Certified, Qualified and Glorified!!!

[Tere1071]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It seems a miscut is when part of the picture/border/etc. is 'missing.' If something is 99.9% off centered, but nothing is actually missing, it gets the OC. If a hair of the picture or actual border (not the 'white areas') is missing, it gets the MC.

In my 1969 WL Mantle in this thread, a tiny bit of the round number bubble on back is cut off, so it was deemed MC.

Edited to add PSA's definition:

Attachment 371158

Ah, the difference in grading companies-

berraspahn.jpg

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Tere1071

Ah, the difference in grading companies-

Attachment 413137

..Agreed ....we all learned fairly quickly where to send our lesser-centered '50s cardboard......I'm over-the-top mentally unbalanced about side-to-side centering but strangely I can tolerate this type of T-to-B like your Berra and Spahn ; ..

..

[Tere1071]

I'm over-the-top mentally unbalanced without qualifiers! I've always been more about having stronger corners than centering. For the 53 Bowman set, one either accepts what they find or uses quite a bit of patience, discretion and money to build a set with perfect centering. I can live better with more at the top than having less, side to side I have some with 15/85, but I am completely happy with 65/35.

I have 2 Spahns- this one and a BVG 3 which has nice corners and perfect centering, but it has a 2 inch horizontal line wrinkle starting from the left side and running near the mitt. The BVG 3 has better eye appeal, but the PSA has strong borders and no creases or wrinkles. This week the BVG 3 is my keeper, next week-who knows?

[JollyElm]

A quartet of (for me) coolness...

The 1972 Morgan and Cepeda cards are just a tad/touch/smidgen too high top to bottom to get straight grades. Oh well, but I'm ecstatic to have them. The 1969 Johnny Bench is a wonderfully celebrated (see, I took my own advice https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277906) card that has what should have been easily-wiped-away (see-through) gum residue on the front...and I mistakenly bought the '59 Dark (which looks pretty frickin' nice), because I came to the hurried conclusion that it was a high number. Missed it by THAT much...

[JollyElm]

Take a ride on the stain train...

1957 Topps tough series Danny Kravitz has a small amount of non-problematic wax/gum residue of back. The 1964 Frank Malzone Stand-Up has a tiny bit of the obligatory wax/gum stain on its blank back, and both the 1965 Killebrew and 1966 high number Mahaffey look as clean as a freshly Windexed window. No matter how much they're tilted in the sunlight, I can't pick up even a hint of a 'stain.' Perhaps there's an unseen bit of residue that's only visible when the cards are actually in-hand and not in a slab?? Dunno...