![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I used the cards I did in the example because they all looked very similar to each other (with one side coming close to touching the border). On a side note, if I was buying a PSA 6, I would have grabbed one that had decent centering. My point was that all of the cards shown were nearly identical, but none had qualifiers (although they all 'deserved' them) except for the one that was listed for only a fraction of the price of the others...and it had a higher overall number, too, a frickin' 8!!! I don't think there's any doubt that the OC qualifier alone sent that card's price to the basement.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice. Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() ![]()
__________________
158 successful b/s/t transactions My collection: https://www.instagram.com/collectingbrooklyn/ Last edited by midmo; 06-08-2020 at 07:18 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Um...that is why I specifically said, "Rule of thumb says a PSA 8 OC (with some exceptions, of course) would be/could be called a straight PSA 6 if the submitter asked for no qualifiers."
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice. Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Darren, with the thread title I though it would be about how you recently got into graded cards.
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I do agree with the thread title.
It seems that everyone is so focused on getting their beautiful vintage cards in plastic and for someone, somewhere, to put a number on the card to say how nice it is. I always have and always will appreciate that feel of cardboard in my hand while enjoying my hobby and the memories from my childhood. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
How about which one does your eye like the best? I think, based only on what I can see from the small photos, that card 1 would be my pick.
__________________
Looking for: Unique Steve Garvey items, select Dodgers Postcards & Team Issue photos |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
For my eye, card #4 would probably be the best of the OC's. And it has/had the added benefit of being the lowest priced of all except for the vaunted #6.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice. Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I am definitely a relatively new convert to the graded world. When I saw what ebay prices were for ungraded cards as compared to their graded counterparts, the switch was made. Why pay $25 for an ungraded card that looks pretty decent, when I can find a PSA 8 for only a little more?? This gives me peace of mind and allows me to have a good idea of what I can sell the card for if the need arose.
It's unfortunate that the TPG's handle 'problems' so weirdly, though. If a card is an 8 and is OC, just call it what it is, PSA 8 OC. Why give the option of making it a straight 6???? It's the same off-centered card. It would've been marvelous if all graded cards were given the suitable qualifiers they deserved (everyone who grew up collecting cards before the 1990's/2000's knew that centering and quality control was not Topps' strong point) from the very beginning. No tweaking things. That would have made cards without qualifiers even more desirable, because no funny business would be involved. A PSA 7 would truly be a PSA 7, and not a PSA 9 OC that was sent in to be graded 'without qualifiers,' for example (I know, I know, you can see the centering with your own eyes, but that's besides the point). Unfortunately, it's too late to unring the grading bell.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice. Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 01-31-2019 at 02:38 PM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
To me, calling it "what it is" as you phrased it, would in fact be calling it a 6 in your example---since the grading standards were written before the concept of permitting voluntary qualifiers, if something has centering worse than is permitted for 8s, then it's not an 8. End of story. There can be no such thing as "this is an 8 except for this one thing that makes it not an 8", to me, that's what adds all the frustrating confusions. For instance, almost nothing is more annoying in my mind than someone advertising a 9oc card with the description something like "It's like a 9! Only one graded higher", meanwhile in my head I'm saying, 'No, you have what would be a straight 7, which is bested by a hundred or so straight 8s, a dozen straight 9s, and one GEM, and it is very, very much not "like" as good as any of those'... Whatever its original intent, the whole voluntary qualifier thing seems now in practice like a gimmick to draw different people in and perpetuate the nuisance of resubmitting and re-slabbing. If my power to dictate, I would end the practice entirely (well, with ultimate power I would go back in time and undo all that had been done and never let that door open in the first place)--and be left saying to someone, 'look, you've got a card that has a variety of characteristics that make it a 6, and that's that.' |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Anyway, glad to read this thread. |
![]() |
|
|