PSA at it again

clydepepper · #1 11-12-2014, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred

What is the difference in price between the following:

PSA7 to PSA8

PSA8 to PSA9

I just get a kick out of perceived values of the labels. IMHO people place a higher value on those labels than the actual card itself.

I agree. 5 is good for me in most cases.

mark evans · #2 11-12-2014, 11:10 AM

Just another example of the arbitrariness inherent in grading. I will never understand the wide disparities in value at the higher grades.

freakhappy · #3 11-12-2014, 11:49 AM

Definitely looks oc to me...I've seen some not this bad with the qualifier. But I think this just shows how inconsistent TPG can be and we shouldn't be surprised when examples like this show up.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 11-12-2014, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark evans

Just another example of the arbitrariness inherent in grading. I will never understand the wide disparities in value at the higher grades.

Because for some people collecting is a competitive endeavor.

Leon · #5 11-12-2014, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because for some people collecting is a competitive endeavor.

collect what you enjoy...

vthobby · #6 11-12-2014, 06:46 PM

Leon,

Beautiful card! I would buy the 4 all day, every day and never look back. Nice centering also.

peace, mike

KingFisk · #7 11-12-2014, 07:37 PM

Just on the talk about the possible trimming....Whenever I buy an expensive card now I find myself hand-wringing and half convinced I have been ripped off if something seems a little amiss...is there any sort of standard tolerance PSA uses for mimimum size? I just got a PSA 8 65 Morgan that is nicely centered and otherwise sharp, but by my measurement about 1/64th of an inch shy of 2.5" top to bottom...then I notice the little imperfections in the slab...am I just being paranoid over this fractional length? Were vintage cards typically varying in size by these slight degrees?

Lgarza99 · #8 11-12-2014, 08:52 PM

I work for a label company and we abide by an industry standard of +/- 1/64" for size variation, and we supply nation brands with this tolerance. Some apply labels at 1000+ containers per minute so sizing is critical.

I'm sure we cut labels in the same manner as 50 years ago with a guillotine process. We even have programable machines. The +/- tolerance is needed for process variation. You should be good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingFisk

Just on the talk about the possible trimming....Whenever I buy an expensive card now I find myself hand-wringing and half convinced I have been ripped off if something seems a little amiss...is there any sort of standard tolerance PSA uses for mimimum size? I just got a PSA 8 65 Morgan that is nicely centered and otherwise sharp, but by my measurement about 1/64th of an inch shy of 2.5" top to bottom...then I notice the little imperfections in the slab...am I just being paranoid over this fractional length? Were vintage cards typically varying in size by these slight degrees?

Peter_Spaeth · #9 11-12-2014, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingFisk

Just on the talk about the possible trimming....Whenever I buy an expensive card now I find myself hand-wringing and half convinced I have been ripped off if something seems a little amiss...is there any sort of standard tolerance PSA uses for mimimum size? I just got a PSA 8 65 Morgan that is nicely centered and otherwise sharp, but by my measurement about 1/64th of an inch shy of 2.5" top to bottom...then I notice the little imperfections in the slab...am I just being paranoid over this fractional length? Were vintage cards typically varying in size by these slight degrees?

If you can even measure something to 1/64 God bless you. There is a fair amount of variability on 65s in my experience building that set. 1/64 would not bother me.