centering.

Right you are. I can see that card as a 7, but not a 9.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk