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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...
 

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

I would also guess #5 is the PSA5

Ill try 5

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...779fd961_h.jpg

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

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.

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...

Attachment 364381

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.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...78bd16e4_h.jpg

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

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

4! I bet I'm wrong though

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

And the winner lies behind Door #1...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...7b34829f_b.jpg

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.

Rats. There goes my career in grading

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

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...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e6421568_b.jpg

#7 ???

# 2

#7
 

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

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

Surprisingly (well, to me at least), it's card #2. Funny thing is, the last 3 cards on the bottom row all seem to be closer to the top than the winner...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6ffd069d_b.jpg


But the good news is I bought it for significantly less than a tenth of what straight 9's regularly go for, so I am very happy to have picked it up. Here it is without the tilted scan...

Attachment 370819

Today's episode is called What About Bob?...

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

Here are eight 1961 #388 'Bob' Clemente cards (random screenshots) that all have at least one side pretty close (marginally close?) to the border. All are graded PSA 8...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which of these 8 very similar (all within a hair of each other as far as nearness to a border is concerned) Clementes is the only one with an OC designation cursing it??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...173ed52a_b.jpg

6. If not 6 I give up

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Card 5 is my guess.

I would say #6 as well.

My guess is #4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll guess #1.

One
 

It’s #1...:D

guess #5

at least we seem to have narrowed it down to 1, 4, 5, or 6

Happy Halloween. It's 10/31, which obviously points to today's winner (loser). Of course, I mean 10 minus (3+1) equals six. Okay, that's an awful streeeeetch. Oh well.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c883ff7e_b.jpg


It's spooky (get it?) that although the distance from the border seems pretty universal across most of these cards, the one that's closer to the bottom gets tricked, while the ones closer to the top get treated to a whole bagful of candy. Here's a comparison of five of them...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...f371aa6a_b.jpg

Sheesh, that's really splitting hairs. Centering minutiae on cards that are in high grade to start with I think is part of the slightly fraud-tinged aspect of professional grading that we all put up with. 80/20 vs. 55/45 is one thing; clearly most people can tell the difference there, but in this example, card 5 looks to have worse centering to me than card 6. I guess it could be the angle of the scan, but the difference here is a few points, not like 20 or 30. To me on a card that is decently centered to start with, but you can tell it's not perfect or "dead nuts" centered - it's all just antimatter. What if the "o/c" card has better color or registration? This to me leads to a card selling for more online because of a slab, where in a shop or at a show that wouldn't be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I value professional grading - especially for buying cards I cannot hold in my hands first - but for the "o/c" card in that example to likely be worth half or less than the non qualified card in a marketplace like eBay makes no sense.

Curious.
With other things being pretty much equal, the 'problem' area is the right border, but the PSA 9 OC has a bit more room there than the straight 8 does...

https://i.imgur.com/FNa6kiA.gif

...and I won't even mention how significantly wider the left side white area is on the 8.

From PSA:
MINT 9
Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

NM-MT 8
Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

This to me is the "expertise" of professional grading which occasionally smacks of fraud. There is materially no difference in those cards, and had they been graded side by side, I bet would have received the same grade.

In keeping with the season, today's episode is called Eight graders a-gradin'...

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

Here's an octet of 1972 #255 Julius Ervings (random screenshots of his 'Rookie Light' card) that all have at least one side pretty close to a border. All are graded either PSA 8 or PSA 9...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which of these 8 relatively similar cards is NOT what the Doctor J ordered? Which one has an OC designation cursing it??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...14fda34b_h.jpg

I've never understood their need for the "OC' qualifier anyway. It's interesting to have beckett break down the four main qualities of a card together, but I don't know why PSA only points out typical poor centering out of those four basics. Why that, but not a nicely centered 3 being "5 RC" instead (for rounded corners) too?

Just doesn't seem to be needed, especially since it's fairly obvious why a card with all other aspects like an 8 (except for some 85/15 centering) is being graded a 6

I never get these right, but here goes nothing. I vote #6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Going for 2 in a row. 7.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I would have to guess the third one in row one. It even looks like a bit of a diamond cut.

First card in row 2.

#4?

2nd card from left on top. It's O/C in two directions.

Why do these professional idiots downgrade so severely for centering...

But make no such deductions for poor focus, bad registration, or cards being cut short?

All of these are original attributes of the card, as it was manufactured (and not anything remotely related to condition or “wear and tear”).

Yet they only care about centering. In today’s environment, I’d much rather own a card that’s off-centered than an unfocused image, or one that’s cut short and moves around in the Holder.

Odds are the “maraca card” was trimmed, just to improve the illusion of centering. Seems so pointless and dumb to rely on these “impartial” fools when our eyes are just as good or better than theirs. Sorry to derail the fun and games. :o

And the winner/loser is #2...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...38152c5a_h.jpg

...but I got it at a great price, and it looks beautiful to my eyes. (Stringent PSA 9 guidelines aside) I would never consider this type of centering to be anything but 'fine and normal.' Love it!!!

Attachment 378480

Today's episode (a tough one at that) is called Print Defect or Grader Defect...

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

Here is a sextet of 1957 Topps tough series #293 Ted Abernathy cards. All are graded PSA 9 (There are only 4 different examples at the PSA Auction Prices Realized site, one for sale on ebay, and one recently sold on ebay, so these six represent all of the 9's readily available for easy viewing, so I didn't purposefully grab pics to throw anyone off the scent. These are the 'only' ones out there.). The 'negative' similarities of the group include most are a tiny bit short side to side and there are usually some tiny bluish 'gnats' buzzing around the pics. No back print issues come into play. Here's where it gets tough...only one of them has a PD (print defect) qualifier, just one. Which of these 6 virtually identical PSA 9 cards is cursed by the PD designation??

You can take a wild guess if you want to (go for it!), but I'd love to hear why you think your selection deserved the qualifier.

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e75a8fe4_h.jpg

For the Ted Abernathy, I am guessing top row middle. It appears the blue gnats around Ted and Wash are more frequent, and the "P." is blurry/imperfect.

5. Has some discoloring in the borders.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

#5, bottom row, middle - only because the dark shadow stripe to the left of his face and neck, (running top to bottom) seems a bit more pronounced

#5 also. The print spot to the left of the W on his hat.

And the winner/loser is #4. Truly mind blowing...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9ffbffa7_h.jpg

Herein lies the fallacy of professional grading. Anyone who argues for 2 seconds that grade is somehow objective is out of their mind...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's call tonight's episode Reds SCARE...

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

This time it's a little bit different. Five of these cards are graded PSA 9 and one is graded PSA 8...but all of them have the dreaded OC qualifier...that is, except for one. Which of these six cards is the only one NOT cursed by the OC designation??

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6c50b043_h.jpg

#4... Now, what’s my prize?

5

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

With every new thing like this that involves ‘72 Topps, the more convinced I become that it just might be the worst centered set of all time. Also the tilt issues! Last year I gave up a better centered copy of the Bench card in question here for one that was slightly worse off centered, but had better color and image. I suppose this means at heart I’m not a total centering freak...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The one I kept. For purposes of this contest, I will guess number 5 is the one with the OC designation; although in truth we all know it could be any of them.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...f054297d8c.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

4

Words fail me, so simply get a frickin' load of the 'winner' of this one...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9c3209d9_h.jpg

Man, thought for sure I had that one. Maybe one of these times I’ll get ONE right.

This one isn't a guessing game, but just another example to show how grading has clouded some of our minds. I grabbed up a 1973 Schmidt RC in PSA 8 OC, and it was basically half the price (or less) of what a bunch of PSA 7s on ebay (I obscured the cert numbers) are listed for (obviously, it's not a perfect comparison, because these aren't sold prices). The centering on most of these is pretty damn similar (especially with regard to that left side) to one another. A lot of graded card people don't want to have qualifiers on their slabs, so they insist on having 'straight' grades...but at what cost? A 'lower' grade straight 7 that is centered the same way as the 8 OC, AND at twice the price???? Crazy town.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...ac0cde6e_h.jpg

This becomes where grading is only an opinion, and treating it as more than that is them taking your money for fraud. That 8 (OC) is not centered demonstrably worse than several of those 7’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Today's episode is called Whitey as the Driven Snow...

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

This is all about eights. All 8 of these cards are graded PSA 8, but only one of them has a PD (print defect) qualifier, just one. But I don't want you to guess which one it is. Your job this time is to look at this octet of Fords and simply decide which one or two of the 8 cards you would take if you were allowed to walk away with one for free. That's it. In other words, which card or cards do you consider to be the best of the bunch??

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

These cards come from 8 different sources and there's a bunch of snowfall in the backgrounds, but I didn't adjust anything too much. Just a little contrast here and there to make them a bit more consistent across the (Chairman of the) Board.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...217eb450_k.jpg

3

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I mean 6

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

7


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5

#1

I like #6. No fish eyes or white specks — with decent centering corners.

5


Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

The 'rules' have been updated a bit to provide a little more flexibility. Instead of choosing one card, you can select the two cards you feel are the best 8's from the group.

here are mine
 

1st choice #6
2nd choice #1

1 and 6

As per the rule update, I am now including card #6 as well.

The only contestant with a PD qualifier is (drum roll, please) lucky card number 6...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...837a6b30_k.jpg


Pretty wild. The picture in the auction actually made it seem like there was a decent flurry of snow in the dark areas (tantamount to card #3 or #5, but my guess is the seller's scanner has a bunch of dust on it), but that isn't the case at all in hand. I have no idea what the print defect is. No way, no how. The only 'defect' is the white dot on the border above his hat (the back is clean), but it's nothing at all. Take a look at how many white dots interrupt the top border of card #8.

For a comparison, I took a pair of random PSA 8 PD cards I ran across online and put them next to the one (first card) I bought. A drastic difference...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...4ff841a1_h.jpg

What a difference a hair makes...

The 1971 Topps Greatest Moments #24 Bob Gibson is a tough card to find. No doubt about it. On the auction prices realized site, there are only 15 sales of any grade recorded since 2006. And of those, there are only four straight PSA 8's (the only PSA 8 I see on ebay right now is priced at $975 or BO).

Pictured here are three cards, with a pair of said 8's. Look how close to the border the top left-hand corners of the white boxes come. Very, very close. Now look at the PSA 8 OC. It is only but a hair closer to the border than the other two, a nearly indistinguishable difference and nothing to fret about. Here's the good news. The straight 8's both sold for over $400 apiece...but I was immediately able to (picture David Lee Roth) jump on the OC one the other night for less than a quarter of that price.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cdc007c0_h.jpg

Today's episode is called Ellis in Wonderland...

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

The very lesser known 1972 Topps John Ellis IA card is part of the ridiculously-hard-to-find-centered grouping of In Action cards from the set that includes (among others) Willie Mays and Harmon Killebrew (who, coincidentally enough, appears right on the Ellis card). To actually find any of those cards nicely centered and sans tilt is a feat that requires the likes of Indiana Jones traversing the globe to accomplish. Be that as it may, pictured here are a bunch of straight PSA 8 cards that all look remarkably similar to each other, except one - only one - is a PSA 9 OC. Which one is it, and/or which of these cards would you prefer over the others?

(The top row contains cards #1, 2, the middle row #3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6.)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3818dd10_b.jpg

5 is the O/C, I dig the 3

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

On a side note, I ran across this PSA 7 Topps 1973 'Broadway Joe' on ebay today. The rule of thumb is a PSA 9 card that is off-centered could be magically turned into a straight PSA 7 if the 'no qualifiers' box is checked on the submission form. (Have no way of knowing whether or not this occurred in regard to the grading of the card here) I mean, coloring problems in the graphic on the 7 aside, wouldn't virtually everyone immediately prefer the PSA 9 OC card (although it's a little worse top to bottom), since they have nearly identical features???

Attachment 400509

Yeah the 9 OC is the better card here.

Whenever it was that centering as a key feature rose to prominence 20 years ago or whatever, it made grading a lot tougher. You continue to see changes today, with SGC suddenly getting tougher than PSA on centering even within the last year or so. Often a borderline card with them will get the lower grade, and I've seen some cases where it would appear that professional graders simply don't know how to compute centering ratios properly, or are bad at eyeballing. They obviously don't measure all of them. Some people will penalize a 70/30 card as if it's 90/10, which is wrong.

Insanity. Another reason why it makes little sense to hang your hat only on a grader's opinion. The '61 Topps cards with black backgrounds are damn near impossible though. Even Mantles in high grade usually have something going on back there.

Okay, to be clear, this isn't a complaint or anything of the sort, but I have to say I am rather confounded (don't think I've ever actually used that particular word before) by this card's grading. For my fellow variations-chasing brethren, this is the hardest to find of the 1966 Topps #432 Bob Heffner cards. There is the regular version, the purple tree version, and what I call the purple tree 'lens flare' variation found here (I'm happy it's an 8). There is nothing subjective about it. An explosion of magenta ink lays waste to the background foliage. But here's where it gets interesting. These variations are in no way officially recognized cards in the PSA master set registry...so why in heck isn't my card downgraded with a horrible 'PD' pronouncement??? There is clearly and obviously a print defect that is as plain as day to anyone looking at the card, yet no designation is made...

Attachment 403745

...yet for the love of criminy, my 1961 Topps #485 Banks MVP card got the Scarlet Letters 'PD' attached to it, although for the life of me I will never understand why. There are no explosions. In fact, it seem Topps was in a state of detente at the time...

Attachment 403746

I have a couple of Schmidt rookie cards with a decent amount of snow floating around, and they were both correctly PD'ed. Are the PSA graders collectors who know about this variation, so they ignore the fact that said variation IS a print defect?? Strange. Again, not complaining, just wondering what the logic is here.