REA '56 Mays: PSA 2????
 

How is this '56 Mays only a PSA 2?
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=107376

Unfortunately, REA's description sheds no light on the subject.

Maybe a small wrinkle on his face going across his nose?

Anyone see anything?

I think PSA lowered the grade due to the areas of yellowish discoloration on the back as seen in the scan below.

My kinda 2..
If I sent this in I would've expected a 4 at minimum.

Interesting. Is the yellow discoloration you are seeing on the right border of the picture on the side with "Printed in the USA"?

I don't care a lot about the condition of the back, so this might be the card for me.

There, and in the center cartoon in the green background. Also some along the bottom.

Maybe little paper loss on the hat as well? Possible pinhole? Look like a couple of possibilities from the back side.
Top right corner has some paper loss as well. Good eye appeal.

If true, that is an example of why I hate professional grading. The standards say nothing about that kind of thing being responsible for such a drop. I've seen PSA 7's with that kind of discoloration on the back assuming the rest of the card is sharp. Who knows, though.

Totally agree. The only thing consistent is the inconsistency. I love subbing and grading some of my older size different 50s cards as I've mentioned here and its across the board both ways. As much as I like the aesthetics of owning graded cards, I will never, ever "invest" in a grade...it's a house built on sand.


That is a sweet Mays. Grading like that just open the can of worms where someone may pay a 2 price, pop it out, and sell for much much more as someone will see the hope of a 5 or better. Although I am pretty certain as good as this card looks it will sell for more than a 2...so whats the point of the grade? Just so glad my collection is not grade based.

Yep. The major auction houses, at least for a minor leaguer like me - are like watching a good drama on the big screen because you never know what something like that will go for. Eye appeal will surely trump a low technical grade with that audience. It's as good a thing to sit back with popcorn and watch as any. :D

It sold for $390 including Buyer's Premium, which is closer to the average cost of a PSA 3 or even 4.

Can't say that I'm surprised.

I once bought a PSA 2 1954 Bowman Maglie that looked perfect. Cracked and resubbed and got a 7.

That Mays is a 2 and this is a 3?

https://createauctioncdn.azureedge.n...2_1_247753.jpg

Yeah...

Wow, going from a 2 to a 7 is pretty awesome.

Regarding that PSA 3 Mantle--at least its kind of centered, hahaha. Looks like it was in bike spoke or something-yikes. REA described it as a "presentable example". Happy to see the nicer looking PSA 1 do almost at well in the auction.

I still shake my head over that one.

I was recently looking at/watching these ones, and although a scan doesn't always tell the whole story, I wondered how these cards only received 4's?? :confused:
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true

There were many more in this auction too and I couldn't stop thinking about, if I were the submitter, how disappointed I'd be with these grades. Imo, all were eligible for a resubmit but I don't blame the submitter one bit for not wanting to play that game.

Whay a 2?
 

There must be a crease that is undetectable or hard to see on scans.....or, as others suggested, a pinhole, or tiny paper loss somewhere.

In the '90's PSA grades this an 8

In 2010 PSA grades this 7

In 2015 they give it a 6

In 2022, they say F U - take your 2 and like it!


This is how card grading is done for us "hobbyists" - Huge inconsistencies, particularly over the 30+ years PSA has existed.

It's crazy how big/how noticeable the discrepancies are between some of PSA's grades.
When I first joined the site, I looked and looked at numerous PSA graded cards from a variety of sites (eBay/AH's) trying to determine the best I could what my 52 Topps cards would likely grade out at but I came away from that research more confused than I was before I went in.
Here's a few more from that same auction I was talking about above.
Maybe my eyes/experience isn't good enough but I sure wish someone could point something out to me that justifies these grades?
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1952-Topps-S...orig_cvip=true

Dale, I can't tell on all of them but it looks like they may have surface issues. Looking at the first five:

Nuxhall has a scratch on his cap.
Pellagrini has scuffing along his left elbow.
St. Claire has scuffing over his right shoulder.
Crosetti has a scratch mark upper right corner.
McDougald looks like he has some blistering on his face.

So are you saying that PSA used to give 8's to cards with creases, pinholes and paper loss? I thought they always have given low grades if a card had one of those major defects.

Thanks, Al.

I can see those better now that you've pointed them out, but even still, with those slight issues, is that enough to warrant those grades?
Likely answered my own question as I know grading has been become much tougher/critical lately so that is likely the reason?