Grading Question

[savedfrommyspokes]

If you view the card with the same serial number(and a slight diamond cut) that was sold as part of the Dmitri Young collection(which would explain the 10 on a slightly diamond cut card) auction, the barcode on that card is different than the card on ebay.....explains the damage to the case. There is also a print spot on Dmitri's old card in the "B" in Bill that is not present on the card on ebay. On top of that, the diamond cut is opposite on the ebay card.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/lot-19203.aspx

[corey dean]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

If you view the card with the same serial number(and a slight diamond cut) that was sold as part of the Dmitri Young collection(which would explain the 10 on a slightly diamond cut card) auction, the barcode on that card is different than the card on ebay.....explains the damage to the case. There is also a print spot on Dmitri's old card in the "B" in Bill that is not present on the card on ebay. On top of that, the diamond cut is opposite on the ebay card.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/lot-19203.aspx

While there are lots of good people in this hobby and I believe most in the hobby are good, it is still a cesspool. Is there any other hobby that is as corrupt? Sports memorabilia perhaps?

I am new to the board and spent some time reading back through pages and pages of old threads. One thing I picked up was the number of posts about PSA cases being tampered with. I don't trust anything in a PSA case....not that I don't trust PSA....just anything in their cases. I understand they have come up with a more tamper proof case?

Then I look at Beckett cases and in my mind, they seem totally tamper proof. I couldn't imagine someone opening one of them and resealing it without it being completely noticeable. Makes me wonder why PSA's carry a premium and why it took them so long to reconfigure their cases. Seems like they have known about this problem for a while. You would think they would have wanted to protect their name sooner with these newer cases.

[glynparson]

It seems to be waaay more tamper proof it even fits together like the bgs slabs. I am guessing it took so long because like so many publicly traded companes they were only looking at the short time costs/profits of changing the case and not the long term. The problem has grown to a proportion where they were almost forced into this.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by glynparson

It seems to be waaay more tamper proof it even fits together like the bgs slabs. I am guessing it took so long because like so many publicly traded companes they were only looking at the short time costs/profits of changing the case and not the long term. The problem has grown to a proportion where they were almost forced into this.

Another question...would it be fair to say that as PSA moves forward with a better quality, less tamper proof case that any cards with the old PSA case will now lose value? I would think a big yes, as they are basically admitting the old cases can be tampered with, and naturally consumers will now seek out the new cases vs. the older. I suppose they will make NEW money on all he reslabs folks will be racing for?

[glynparson]

The difference between a 9 and 10 is often rather arbitrary. I do not think the amounts spent on 10 over 9 is often justifiable but to each his own. There are some cards that its hard to argue the 10 like Marshall's 1952 Mantle a truly beautiful card then there are the other 2 PSA 10 1952 Mantle's that arent really any better than some of the 9s out there in my humble opinion. And one of those 10's has a slight diamond cut. If at its worst it falls within the 10 guidleines it is in fact allowed. Im not telling you they wont reject a review for that reason but like I said the difference between 9s and 10s are arbitrary, it honestly is very often luck or repetitive reviews in my opinion.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

If you view the card with the same serial number(and a slight diamond cut) that was sold as part of the Dmitri Young collection(which would explain the 10 on a slightly diamond cut card) auction, the barcode on that card is different than the card on ebay.....explains the damage to the case. There is also a print spot on Dmitri's old card in the "B" in Bill that is not present on the card on ebay. On top of that, the diamond cut is opposite on the ebay card.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/lot-19203.aspx

I've read your post a few times trying to understand what you're saying, but I guess I'm missing it. Why are you comparing the Dmitri Young Seaver to the Seaver that is the topic of this thread? You say they have the same serial number, but the serial numbers are different. They're 2 different cards. I don't follow.

Seaver that is the topic of this thread...



Dimitri Young Seaver...

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I've read your post a few times trying to understand what you're saying, but I guess I'm missing it. Why are you comparing the Dmitri Young Seaver to the Seaver that is the topic of this thread? You say they have the same serial number, but the serial numbers are different. They're 2 different cards. I don't follow.

Seaver that is the topic of this thread...



Dimitri Young Seaver...

You are right...being dyslexic has it disadvantages and I transposed some of the the 9s, 7s and 4s in the serial number and reading the serial numbers side ways did not help the dyslexia.

Since the thread was about how this Seaver (ebay) card was graded a 10 with a diamond cut and less than perfect centering, I am still of the opinion from my original post in this thread, that due to both frosting on the case and the tilt cut that the card in this holder was not graded by PSA as 10(even though Dmirti's Seaver RC was graded a 10 with a slight tilt).

[vintagetoppsguy]

Oh, ok. I thought I was losing my mind

I disagree with you though on the eBay Seaver. I have seen many cases that were tampered with and the card was replaced and this is definitely not one of them. If so, it would have way more frosing - all around the edges. I think what you're seeing is just maybe where the slab didn't seal proplerly.

That said, I don't think either Seaver is worthy of a 10 with those diamond cuts. A card with a diamond cut should never, ever receive a 10. Best case, it should be a 9 MC. Why does PSA have a MC qualifier if they're not going to use it? And the MC qualifier isn't like the OC qualifier where you can just request "no qualifiers" - if it's MC, they're supposed to label it as such. Just another reason there are no PSA cards in my collection.

[bnorth]

I am with Larry(savedfrommyspokes) on this. If a PSA holder has any and I do mean any frosting stay far far away from it. I can crack them easily leaving very little to no frosting. It is very easy. The bottom left corner of the Seaver card slab is scary looking to me.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the card, just saying it is crazy easy to crack a slab and leave way less frosting than it has.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I can crack them easily leaving very little to no frosting.

Of course you can. Cracking them is not the problem. It's putting them back together that's the problem. I guarantee you that you can't crack a PSA slab, put it back together (super glue or any other method you want to) and not leave frosting all the way around the edges. Try it on a cheap card. You'll see.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Of course you can. Cracking them is not the problem. It's putting them back together that's the problem. I guarantee you that you can't crack a PSA slab, put it back together (super glue or any other method you want to) and not leave frosting all the way around the edges. Try it on a cheap card. You'll see.

I have never tried to put one back together. Will have to buy a few cheap ones and try it.
Do you know why glueing it back together would made it frost?

Edit: The cards David pictured are not in the same holder. Same serial# but not the same holder.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Oh, ok. I thought I was losing my mind

I disagree with you though on the eBay Seaver. I have seen many cases that were tampered with and the card was replaced and this is definitely not one of them. If so, it would have way more frosting - all around the edges. I think what you're seeing is just maybe where the slab didn't seal properly.

That said, I don't think either Seaver is worthy of a 10 with those diamond cuts. A card with a diamond cut should never, ever receive a 10. Best case, it should be a 9 MC. Why does PSA have a MC qualifier if they're not going to use it? And the MC qualifier isn't like the OC qualifier where you can just request "no qualifiers" - if it's MC, they're supposed to label it as such. Just another reason there are no PSA cards in my collection.

Dyslexia aside, two other things about the label are concerning....while the bar code is legit, on no other PSA Seaver RCs (that I viewed on ebay, etc) graded post 1/2 grade does the barcode and serial number nearly touch the bottom red edge of the label. Some labels have at least a slight amount amount of white between the barcode and serial number(like the D Young Seaver RC), while others have more. Compared to the others I viewed, the bar code and serial number on the ebay PSA 10 Seaver are sitting on the bottom red line.

Also, the "PSA" on the top red border is partially obscured by the top edge of the case. While I have some PSA cards in my collection that the word "PSA" is right at the edge of the top frame, I found none where the top edge of PSA is partially obscured(I randomly flipped through a few hundred of the 6000 I have graded) by the top edge of the case.

I still can not get over why someone selling a $25-40K card would do so with a glaring crack in the holder. Why would this card not be reholdered? It would be like a car dealership selling a new car with a glaring crack in the windshield.

Finally, here is a link to an article concerning some high dollar fake PSA cards, and while some of the fakes have more frosting than the Seaver card, some in the article have no frosting. A PSA 10 Seaver RC is a more valuable card than some of the cards mentioned in the article

http://bbcemporium.com/california-craigs-list-psa-scam/

[vintagetoppsguy]

No disrespect to anybody, but some of you need to educate yourselves on this matter. The card has not been tampered with. It's the same card that sold in Memory Lane 4/4/09 and the same card that sold in MileHigh 2/14/08. Here are the scans...

Memory Lane 4/4/2009...


Mile High 2/14/2008...


Same card today as it was pictured nearly six years ago. Nothing's changed. Again, no disrespect to anyone, but to infer that a Top Rated seller with over 2400 feedback (all 100% positive) is selling tampered/replaced cards is very negligent IMO.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

No disrespect to anybody, but some of you need to educate yourselves on this matter. The card has not been tampered with. It's the same card that sold in Memory Lane 4/4/09 and the same card that sold in MileHigh 2/14/08. Here are the scans...

Memory Lane 4/4/2009...


Mile High 2/14/2008...


Same card today as it was pictured nearly six years ago. Nothing's changed. Again, no disrespect to anyone, but to infer that a Top Rated seller with over 2400 feedback (all 100% positive) is selling tampered/replaced cards is very negligent IMO.

You are right David, the cards look identical in the scans....and except for the frosting along the right edge of the 09 auction card and the ebay card being slightly different appearing in the scans, the holders look identical.

This may just be a coincidence, but also sold in the same April 09 auction was a Fisk RC that this same seller is now offering for sale also. The image from the 09 auction may have been photo shopped as several print defects on the front of the Fisk RC offered on ebay do not appear on the 09 image. On the ebay card, when the image is enlarged on ebay, there is a light scratch(could be on the case, but to appears to be on the card) to the left of Cooper's head and a small print defect on the "R" in First Base" under Cooper's image. Again, this could be coincidence and caused by the editing of the image at the auction house and/or these defects may not be evident in the 09 image because of image quality.



For me, it is still hard to believe that either the Seaver with it's cut or the Fisk with the scratches and print defects were graded as 10s. If I were ever in the market for either of these cards in that high of a grade, these two 10's would not be my choice.

I am certainly not accusing the seller of anything.....he may have received these cards as is and is acting on good faith in selling these. He may be selling these cards for a consignor for all we know.