How does a card w/ paper loss grade a 4?

[vintagehofrookies]

is it just me or does this grade seem a little high for this card?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...item4d1ff32a04

Its still a nice looking card but I'm curious about the grade, although I have been very dormant in the vintage world this past year or so and it could just be my rust showing

Dan

[freakhappy]

Wow, IMO that card should be nowhere near a PSA 4 holder!

As far as the paper loss, I believe what you are seeing is what some people (and in this case the grader too) would call "chipping" and not so much paper loss, but in reality, they are pretty much the same thing. The chipping looks rough and deeper ingrained in the card and seems to lead to paper loss and not just peeling of the surface gloss. The card in question seems to have other issues that should prevent it from being in a VG-EX holder any day of the week, but what do I know

I don't mind if graders mis-grade here and there and only by small amounts, but when it's obvious, it kinda ticks me off. I mean, people pay decent money to put their trust in a service and this is what they get? At least be consistent with the obvious and easy ones!!

[JollyElm]

Yowza!!

[Ladder7]

Not original slab?.. The flip looks damaged.

[bnorth]

I am amazed that any anything PSA does amazes anyone any more.

[cammb]

It gets a 4 because it probably belonged, at one time, to one of their favored customers.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

Not original slab?.. The flip looks damaged.

Maybe so? I am suspect of the holder too. At any rate the buyer does give a 14 day return policy.....The card doesn't look like a 4 though. I would think it's a 2...

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

The grade seems pretty high to me as well. Paper loss on the front is usually a killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bn2cardz]

It is even harder to believe that this card has been around so long and selling for '4' prices. There are 2 past sales of this card in the holder on cardtarget with one back in 2009.

[Mrc32]

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It is even harder to believe that this card has been around so long and selling for '4' prices. There are 2 past sales of this card in the holder on cardtarget with one back in 2009.

Exactly. Here is the same card from 4-12-09, so I doubt the case has been compromised.



I've shown a T206 Tinker on here before that was graded a PSA 6 with paper loss (formerly owned by a board member). I have the image on my home computer and can post it later this evening.

[tbob]

I've seen similar cards on ebay in SGC 10 holders

[ValKehl]

I would grade this T206 Young card a 1.5.
Val

[cammb]

Originally Posted by tbob

I've seen similar cards on ebay in SGC 10 holders

Exactly! Thats why PSA sucks.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by cammb

Exactly! Thats why PSA sucks.

How does SGC give grades of SGC 60 and they are completely miscut at the bottom? Willis on Ebay, and Joss?? No complaints on these....

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by cammb

Exactly! Thats why PSA sucks.

Except when you want resale value, right Tony?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by tbob

I've seen similar cards on ebay in SGC 10 holders

I have also seen T206's graded SGC 60 and higher with rounded corners....beating a dead horse again....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cammb

It gets a 4 because it probably belonged, at one time, to one of their favored customers.

Yeah, that's surely what happened.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I have also seen T206's graded SGC 60 and higher with rounded corners....beating a dead horse again....

Not sure those are mistakes though, Kevin.

[T205 GB]

I have a PSA 4 T205 Schulte with pin holes you can see daylight through in all corners. IMO PSA is know for their lax grading standards. As long as the money keeps rolling in though it will continue.

[glynparson]

Equals many more mistakes.

[robw1959]

Agreed! But when you grow in size as a company, your staff should grow accordingly in order to accommodate that growth in business. Especially with regard to fine vintage issues they ought to have some experts who are consistent in adhering to their published grading standards. Personally I believe SGC is far more accurate on a more consistent basis.

[z28jd]

I have a PSA 5 Old Judge card with two dots of paper loss on the front, one about the size of a pin head, one a little smaller. Got the card from a friend who just got it graded, so I know it was legit. The funny thing is I also bought a PSA 2 at the same time and it was much nicer than the 5

[glynparson]

More. I honestly do not think the percentage is a lot higher the problem lies with the same horribly graded cards continue to be flipped because someone buys the card and hates it so they sell. Plus SGC is honestly more willing to admit a mistake and buy the card back. That I agree with 100%.

[freakhappy]

I understand grading is subjective, but it's cards like the Cy Young that really confuse me. Everyone has their doubts about some grades, but the ones that no human on Earth should miss are the ones that anger me and make me question the company that grades them.

I know a lot of people go back and forth on PSA and SGC about their grades not being legitimate, but as long as they comply with their set grading standards, I don't see the problem (obvious hiccups do not apply ). Not every company goes by the same standards, so it is unfair to judge them to one universal list.

I collect graded cards from the big three and do it based on appeal and not the grade, so there is no bias over here

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I have a PSA 5 Old Judge card with two dots of paper loss on the front, one about the size of a pin head, one a little smaller. Got the card from a friend who just got it graded, so I know it was legit. The funny thing is I also bought a PSA 2 at the same time and it was much nicer than the 5

OJ grades make no sense to me. The companies need to find a way to account for image quality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[itjclarke]

Just saw this one on eBay... it's got a qualifer for being MC, but they missed a stamp on the back "55". Guess it's a 5 MC/MK.

1955 Topps Clemente 0.jpg1955 Topps Clemente 0 back, looks like MK.jpg

I have a Mays rookie that's graded PSA-5MC and a '52 Topps J Robinson that's PSA5-OC, both of which have NM or EXMT+ at worst corners/border/surface. Their only flaws are the qaulifier, but it seemed to me the grader dinged them on their numerical grades too for being OC/MC. Oh well, I bought them graded and have no interest in trying to get them bumped.