Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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.

I understand your point of view and where you're coming from, but I have to take the opportunity to make the case for the other side of the debate and say that I just fundamentally disagree with how you're thinking about the qualifiers and rather think it's the other way around.

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.'

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Empty77

--since the grading standards were written before the concept of permitting voluntary qualifiers...

I can see this side of it as well. In 1990 there was no PSA. I probably would have thought the concept of qualifiers was absurd. No, that card is not NM because it's too far O/C. Instead it's Excellent...

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Empty77

I understand your point of view and where you're coming from, but I have to take the opportunity to make the case for the other side of the debate and say that I just fundamentally disagree with how you're thinking about the qualifiers and rather think it's the other way around.

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.'

For the record, while the two grade drop is a decent rule of thumb I have occasionally only dropped one grade on a regrade with no qualifier request. Remember there's a centering standard for each grade. If one just barely misses for the "8" for instance, it my be within tolerance for a "7"

[cesarcap]

@ Darren, As the owner of that 61 pirates team PSA 4, I would be happy to trade you for your 8OC and pay you $1 more. Good deal on your side.

Now, look at the 55's (sorry about the bad/ small pix). But Mays (4MC) and Roberto (6OC) are IMHO closer that the technical grades suggest. But I was happy to purchase them for significant discounts to the straight grades. Same goes for Teddy Ball Game (2), which b/c of a tiny red dot gets knocked down to what in the PAST (2 holders ago) could have been a 3 or maybe 4.

[JollyElm]

Although the team picture doesn't have a dead horse in the shot, I thought I'd resuscitate this thread...

I wonder if either of these would've been a PSA 9 OC, but a box was checked:
s-l1600.jpg
1961pirates554psa7.jpg

[Empty77]

Looking technically, there could be a soft corner or two in those specific examples that would withhold 9 grades, but be that as it may, I concur with the point you're getting at, which is that those are the sorts of cards that may not be straight 9s only due to centering, and therefore are candidates for being slabbed however the submitter prefers, either straight or with the "OC"...

But my personal opinion is still that the "OC" label is more gimmicky and problem causing than it is useful. Maybe this is best illustrated by musing: why just OC, why stop there? They could have a "9DC", which would mean, 'this would be a 9 except for the several dinged corners', or worse is getting hit with the dreaded "9RC", which would be the same but accounts for having rounded corners!

To me if something doesn't meet the grade definition, then it doesn't meet it. There's no sense in having an endless serious of "this is the number we would give it, except for this [fill in the blank flaw] that makes it absolutely and definitely not that number". That's what those sorts of qualifiers are, and my opinion is that that's a goofy way to approach the issue of formal grading.

[JollyElm]

It's been awhile, so maybe it's time to play another little game, this time involving the dreaded 'PD' qualifier. Whereas centering is/should be based on math, 'print defects' seem to be utterly subjective.

These eight 1961 Topps Aaron MVPs are all graded PSA 8, and each one of them has a decent amount of snowy dots affecting and pockmarking the beautiful, blue front...but here's the twist...just one of them was given a PD qualifier, just one. So which one of these cards is the only PSA 8 (PD) of the group???

For those of you guessing, let's say the top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4, and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8. So which one is it?? Which one of these semi-identical cards is worth significantly less than the other seven, simply due to two letters, PD, appearing on the label??



FYI: Some of these are in older slabs and some are in newer slabs.

No cheating!!!

[swarmee]

I'm going to guess #5 based on the black printing on the right border. #6 seems to have the most fisheyes/hickeys.
These different Aarons also illustrate how nice a properly registered card can be. #3 looks so clear it's photograph quality, Hank pops off the card. All the odds ones seem nicer than their even numbered counterparts in terms of registration/clarity.