NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:23 AM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,311
Default

I'll guess #6.
__________________
T206, 1972 Topps. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-05-2019, 09:04 AM
MrPosadas's Avatar
MrPosadas MrPosadas is offline
Ryan Inns
member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 16
Default

#1 seems to have some light surface damage along with some fish eyes but #6 is the one screaming PD the most to me.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-05-2019, 10:40 AM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,311
Default

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.
__________________
T206, 1972 Topps. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-05-2019, 11:45 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,008
Default

5
__________________
Stuff trumps all. Even tainted stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-05-2019, 03:04 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 5,684
Default

Number 2 seems to have the fewest print defects. So I'll go with that one.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-06-2019, 08:58 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,094
Default

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.
__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-07-2019, 05:03 AM
swarmee's Avatar
swarmee swarmee is offline
J0hn Raff3rty
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Niceville FL
Posts: 4,101
Default

#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).
__________________
--
PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head
PSA: Regularly Get Cheated
BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern
SGC: Closed auto authentication business
JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC
Oh, what a difference a year makes.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-08-2019, 01:36 PM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,311
Default

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
__________________
T206, 1972 Topps. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-08-2019, 03:17 PM
LeftHandedDane LeftHandedDane is offline
Ed Jensen
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 74
Default

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".
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-08-2019, 03:27 PM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftHandedDane View Post
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...
__________________
T206, 1972 Topps. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 07-08-2019, 05:14 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,094
Default

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.)

__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-08-2019, 09:53 PM
Empty77 Empty77 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyElm View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-09-2019, 08:25 AM
chalupacollects chalupacollects is offline
Ti.m H.
Tim Hu,nt
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 585
Default

Me I have:
1 - 9D
2 - 8
3 - 9
4 - 7 - the gimme
5 - 9
6 - 8
__________________
Successful B/S/T deals with asoriano, obcbobd, x2dRich2000, eyecollectvintage, RepublicaninMass, Kwikford, Oneofthree67, jfkheat, scottglevy, whitehse, GoldenAge50s, Peter Spaeth, Northviewcats and megalimey so far.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-09-2019, 07:49 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,094
Default

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
__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-09-2019, 09:27 PM
Empty77 Empty77 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyElm View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-09-2019, 09:30 PM
Empty77 Empty77 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyElm View Post


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.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-21-2019, 06:59 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,094
Default

***
__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel

Last edited by JollyElm; 08-08-2019 at 07:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-08-2019, 08:02 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,094
Default

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.)

__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-08-2019, 09:14 PM
Hxcmilkshake's Avatar
Hxcmilkshake Hxcmilkshake is offline
St@n Go.len
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 253
Default

#3!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-09-2019, 04:32 AM
Vintagevault13's Avatar
Vintagevault13 Vintagevault13 is online now
€d M!££w00D
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Georgia
Posts: 495
Default

Another vote for #3


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Happy Collecting

Ed

Complete:

1972 Topps Baseball
1973 Topps Baseball
1974 Topps Baseball (master set w/all variations)
1975 Topps Baseball

In progress:

1971 Topps Baseball
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08-09-2019, 08:20 AM
Just.Rachel's Avatar
Just.Rachel Just.Rachel is offline
Rachel Stone
Rachel St.one
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Miami
Posts: 57
Default

#6 ?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-09-2019, 08:45 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,008
Default

3 is too obvious so I will go with 5.
__________________
Stuff trumps all. Even tainted stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:46 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,699
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-09-2019, 01:20 PM
vintagebaseballcardguy's Avatar
vintagebaseballcardguy vintagebaseballcardguy is offline
R0b3rt Ch!ld3rs
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,953
Wink

Daring to be different.......#1.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-09-2019, 04:11 PM
JunkyJoe JunkyJoe is offline
Bill
member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: West Coast
Posts: 15
Default

#3

(if not #3, then #4)

Last edited by JunkyJoe; 08-09-2019 at 04:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:06 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,094
Default

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.
__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel

Last edited by JollyElm; 08-14-2019 at 03:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-13-2019, 07:57 AM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,311
Default

Ouch. #3 definitely should have the qualifier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
T206, 1972 Topps. HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:12 AM
Harford20's Avatar
Harford20 Harford20 is offline
Dave H@rford
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:49 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,094
Default

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.)

__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-23-2019, 04:14 PM
Just.Rachel's Avatar
Just.Rachel Just.Rachel is offline
Rachel Stone
Rachel St.one
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Miami
Posts: 57
Default

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

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 08-23-2019, 04:39 PM
Vintagevault13's Avatar
Vintagevault13 Vintagevault13 is online now
€d M!££w00D
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Georgia
Posts: 495
Default

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Happy Collecting

Ed

Complete:

1972 Topps Baseball
1973 Topps Baseball
1974 Topps Baseball (master set w/all variations)
1975 Topps Baseball

In progress:

1971 Topps Baseball
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 08-23-2019, 06:04 PM
MrPosadas's Avatar
MrPosadas MrPosadas is offline
Ryan Inns
member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 16
Default

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
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another one for the brilliant minds at PSA... HOF Auto Rookies Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports 12 02-06-2016 08:30 PM
Card Grading vs. Autograph Grading scooter729 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 9 08-20-2014 01:52 PM
Authenticators changing their minds Runscott Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports 12 04-09-2014 08:04 PM
Mint Grading, or is it the grading of mints? brianp-beme Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 2 10-30-2010 10:11 AM
GAI Grading Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 5 01-18-2003 10:50 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM.


ebay GSB