A couple of recent additions...

1982 Topps #21 Ripken RC that looks fine to me. This is exactly what 99.99% of cards coming out of packs looked like that summer, so I have no problem with it. And the 1962 Mantle has 'invisible' wax/gum residue on it...I guess. Can't see anything. What's pretty cool about the 'highlight' cards from that year (Stan the Man, The Killer, etc.) is the overlooked fact that they have the full player stats by season on back. The players' regular cards only showed full stats from the previous season and career totals.

Attachment 373710

I picked up a Schmidt rc at a steal......

Nice. With that card, tilt is usually more of a problem than the centering. Early 1970’s cards in many cases were condition doozies, and this particular one is a poster child for that, IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The 1969 Parker White Letter is a tough variation to grab, so I don't have a problem with it being a tad O/C...but, man, the umps at PSA are really squeezing Tom Terrific's strike zone with this qualifier. The pitch clearly hit the corner of the plate, but they called it a ball anyway...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...21dacc75_b.jpg

PSA's standard for a 9 is 60/40 to 65/35. I would agree that one could have gone the other way.

Another real tough to find 1972 Topps high number, #699 Bobby Murcer, that is just a tad bit O/C as compared to a straight PSA 9...

Attachment 376780

A couple more sharp-cornered HOFer cards I picked up for but a fraction of the price straight 9's sell for. The 1973 Topps #190 Bob Gibson is just a tiny bit, harmlessly o/c top to bottom, and the surreally yellow/green 1974 Topps #110 Billy Williams has a small, virtually non-existent amount of obligatory wax/gum residue on the back. The scan makes it look much, much darker than it is in real life. Cool stuff...

Attachment 379912Attachment 379913
Attachment 379914

A couple (few?) more cool, smiling, high grade OC HOFers...

Attachment 380421

Because of the O/C qualifier I was able to add this card to my collection.
If centering is a must then the 1954 Topps issue is not for you.

To limit my response to two words, all I can say is, "YOW - ZA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

A pair of tough 1957s that are fine just as God (Topps?) made them...

Attachment 383562

An oddly sunburned(?) Say Hey Kid and a trio of all-time great sluggers having a grand old time...

Attachment 385936

I hate the term 'great eye appeal,' but to me neither of these o/c cards suffer from a lack of it.

A pair of 1972 PSA 9 high numbers that almost never appear up for auction, and since they're just a touch OC, I got them at a beautiful price...

Attachment 386795

A quartet of yumminess...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...19a172b8_b.jpg

Thank God I don't have COCD (Cardboard Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), because these tough, sharp cornered 1967 Topps high numbers don't bother me much at all...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a5eeb16c_b.jpg

Nice cards, would not bother me either. 67's are deceptively tough because even if perfectly centered, the borders are a bit thinner than some issues. Finding one close to centered with zero tilt is next to impossible anyway. I certainly would not try to build a 67 set that had super stringent centering requirements.

A quartet of cool high-grade, but qualified, cards...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...950804b9_b.jpg

Here are some recent pick-ups (with commentary)...

The 1973 Strikeout Leaders' (from 1974) 'print defect' is a tiny bit of extraneous snow/dots in a couple of places, but it doesn't bother me none and I got this great card featuring two legendary hurlers together for less than $20 total (and it is perfectly centered). The 1964 Ed Charles Stand-Up has the obligatory wax/gum stain on its blank back, and the 1976 'Eck' rookie card has what I like to call a WTF qualifier...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e9ef4f46_h.jpg

This 1972 Jim Fregosi Traded high number is as close as you can possibly get to NOT being deemed off-center. It's a head scratcher (the back is centered). 99.9% of all '72 Steve Garvey highs are much too close to the top border, so although it's a tad bit hinky looking (although side to side it's right on the money), I bought this one instead of taking out a loan to shell out $400-$500 for a straight 9 that is only a tiny bit better in the top to bottom centering arena (check out ebay to see the pricing/look of other PSA 9 OC's). The 1973 Frank Robinson is a majestic card and everyone knows how ridiculously hard it is to find nice 1971's that aren't plagued by chipping, so this beautiful 'a little low' Jim Bunning is fine by me...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6f038927_h.jpg

Ah, the difference in grading companies-

Attachment 413137

Learning Curve
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...OWMANS_NEW.JPG

..Agreed ....we all learned fairly quickly where to send our lesser-centered '50s cardboard......I'm over-the-top mentally unbalanced about side-to-side centering but strangely I can tolerate this type of T-to-B like your Berra and Spahn ; ..

..

I'm over-the-top mentally unbalanced without qualifiers! I've always been more about having stronger corners than centering. For the 53 Bowman set, one either accepts what they find or uses quite a bit of patience, discretion and money to build a set with perfect centering. I can live better with more at the top than having less, side to side I have some with 15/85, but I am completely happy with 65/35.

I have 2 Spahns- this one and a BVG 3 which has nice corners and perfect centering, but it has a 2 inch horizontal line wrinkle starting from the left side and running near the mitt. The BVG 3 has better eye appeal, but the PSA has strong borders and no creases or wrinkles. This week the BVG 3 is my keeper, next week-who knows?

A quartet of (for me) coolness...

The 1972 Morgan and Cepeda cards are just a tad/touch/smidgen too high top to bottom to get straight grades. Oh well, but I'm ecstatic to have them. The 1969 Johnny Bench is a wonderfully celebrated (see, I took my own advice https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277906) card that has what should have been easily-wiped-away (see-through) gum residue on the front...and I mistakenly bought the '59 Dark (which looks pretty frickin' nice), because I came to the hurried conclusion that it was a high number. Missed it by THAT much...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...55a570a7_h.jpg

Take a ride on the stain train...

1957 Topps tough series Danny Kravitz has a small amount of non-problematic wax/gum residue of back. The 1964 Frank Malzone Stand-Up has a tiny bit of the obligatory wax/gum stain on its blank back, and both the 1965 Killebrew and 1966 high number Mahaffey look as clean as a freshly Windexed window. No matter how much they're tilted in the sunlight, I can't pick up even a hint of a 'stain.' Perhaps there's an unseen bit of residue that's only visible when the cards are actually in-hand and not in a slab?? Dunno...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9d942133_h.jpg

Here's one I didn't expect. I sent a bunch of Mantle cards in to be graded in March and they just came back yesterday. Grades were all over the place, got a couple 8's I didn't expect but also two 1's that I thought were better.

The most surprising one to me is this 1962 Mantle All Star. Do think the MC qualifier is because of the bottom border on the front, or the top of the circle on the back?

It's gotta be the back circle. I have a 1969 WL Mantle that's a 6 MC for the same reason, the circle on back is just a hair cropped off. Back MC's are great (for buyers, not graders), because you can usually get them at a severe discount and the front isn't affected at all.

I was extremely happy to grab this pair of all-time greats. Both are just a slight hair of a tad off-center top to bottom to get straight grades, but they look pretty sweet to me, with sharp corners and beautiful clarity (and the Ryan is one of the best cards ever!!!)...

Attachment 418610

Three Under Par??

The 1964 Topps #331 A.L. Bombers/Mantle is a beautiful card that is slightly pushed to the right, but there's plenty of breathing room over there. In a vacuum, the 1964 Topps Stand-Up Orlando Cepeda looks absolutely, perfectly fine. Nothing wrong whatsoever. The name plate is virtually dead centered, so it's only by examining other cards graded PSA 8 do you realize that it is just a touch too close to the bottom to warrant a straight grade. You would never think anything's amiss if you looked at the card by its lonesome. Oh well. I don't really collect football cards, but 1970 Topps #87 Bob Lilly makes the fifth HOF'er from the set that I've picked up in PSA 9 OC shape. They are generally gotten pretty cheaply, which is nice. With the thin white borders, it only takes a hair's width to deem those cards O/C (Although Bob really doesn't look all that bad, it is BY FAR the most OC of my quintet. How funny is that?)...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1dd139dc_h.jpg

4-on-the-Floor.

A couple of Hall of Famers caught in very insignificant 'snow' flurries, a very decent looking Gil Hodges, and the 1961 Topps high number, #559 Jim Gentile, is just a bear to come by in high grade, so I grabbed this slightly hinky O/C one just to get it...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...818415e7_h.jpg

Top of the POPs...

Here is an awesome foursome of extremely sharp-cornered cards with beautiful (3 out of the 4) centering that have ridiculously low pops, so I'm happy to have them in any way, shape or form. The 1958 Topps Harry Anderson #171 has six straight 9's and three with qualifiers, 1958 Topps Murray Wall #410 has four 9's and two with Q's, the 1962 Topps Herb Score #116 Green Tint has only a pair of straight 9's and the card pictured is the only one found with a (in my mind, ill-gotten) qualifier, and the 1971 Topps Jerry Robertson #651 high number has a total of six nines and four with qualifiers. Although a bit off-center, his perfect borders and corners couldn't possibly get any more blacker...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...ab6748f1_h.jpg

Hi, I'm new around here...this thread is fascinating. How on earth has PSA maintained the level of hegemony in the market that it has, given how obviously arbitrary and inconsistent its grades are? To say nothing of the trimming scandal, which somehow hasn't seemed to affect its credibility in the market. *And* the incentives that it has to keep the population of 10s and even 9s artificially low. Talk about a naked emperor. It's baffling to a newcomer.

Ok. Probably a dumb question but I'll pose it anyway. Are there any PSA cards with multiple qualifiers? I've never taken notice of any. Of 40 million cards graded I would expect some OC card to also have a mark, stain, or print defect right? Of course miscut and off center would not make sense but I might expect some of the other combos. Example is the '68 mantle with ST on the top of this thread is also OC correct?

I don't think we've ever seen the multiple qualifier thing happen before. It's been discussed, but it seems the rule of thumb is the grader 'decides' which issue is worse, so to speak, and the card gets that qualifier.

Check out this old thread:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=264424

With regards to the 1968 Mantle, it fits into the PSA 7 centering guidelines, so there 'was' (I have since eliminated the wax/gum residue and resubmitted it) only the stain qualifier to be considered.

I've never seen a card with multiple qualifiers.

A Four Top(ps)...

Here is another group of sharp cornered HOF'ers. The 1957 Topps Larry Doby #85 has a bit of extraneous 'snow,' but is otherwise pretty sweet, the 1966 Topps Whitey Ford #160 is extremely sharp, but true to form it (unfortunately) sports a highly dominant southpaw side, the 1972 Topps Rod Carew IA #696 helps with my slowly building 1972 PSA 9 high number set, where I grab up OC's if they're not too badly off-kilter, and the 1973 Topps Mike Schmidt #615 high number rookie card is really nice if you're able to ignore the stain. I'm waiting for PSA to get back to me on my request to have the 'PD' properly changed to 'ST'...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1d374be2_h.jpg

These don't bother me much, since centered cards from this set are tough to come by at all.

https://caimages.collectors.com/psai...e_Original.jpg https://caimages.collectors.com/psai...s_Original.jpg

Love 'em!!!!!!

A big HUH???...

The 1962 Topps Green Tint Wally Moon #190 appears absolutely perfect. PD???? What PD???? Usually there's extraneous red or blank ink all over the place on GTs that get hit with a 'PD,' but this has just a touch of snow that is irrelevant when looking at it in hand. And speaking of snow, I've heard of yellow snow, but 1972 Topps Fergie Jenkins #410 is really pushing the envelope with a bit of blue snow. Perhaps someone used a Swiffer on 1963 Fleer SP Joe Adcock #46, because this sucker has no stains front or back (where is often found a bit of cookie or wax residue). This card is the poster child for how PSA graded cards earlier on with a quick ST or PD trigger finger. And finally, the 1963 Fleer Ruben Amaro #50 is actually a bit OC top to bottom, but man is it a sharp card, so I was happy to add it...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9e41a535_h.jpg

With prices rising so quickly on everything, I have really upped my bargain hunting game, and the result is these eight high-grade 1961 Topps O/C high numbers. Pretty sweet! I negotiated a deal for all of them (not off ebay) and am really happy about it.

First off, #523 Joe Gibbon is a really tough to find high number in higher grade. They are always snapped up quickly. If you search past ebay auctions (I exclude all of the sc*mbag card doctors), there is only one card that sold recently, and it's posted below. That straight 7 (which is crazily O/C) sold for almost 4 times as much as what I paid for this one, and I'll take mine over that one any day of the week. It is just pushed a tad bit to the top. And take a gander at #537 Bobby Locke and #557 Jose Valdivielso, each just a mere hair off center top to bottom. A pair of sharp-ass 9 OC's!! The PSA 8 OC #547 Leon Wagner also has similar centering...


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...300c1dec_h.jpg

These four (#528 Pedro Ramos, #532 Bob Hale, #546 Marty Kutyna and #551 George Altman) are a bit tougher to look at for many collectors, as they suffer the indignity of side to side centering anomalies, but I got them at a real nice price and they have sharp corners...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a70dc1c5_h.jpg

Attachment 439163

OC cards are undervalued and great buy in a lot of cases.
A lot of ppl compare a 8OC vs. a strong 6. Saying rather get the 6. But there's a lot of weak 6 I rather get a 8OC instead. Strong color. Bold color. Great registration. Shape bright paper stock. A card is not only about the centering

Get 'Em While They're Hot...

The 1961 Topps Mickey Mantle All Star #578 High Number is just a card you 'need' to grab if one becomes available at a relatively decent price in this insane market. The 1963 Topps Juan Marichal #440 is the embodiment of 'meaninglessly' OC cards. Because of the colored bottom borders in that set, when an image is pushed up a bit, it really doesn't matter at all aesthetically, as it may on a white bordered card. The 1967 Topps Willie Mays #200, has an obvious gum stain on back, but 'Sey Hey' cards are on a steep incline, so I felt good about grabbing this one before things get even more batsh*t crazy. And the 1971 Topps andy kosco (sic) #746 is a jet black, sharp cornered high number, so who the heck cares about that 'off' centering...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9cb71e4c_h.jpg

Nice pickups, Darren. Totally agreed on the '61 Mantle AS. If there is a sleeper Mantle card, I think that is it. Slick '61 AS design, plus it's a high number. I picked up a nicely centered PSA 5 about three years ago. Not that this thread is about centering, LOL.

A stain upon the silence...

The 1959 Topps Luis Aparicio #310 is what I call an "Opportunity Accost" - unexpectedly coming across a card and knowing if you don’t buy it at that price, the next person who sees it will undoubtedly jump on it. It's nicely centered and there are very, very minor (and easily-ignored) gum stains on the back. Before the internet existed, just seeing a 1963 Fleer Checklist was a fantastical experience, the embodiment of rarity. Nowadays, it still holds a great deal of that same magic for many of us. The (air quotes) "off center" 1965 Topps Clete Boyer #475, is an 'ancient' relic I remember from my youth. One of my brother's friends gave us a stack of very old cards (I assumed he gave up collecting so he could learn guitar and start landing chicks??) and a round-cornered Boyer with another Yankee I had never heard of, Tom Tresh (whose name obviously made me laugh), were a part of it. And the 1972 Topps Nolan Ryan #595 is a beautiful looking (read as 'no tilt,' and ignore the Mets uniform with the airbrushed abomination of a hat), quickly escalating card...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...003f42ed_h.jpg

Overpaid my welcome...

When I bought most of these, the prices might have been considered relatively 'stupid,' but I knew a month later they would look like sweet bargains, so I grabbed up each of them.

The centering on the 1961 Topps Ernie Banks #350 ain't be bothering me none, as there's a decent amount of white space on all four sides. The 1968 Topps 3-D Jim Lonborg is just an awesome rarity to behold. The stain is easily-ignored gum/wax(?) on its blank back. I'll take that qualifier any day of the week. This card is beautiful, and Topps really dropped the ball by not pursuing this avenue of cards. Packs of these guys would've flown off the shelves, the way boxes of Corn Flakes did for Kellogg's instead. The (pretty nicely centered for this card) 1969 Topps Pete Rose #120, is what I call "leggy." If there's a future group sub, I'm going to bust him out and work away the 'invisible' gum/wax with some panty hose for a re-submit. And the 1974 Topps Tom Seaver #80 (somewhat awkward tilt aside) is just one of my all-time favorite cards, showing the grunt-filled follow-through of 'Tom Terrific' at Shea on a sunny day with a capacity crowd cheering him on, probably during my Mets' push to the World Series in 1973 (and the John 'The Hammer' Milner cameo makes my heart smile every time)...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...42858400_h.jpg

When they mark a card PD what's the defect usually?

Most of the ones I have gotten are centered around too much 'snow' or fish-eyes here and there. Things like that. Pretty minor stuff in most cases, but it is sometimes significant enough to be bothersome to some collectors. Other PDs are just insanely unwarranted to me, like this 1961 Banks MVP I have...

Attachment 448054Attachment 448053

It's either due to the speck of white to the right of his eyes or the tiny bit of black invading the the left corner of the green diamond on back. I just don't get it...but it's still a beautiful card.


Edited to add: other common 'print defects' are things such as print lines, or erroneous color shifts and whatnot.

PSA was pretty much wildly inconsistent with the PD qualifier at the time they were making flips that looked like that. I would not expect you would get it again today if you cracked that card and resubbed.

What PD???
 

Finding a print defect on that ‘61 Banks card is VERY questionable.

Check out this thread:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=265200

Post #49 has the 1961 Aaron MVP, and further down I added the Banks one. Granted, they are only the fronts of the cards, but it's still pretty crazy.

Alright, since you posted in my B/S/T, I'm putting this here :D

I'm posting my 1965 Mantle PSA 6 first. Decent centering, but look at the back

https://i.imgur.com/tsHFDtCl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/tp2PWoFl.jpg

Now here's the one PSA wouldn't slab that I've got for sale. All around this one is a sharper card with better color. The back is miscut, but is it that far off of the PSA 6 back?

Let me know what you think.

https://i.imgur.com/LRdvAQ5l.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/A5wjkJWm.jpg?1

Definitely research the PSA N:8 designation. It doesn't seem to mean the traditional 'miscut,' where a piece of the front or back (even the tiniest sliver) is missing/going off the edge. Your card is NOT miscut in that sense. I believe a card that is cut/shaped wrongly (maybe having non-straight bulbous edges and whatnot) gets the N:8 knockout. Know what I mean? They should've used a word other than 'miscut' to make the determination clearer.