Certified, Qualified and Glorified!!!

[JollyElm]

Is the back miscut?

[irv]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Is the back miscut?

I noticed a card just the other day that had the MC qualifier and thought for sure the back must be way off with evidence of another card there but nope, it was clean.

I'm guessing some graders at PSA don't know the difference between MC and OC?
Shocking, I know.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by irv

I noticed a card just the other day that had the MC qualifier and thought for sure the back must be way off with evidence of another card there but nope, it was clean.



I'm guessing some graders at PSA don't know the difference between MC and OC?

Shocking, I know.

A card doesn’t have to show a portion of the adjoining card on the sheet to get the MC qualifier. Per PSA, cards with an “atypical cut for the issue” make up the standard. So in other words, they can give that qualifier to any card they want to if it looks odd to the grader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Elberson]

I picked up a Schmidt rc at a steal......

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Elberson

I picked up a Schmidt rc at a steal......

Nice. With that card, tilt is usually more of a problem than the centering. Early 1970’s cards in many cases were condition doozies, and this particular one is a poster child for that, IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

The 1969 Parker White Letter is a tough variation to grab, so I don't have a problem with it being a tad O/C...but, man, the umps at PSA are really squeezing Tom Terrific's strike zone with this qualifier. The pitch clearly hit the corner of the plate, but they called it a ball anyway...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

...but, man, the umps at PSA are really squeezing Tom Terrific's strike zone with this qualifier. The pitch clearly hit the corner of the plate, but they called it a ball anyway...

PSA's standard for a 9 is 60/40 to 65/35. I would agree that one could have gone the other way.

[ASF123]

Hi, I'm new around here...this thread is fascinating. How on earth has PSA maintained the level of hegemony in the market that it has, given how obviously arbitrary and inconsistent its grades are? To say nothing of the trimming scandal, which somehow hasn't seemed to affect its credibility in the market. *And* the incentives that it has to keep the population of 10s and even 9s artificially low. Talk about a naked emperor. It's baffling to a newcomer.

[cornhusker]

Ok. Probably a dumb question but I'll pose it anyway. Are there any PSA cards with multiple qualifiers? I've never taken notice of any. Of 40 million cards graded I would expect some OC card to also have a mark, stain, or print defect right? Of course miscut and off center would not make sense but I might expect some of the other combos. Example is the '68 mantle with ST on the top of this thread is also OC correct?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by cornhusker

Ok. Probably a dumb question but I'll pose it anyway. Are there any PSA cards with multiple qualifiers? I've never taken notice of any. Of 40 million cards graded I would expect some OC card to also have a mark, stain, or print defect right? Of course miscut and off center would not make sense but I might expect some of the other combos. Example is the '68 mantle with ST on the top of this thread is also OC correct?

I don't think we've ever seen the multiple qualifier thing happen before. It's been discussed, but it seems the rule of thumb is the grader 'decides' which issue is worse, so to speak, and the card gets that qualifier.

Check out this old thread:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=264424

With regards to the 1968 Mantle, it fits into the PSA 7 centering guidelines, so there 'was' (I have since eliminated the wax/gum residue and resubmitted it) only the stain qualifier to be considered.

[jchcollins]

I've never seen a card with multiple qualifiers.

[JollyElm]

A couple of recent additions...

1982 Topps #21 Ripken RC that looks fine to me. This is exactly what 99.99% of cards coming out of packs looked like that summer, so I have no problem with it. And the 1962 Mantle has 'invisible' wax/gum residue on it...I guess. Can't see anything. What's pretty cool about the 'highlight' cards from that year (Stan the Man, The Killer, etc.) is the overlooked fact that they have the full player stats by season on back. The players' regular cards only showed full stats from the previous season and career totals.

1962mantle318ST1982ripken21PSA9oc.jpg