Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[JollyElm]

Okay, let's keep the 1961 Topps MVP train a-rollin'...

(I randomly placed these cards in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout.) The card on the lower left is graded PSA 7. How in heck it doesn't have a PD qualifier is beyond me. Was this card a PSA 8 PD or 9 PD, but the 'no qualifiers' box was checked and it magically became a straight 7????? Who the freak knows, because it looks like Mr. Cub was using a snowblower.

Here's the contest. I pointed out which card is the PSA 7, so of the remaining five cards, two are PSA 8, two are PSA 9 and one, only one, is a PSA 9 PD. Which is it?? (The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Here's the contest. I pointed out which card is the PSA 7, so of the remaining five cards, two are PSA 8, two are PSA 9 and one, only one, is a PSA 9 PD. Which is it?? (The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)

Ok, at the risk of being shown very wrong, I'll play it:
#'s 2 & 6 are the 8s on account of the corners
#'s 3 & 5 are the 9s as the sharpest and least fish eyes (although the top L corner of #5 looks like a problem)

That leaves #1 as the 9PD (which could fit as it has the most bubbles aside from the 7, and they're placed worse: one near his face, and big ones in all the readable areas of the card (big ones at his name, at 'MVP' and 'National'). I agree with swarmee above that they are tougher on marks that subjectively take more away from the overall appeal, and I think anywhere that the eye is naturally drawn to is the default reference point for that, so face and text areas).

[chalupacollects]

Me I have:
1 - 9D
2 - 8
3 - 9
4 - 7 - the gimme
5 - 9
6 - 8

[JollyElm]

And the curtain falls...




Here's a clear as day shot of the 'terrible' card in question. The back has nothing of note on it, and after extreme scrutiny, the only anomalies I can see on the front are a few obvious white spots and a hair-thin bluish 'print line' running across the bridge of his nose (as close to invisible as you can get). None of this stuff appears even remotely close to making the card PD-worthy, so I'm at a loss...




It's strange, but no matter how many times I scan the card, that bottom left corner looks like there's a blatant problem there, but it's not the case at all. It wouldn't cause an ebullient ebay seller to scream "Razor Sharp!!!," but it is pretty darn good. Perhaps the way the overly bright light is hitting the (not perfectly flat?) corner in the scanner is creating an optical illusion? I dunno. Here's an un-retouched, close-up cell phone shot of what the corner truly looks like...

1961banksmvp485cornerX.jpg

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And the curtain falls...

the only anomalies I can see on the front are a few obvious white spots and a hair-thin bluish 'print line' running across the bridge of his nose

You know, although it seems easy for us to fixate on fisheyes (happens to me b/c I despise them) what if it really is the odd issues like the blue line thing that is the difference maker for PDs? Note also that the PD card in your earlier example of the Aarons had unusual dark markings in the blue on the left side that look in the scan like 'scuffs', and also what appears as some sort of odd printing defect 'spots' below the left eye and also nose...both these examples could also validate the concept that they grade hardest on things that affect the face area.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's strange, but no matter how many times I scan the card, that bottom left corner looks like there's a blatant problem there, but it's not the case at all. It wouldn't cause an ebullient ebay seller to scream "Razor Sharp!!!," but it is pretty darn good. Perhaps the way the overly bright light is hitting the (not perfectly flat?) corner in the scanner is creating an optical illusion? I dunno. Here's an un-retouched, close-up cell phone shot of what the corner truly looks like...

That is weird and totally fooled me. On the scan I was like 'that ain't no 9', but the phone pic does look much sharper.

[JollyElm]

***

[JollyElm]

Tonight's contest...

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

I selected six cards that have (at least) one side (with apologies to Yes) close to the edge, and all are graded PSA 8...but only one of them has an OC qualifier, just one. Which card is the PSA 8 OC??
(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, and the bottom row has cards #4, 5, 6.)