|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
No problem. There are also more than a few Youtube videos out there which can show you how to do it.
__________________
Vintage Cubs. Postwar stars & HOF'ers. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
This may be a bit long-winded, but I fear some people simply don't seem to understand the very basic point here.
- A card graded a PSA 8 OC has all the attributes of an 8 (yes, according to fallible human beings), BUT the centering if far enough off to warrant an explanation, the OC qualifier. In other words, the card is an 8 in all ways (corners, focus, gloss, etc.) save for the centering. Very straightforward and there is nothing to question about the specific grade (opinions of people who disagree with the grade assessment aside). In a word, definitive. - A straight PSA 6 that is obviously way off-center (as the examples shown in the OP are) doesn't give you straightforward information at all. Is the card truly a 6, with what the grader thinks are the proper attributes of a PSA 6, or is it actually a PSA 8 OC that became a PSA 6 because someone checked a box on the submission form?? You can see the card is terribly OC, so why isn't that accounted for (yes, everyone understands that centering requirements differ the higher the grade goes)?? Shouldn't it be a PSA 6 OC? There is no definitive answer. In a word, baffling. If you're holding the PSA 8 OC in your hand, you know EXACTLY what you have. If you're holding the PSA 6, you have questions, because it is anything but definitive. Let's quickly take it in another direction to further illustrate the point. Say you have a card that is a PSA 8, but has a bit of gum residue on the front to merit an ST qualifier. So (I'm not sure if you can specifically do this, but let's say for our purposes here you can) since the 'stain' is very minor, you check "no qualifiers" on the submission form and the card comes back a straight 6. Is that a definitive answer to, "What does this card grade?" Of course not. It's fairy dust. If you crack open the card in the PSA 8 ST slab, gently (and easily) wipe away the gum/wax, and resubmit it, you get the exact same grade MINUS the erstwhile qualifier, a PSA 8. If you wipe away the wax from the same card, but it's in the straight PSA 6 slab, some kind of magical transformation happens and it somehow skyrockets up to a PSA 8!!! Simply put, the original grade wasn't 'truthful.'
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. Last edited by JollyElm; 02-01-2019 at 04:24 PM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It is not that an 8OC gets the OC added as “an explanation” b/c it’s “far enough off to warrant” some helpful extra information, which is the impression that your wording seems to give. It gets the OC b/c, as PSA itself states, “the centering of the card falls below the minimum standard for that grade”, ergo, it can’t be that grade since it doesn’t meet even the “minimum standard” to be considered so. It’s not that it would be suitable to say: it’s an 8 but pretty badly off-centered, so let’s mention that for clarity; it’s that it is manifestly not an 8 at all and is something else entirely… What exactly it is depends on the numbers, and here’s where I can also correct your thoughts from an earlier post about the “2-grade rule of thumb” thing (and others who referred to it in follow-up). The reason that always comes to everyone’s mind is b/c that’s how the registry handles qualified cards for the purpose of the registry calculations---since it can’t know exactly what a qualified card should be graded, it uses the 2 grade demotion as a sort of standard average, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to accept cards like that at all b/c it would be too messy to judge what is what. But that has absolutely nothing (well, very little, it is an average of course) to do with what a qualified card would grade if it were straight; that would be based solely on the numbers in the case of OC, which at least is somewhat objective, compared to say, corners. So, for instance, an 8 has to be 70/30 (or better) on front and a 7 has to be 75/25 on front, and a 6, 80/20. So if an 8OC is 75/25, then converted to straight, it would come out a 7, not a 6. It’s only the need of the registry to assign an average that the 2-grade concept has seemed to become a rule-of-thumb. (I think that knowledge would be particularly valuable to anyone comparing items for the purpose like in your original post, both as a pro and a con, whereby a really good 8OC might actually be a 7, but alternatively, it may also be only a 5 [85/15, or I suppose even lower, depending on how it measured out]---and that, as much as anything, might explain why it went for the lowest price of the bunch…) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
those "how to" you tube video's have already cost me 1000's, but I'm willing to try.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
All right, (if you're on your phone these might be too small to see) anyone want to have a little fun and play a guessing game?? These screenshots show 4 different East Hills Clemente cards (blank backed), all of which are a bit off-centered top to bottom. I chose them because they are very similar to each other in that regard. You obviously can't examine them too closely, so it's a bit of a crapshoot, but here are the facts. Two of these cards are straight PSA 7's, one is a PSA 9 and one is a PSA 9 OC. There's no way to tell, but I'm sort of assuming that at least one of the two 7's would have been a PSA 9 OC, but the submitter checked the 'no qualifiers' box and it became a straight 7...but that's just a guess.
So which is which? (Again, your choices are PSA 7, PSA 7, PSA 9, PSA 9 OC.) Card 1 - ?? Card 2 - ?? Card 3 - ?? Card 4 - ?? 1966easthillsclemente2.jpg
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
1. 9oc
2. 7 3. 7 4. 9
__________________
Happy Collecting Ed |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'm sort of assuming that at least one of the two 7's would have been a PSA 9 OC, but the submitter checked the 'no qualifiers' box and it became a straight 7...but that's just a guess.
The explanation for the two 7's could also be that there is a surface issue that can't be detected in these scans. In my view, the best comparison here is between the 9 and 9oc under the assumption that a 9 has no surface issue regardless of the presence of a qualifier. Here are my guesses: 1. 9oc 2. 9 3 and 4. 7's |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
1) 9 oc
2) 7 3) 7 4) 9 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I won't make any guesses here but you've hit on one of the many reasons that I dislike PSA in particular and TPG generally.
A card's attributes are observed by the grader. If the card has centering issues, then it is what it is. That should not be changeable per the PSA slab. If a card is indeed a 9OC then why should it be able to get a straight 7 instead? A card should grade what it is and allowing a customer to reomove the centering flaw based on preference makes PSA lose credibility in my eyes. It obviously makes them more money if people will submit an off-center card and will not have to get the dreaded OC qualifier. But it would be better if they dropped the OC qualifier completely than to let a customer "choose" and I wish they'd completely eliminate OC qualifiers.
__________________
Past transactions with ALR-Bishop, Fleerfan, Leerob538, Northviewcats, wondo, EconTeachert205 "Collectors were supposedly enjoying the pure hobby of baseball card collecting, but they were also concerned with the monetary value of their collections." House of Cards by John Bloom, 1997. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Back In The Day....
Quote:
..way back in the early days of TPG I always sent my OC/MC stuff to SGC ; it seemed they didn't punish centering but would let the eye of the beholder observe or ignore that aspect. Plus the '53 Bowman Color looked quite nice in their old original holders.. .. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another one for the brilliant minds at PSA... | HOF Auto Rookies | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 12 | 02-06-2016 07:30 PM |
Card Grading vs. Autograph Grading | scooter729 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 08-20-2014 12:52 PM |
Authenticators changing their minds | Runscott | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 12 | 04-09-2014 07:04 PM |
Mint Grading, or is it the grading of mints? | brianp-beme | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 10-30-2010 09:11 AM |
GAI Grading | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 01-18-2003 09:50 AM |