Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[JollyElm]

Here are six different PSA graded 1961 high numbered #554 Pirates Team cards from ebay...

1961pirates554.jpg

All other things being equal, they are pretty similar to each other in the fact that they are all pretty far off-centered, nearly hitting the bottom border (except for card #1 which instead nearly hits the top), and having a large amount of white space on the right side. 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. I have no idea if the sixes here were regularly PSA graded cards that received 6's or if they were, in fact, 8 OC's that got 'demoted.'

If centering isn't a big factor with you, I'm pretty sure each of these cards would be close enough that any one of them would fit into your collection or 1961 set. But...and it's a BIG BUT...only one of these six cards has a qualifier on the label, the last one. In all fairness, it is a hair closer to the edge than the others. On the positive side, its number grade is the highest of the lot. So let's look at the ask prices. Would you take...
the first card (PSA 6) for $125
the second card (PSA 7) for $185
the third card (PSA 6) for $145
the fourth card (PSA 7) for $79.99
the fifth card (PSA 6) for $110
...or the sixth card (PSA 8 OC), the only one with a qualifier, for a measly $30?????????

Some people need everything perfectly centered, and that's fine, but for the rest of us, does the very minor difference in centering on the card with the qualifier make you consider paying a ton more (up to six times as much) for a card with a lower number grade, simply because it doesn't have The Scarlet Letters OC on the slab?????

I happily jumped on card #6.

Without question I would take the PSA 8. I do not consider "OC" as a major factor on vintage (especially from 60s and back). Main detractors for me are corners, creases and spots. I want the card to look as close as possible to how it was coming out of the pack. **I do draw the line at "MC".

Card would happily come out of the slab and go into it's spot in my binder.

[silvor]

Are these BIN asks? Or Dean's prices?

The last straight 6 went for $32

https://www.psacard.com/auctionprice...uction/2291503

To me I look at a 8OC as a 6, so it's not out of line.

Originally Posted by silvor

Are these BIN asks? Or Dean's prices?

The last straight 6 went for $32

https://www.psacard.com/auctionprice...uction/2291503

To me I look at a 8OC as a 6, so it's not out of line.

I have found that an accurate method for determining "real market" value is to take a "Dean's" price and divide by 4.

[JollyElm]

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.

[midmo]

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

But if a card would otherwise be mint, but its less than perfect centering makes it something less...whether it is nm, exmt, or whatever, it is what it is. Whether it is 9oc or a 6 or a 7 according to a TPG doesn't change the fact that it is still the same card. It is just semantics and part of why I care less and less about TPGing. I do own graded cards, but my collection is increasingly ungraded.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[OlderTheBetter]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

But if a card would otherwise be mint, but its less than perfect centering makes it something less...whether it is nm, exmt, or whatever, it is what it is. Whether it is 9oc or a 6 or a 7 according to a TPG doesn't change the fact that it is still the same card. It is just semantics and part of why I care less and less about TPGing. I do own graded cards, but my collection is increasingly ungraded.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Is it a 9OC or a 7? A 9OC is not a 7 and this is not just semantics.

I wish they would pick one or the other and stick with it.

My point which will most likely be missed by some readers unless I bring out the sledgehammer is that letting a customer choose seems to me a sham. You should not be able to pick anything when a card is graded and slabbed, except perhaps a min grade to have it slabbed.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by OlderTheBetter

Is it a 9OC or a 7? A 9OC is not a 7 and this is not just semantics.



I wish they would pick one or the other and srick with it.



My point which will most likely be missed by some readers unless I bring out the sledgehammer is that letting a customer choose seems to me a sham. You should not be able to pick anything when a card is graded and slabbed, except perhaps a min grade to have it slabbed.

You are missing my original point, which I could have made more clear. I don't submit cards for professional grading and haven't for several years. I agree people shouldn't be able to pick. However, at the end of the day, it is the same card whether the plastic slab says 9oc or 7. For people who care about TPGing, there does need to be consistency If it is going to be a 9oc, it should always be a 9oc and not have the option of having it slabbed a 7. All the TPGers offer is an OPINION. If a card meets my specifications, I will purchase it for a set and probably crack it anyway, if I couldn't have found it ungraded to begin with.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I think it was in this thread somewhere (though now I can't find it) where someone said they had relaxed on centering and concentrated more on corners, registration, and the like...the qualities the card came out of the pack with. I have recently come around to this. Basically, I am not willing to pay super high grade prices for 8s and 9s on a regular basis. Therefore, I am going to have to give in on condition issues somewhere, sometimes. There are times when I luck out and find an ex+ or exmt card that has the centering and eye appeal and sharp enough corners to satisfy me. The rest of the time, I have to choose.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

And by popular demand...well, if popular demand means just a couple of PM's...here are the EARTH SHATTERING, STUNNING results...

1966easthillsclemente1.jpg

Yes, the card with perfect side-to-side centering and 'Bob Clemente' the farthest from the bottom border of the quartet is the only one to receive a dreaded OC qualifier. Yowza!! Well, smack me in the butt and call me Lucy!!! I bought it anyway and am awaiting its arrival.

People will say the straight 9 is in an old holder, so it enjoyed the benefits of lower standards. That's probably true. (Yes, it's a small, cherry-picked sample size, etc., etc. I get it.) But wow!! Both 7's are closer to the bottom than the 9 OC, and one is even in a new holder. I assume that one got the ole 'no qualifiers for me!' treatment and was lowered to a straight 7...but, if neither of them were the result of checking the 'no qualifiers' box, why aren't they both PSA 7 OC???????

And once again we're right back to my point. (I'll ignore the straight 9, because with Roberto's name nearly grazing the bottom border, the assumption is the grader just messed up. Nothing else, unless the standards were lax at the time or changed in the interim, explains it.) The PSA 9 OC is the only 'honest' card of the bunch. It is seemingly perfect in every way, shape or form, except the centering is off (although it may be tough to accept that 'fact') and that's 'explained' on the slab.

Now...
- Are the 7's truly 7's that the grader mistakenly didn't deem OC?
- Are they actually 7's that somehow fit into the parameters of centering for a 7?
- Or are they 9 OC's that were turned into straight 7's by the flick of a pen?

There are no definitive answers to these simple questions and that specific aspect of grading is ridiculously frustrating when you're buying cards online and don't have them in hand. Buying a 9, with or without qualifiers, tells you exactly what you have. Buying a 7 with no qualifiers tells you close to nothing, because it may have the attributes of a 7 or the attributes of a card two grades higher!

***On a side note, something else comes to light. If you look at the PSA 7 on the far right, his name is obviously very close to the bottom border...but if you look at the words "East Hills," they are much closer to the top border than at least two of the other cards. Since the white space between the words/names and photographs is pretty uniform across all four cards, something doesn't make sense. Logically speaking, they can't all be the same size top to bottom. Were these cards NOT a fixed size?? Does anyone know if that is the case??***

[Nick55]

That's crazy for sure! Congrats on picking up a nice looking version of that card regardless of the label.

[irv]

Great thread, JollyElm. Just reaffirms my dislike for PSA. Consistency is definitely not one of their strong points.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

***On a side note, something else comes to light. If you look at the PSA 7 on the far right, his name is obviously very close to the bottom border...but if you look at the words "East Hills," they are much closer to the top border than at least two of the other cards. Since the white space between the words/names and photographs is pretty uniform across all four cards, something doesn't make sense. Logically speaking, they can't all be the same size top to bottom. Were these cards NOT a fixed size?? Does anyone know if that is the case??***

I noticed that when you posted the side-by-sides, and I think that is a big piece of the puzzle here and the difficulty of trying to make an example of them. The little regional issues like this would not have had processes or controls better than the big boys with all the experience, and presumably less good. Since the bottom border on that issue is slim even in the best of circumstances, it isn't too surprising if graders struggle with expectations. I suspect they give more leeway with total size wherever they have knowledge that the issued range was wider than might otherwise be seen with regular brands.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

I think it was in this thread somewhere (though now I can't find it) where someone said they had relaxed on centering and concentrated more on corners, registration, and the like...the qualities the card came out of the pack with.

I think that was Adam's (Exhibitman) sentiment, which makes good sense as that is how more 70's cards than not came out of the pack. Things had not improved so much when I started collecting in 1986.

[Empty77]

Since everyone seems to like pics, I'll try to make the point that way, and by re-comparing the original card of interest: the following three '61 Topps team cards are all fresh certs, each sold for $30, via eBay, within the past two weeks, so they are as perfect a comparison as conceivable. It suggests that the marketplace is pricing the 8OC not as a straight 6 necessarily, but even as a straight 4.

-the easiest thing to recognize first is that the 6 sold for the same as the 4 b/c the 6's centering is not great whereas the 4 looks pretty good; any better attributes the 6 has in other categories were offset by market interests.

-now, if the 8OC was equally off-center as the 6, then it should have sold for more on account of its better attributes in other categories, but that's not what happened; it sold for the exact same.

-this suggests that it is being valued as a straight 4, plausibly b/c others (i.e., the market overall) is recognizing that if it were graded without qualifiers, it would grade out a straight 4 on account of the centering being so poor.

The card market seems to work not dissimilarly to an equity market, where items are rewarded for good qualities and penalized equally in price for poor qualities. That is not a bad thing for the wallet for the buyer if what traditionally counts as "poor" doesn't bother you, then its a buying opportunity, just like beat-up stocks sometimes.

But it does mean that the "2 grade" demotion "rule-of-thumb" is not a real thing, as I explained in another post above.

[JollyElm]

Round 2.

Although they all look amazingly similar to each other, three of these cards are straight PSA 9's, but one of them is a PSA 9 OC...

1973maravichmockup2.jpg

[Empty77]

That's easy, the 9OC is the off-centered one.

[MrPosadas]

#1 seems to have some light surface damage along with some fish eyes but #6 is the one screaming PD the most to me.

[jchcollins]

I may revise my guess to #5. Just looked at a bunch of graded '61 MVP's on eBay, and it seems that PSA takes the white fish eyes as a given - whether or not there are a few of them or a ton of them. The only ones I saw get the PD qualifier had black ink smudges on them in addition to the fish eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

5

[steve B]

Number 2 seems to have the fewest print defects. So I'll go with that one.

[JollyElm]

And the loser is...



Each and every one of the other seven cards coulda/shoulda had the PD qualifier, too, or none of the eight should've had it at all. SMH.

[jchcollins]

My only ‘61 MVP card at the moment. Looks like someone off shot is washing dishes next to Willie with all those bubbles. Never considered it a super egregious problem I don’t guess...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hxcmilkshake]

#3!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

Another vote for #3


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Just.Rachel]

#6 ?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

3 is too obvious so I will go with 5.

[rats60]

They are all too far o/c to be eights. I am going to say 4 because it looks nice but is o/c top to bottom.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Daring to be different.......#1.

[JunkyJoe]

#3

(if not #3, then #4)

[jchcollins]

Ouch. #3 definitely should have the qualifier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Harford20]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Ouch. #3 definitely should have the qualifier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And my biggest concern is that this card is the "newest" of the grades.

Dave

[JollyElm]

With apologies to Joshua from "WarGames," shall we play a game?

Here is an octet of (random screengrabs) 1962 Topps Mickey Mantle cards. Seven of them are graded PSA 3, and one, only one, is a PSA 5. Which one is it?

(Usual rules apply. No cheating. Top row has cards #1, 2, 3, 4, bottom row has #5, 6, 7, 8.)

[Just.Rachel]

I'm gonna guess #7....but idk

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

#6, which I am certain is wrong because I never get these correct!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MrPosadas]

I am not the best at this game either but it’s fun to take a stab at getting it right. Going to say #5

[jchcollins]

Based just on the pics, I would guess #5 as well as it has less corner wear than the others - but will acknowledge particularly with this issue - it’s a crapshoot. I used to have a copy of this card that was perfectly centered, and looked like it could have been a 7 candidate - that was only graded a 5 in the new lighthouse slab.

Especially over the years, depending on how old the slab is and when it was graded - I would not be surprised if any of those cards was perhaps a 5 - or more recently, if all got 3’s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I would also guess #5 is the PSA5

[hammer]

Ill try 5

[jchcollins]

Ok...how long does the suspense last?!?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Whoops!! Ha ha!! I totally forgot...

[Just.Rachel]

Wow...crazy. bottom left corner on that 5 looks pretty jacked! I'm kinda surprised that's the 5, but I guess consistency from PSA is asking a lot these days.

Thanks to the OP for doing this. It was fun.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Just goes to show, grading is a freaking scam. Thank you, Darren, for starting this thread and posting these kinds of things. If this is not case in point why people should not spend money on a slab label, I don't know what is. Collectors should be over the days of paying others money to judge what is or is not supposed to look like a good card to us.

[JollyElm]

To temporarily bring this thread full circle, here's another 1961 #554 Pirates Team PSA 8OC (the card that initiated the thread) that I recently picked up pretty cheaply...

1961pirates554psa8oc.jpg

[JollyElm]

Let's call today's contest The Brooklyn Dodgers Challenge...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

I've selected five 1957 Johnny Podres cards (random screenshots that are pretty similar to each other) that are all graded either a PSA 8 or PSA 9...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which one has the scarlet letter(s) OC??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5.)



Disclaimer: Sorry, winners will not receive a lifetime supply of Rice-a-roni.

[GasHouseGang]

I'd have to guess #2. They all look pretty darn good.

[Hxcmilkshake]

4! I bet I'm wrong though

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

And the winner lies behind Door #1...



In this case, the thread title says it all. Although the Podres is (most likely) mathematically O/C according to PSA's corporate standards, what kid opening a pack back in 1957 (or in any year for that matter) would have ever thought, "Rats, this card is really off center. Into my bicycle spokes it goes!!"???

Plus, the top border seemingly matches (or comes within a hair of) 3 or 4 of the other cards' 'worst' borders...yet, no qualifiers for them.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Rats. There goes my career in grading

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk