Grading questions (various) with photos

[Mesquite]

I've read through the PSA grading guidelines, and want to ask about the grading of some cards per their guidelines.

First up is a 1974 Rod Carew #50. Focus on the one in the lower left in the regular-sized photo of 6 cards and ignore the others (I'm photographing them in groups of 6 to save time). A digitally-zoomed front and back of that card is also shown:







If their centering guidelines are followed by the book, this card has essentially 99/1 centering (just a hariline of border on the right side). It doesn't even meet the 90/10 centering of a 1.5-FAIR grade.

Does that override all other considerations, and the card is a 1-POOR?
All aspects of the card that were controllable by me as the the card owner (corners, edges, gloss, etc) would seem to put this card at an 8 (1 or 2 corners with slight fraying) or maybe a 7 (does that seem about right, ignoring centering?).

So when they grade a card, do they create a composite grade, for example 3 parts "handling defects" and 1 part "manufacturing defects?" Manufacturing defects like centering (which are by all accounts just a random spread), shouldn't count as much toward the grade as handling defects. If they counted equally, that would imply the two categories of defects were equally controllable, but they're not.

So 3 parts handling and 1 part manufacturing would be: ((3*8)+(1*1))/4 = 6.25 grade. Is some composite grade like that used instead? Beyond the poor centering from the manufacturer, it's an otherwise very nice card.

Or is there some other way PSA would handle the grading on a card like this? It just doesn't seem right that this card should grade at a 1. If I had a true grade-1 1974 Carew card with perfect centering but rough handling, I can't imagine anyone would consider that the equal of this card.

[Bestdj777]

Not to sound dumb, but does it really matter what they grade it? Whether it is in a PSA 1 or a PSA 8, it is a drastically off-center (would likely be considered miscut as two backs are showing), stained 1974 Topps card with pretty decent registration and sharp corners.

[Mesquite]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

Not to sound dumb, but does it really matter what they grade it? Whether it is in a PSA 1 or a PSA 8, it is a drastically off-center (would likely be considered miscut as two backs are showing), stained 1974 Topps card with pretty decent registration and sharp corners.

Just to clarify, my question isn't so much about the value of this particular card (which isn't much, even if it had good centering), it's about how poor centering is reflected in the grade on an otherwise nice card. I have quite a few cards that fall into that category, and this is just one where I had photos available.

[Mountaineer1999]

Love the cards! I cant help with your question though. I usually just guess the grade my cards might get by comparing them to Ebay listings. I do love the '74's, 2nd best set IMO of the 70s.

[begsu1013]

"(would likely be considered miscut as two backs are showing)"


have to agree w/ bestdj, here. don't think a card is considered oc when there are examples of another card on it, which this clearly does on the back.

you would mostly like garner the MC qualification. it would also get the ST qualification.

I've only seen a few examples but you might get this designation on the flip: 3(ST) and then "miscut" on the bottom line of the flip.

[swarmee]

A miscut is either when part of your card is cut off OR you have part of an adjoining card showing up. So this card, if it was an EX 5 otherwise, would get a 5(MC) grade and the stain would be ignored. PSA doesn't award or even mention a second qualifier on a card. For a registry set, cards with grades above 2 lose 2 grades for what they equate to, so this would be a 3 if you counted it towards a registry set. If the other card wasn't visible on the back, it would be a 5(OC). Same basic result. Most qualifier cards will be priced around the same as a card 2 grades lower, but since yours has multiple problems and is severely off-center, it might be valued four grades lower.

[swarmee]

Also, PSA doesn't tell you the subgrades of what each aspect graded (corners, edges, centering, surface/creases, registration, etc).

BGS will tell you the grades of each of those components, and their normal rule of thumb is not to give a grade higher than +1 of the lowest component score. They don't put this on their Vintage cases, though, and their dividing line is 1980.

Here's an example:

1981 Kellogg's 3-D Super Stars #5 - Mike Schmidt [BVG*9]
Courtesy of COMC.com

If the surface was a 4 instead of 9, the highest this card could get graded is probably a 5.

[Mesquite]

Thanks for the replies. Please excuse my ignorance on the lingo, but what does registry set mean?

swarmee: if you wouldn't mind explaining, could you describe what takes this card (ignoring the centering) down to EX-5 that you mentioned (I'm assuming that would be the grade you'd give it, ignoring the centering)?

There must be something I'm not understanding about the PSA description of corners. They use the word "fraying" down through grade 6, then they use the word "rounding" for grade 5 and below. Is that the key point here, and these corners would be considered rounded rather than frayed?

To me, the corners look more like they are slightly crushed (for example the card was set on the corners), whereas "rounded" would to me imply that some material has been permanently eroded away. So that was my thinking for them being more in the "frayed" category rather than "rounded."

Just out of curiosity, is there standard level of magnification that graders use?

[begsu1013]

Originally Posted by swarmee

A miscut is either when part of your card is cut off OR you have part of an adjoining card showing up. So this card, if it was an EX 5 otherwise, would get a 5(MC) grade and the stain would be ignored. PSA doesn't award or even mention a second qualifier on a card. For a registry set, cards with grades above 2 lose 2 grades for what they equate to, so this would be a 3 if you counted it towards a registry set. If the other card wasn't visible on the back, it would be a 5(OC). Same basic result. Most qualifier cards will be priced around the same as a card 2 grades lower, but since yours has multiple problems and is severely off-center, it might be valued four grades lower.

they most certainly do. it happens on rare occasions, but i have seen them definitely do a 3(MC) and will write "stain" on the bottom line of the flip. They will also do this if a card is simply assigned an "authentic" grade and will qualify the bottom line with mc, st or mk. it's not universally done by all the graders but they do pump out these every once in a while if that second qualifier is just as blatantly obvious...100%.

will let swarmee answer your questions addressed to him, but they use 10x magnification and that card wouldn't get a 5mc.

i don't buy cards w. qualifiers and if submitting request for straight numerical grade vs getting a higher grade w/ a qualifier, but here is an example:

[Mesquite]

Love the shifted Rose card begsu1013! So I assume this entire sheet was miscut...how did they not catch this?

Here's a strange one (1974 Jim Kaat #440). The (left-right) centering is 75/25 (I measured it with some calipers using the on-screen image), but there is some printing partially showing in the upper right. Would this be tagged as a miscut because you can see that, even though the centering is fair?

That must be some sort of printing serial number, not an adjacent card, so I'm not sure it counts the same way...

[begsu1013]

yes, it would get the MC qualifier. it doesn't have to be a card. it could be the page number, test print colors, the "post cereal" logo if a hand cut card, whatever...if it runs into something that shouldn't be on the card, then auto MC qualifier.

and thanks! i love that card. it was a self sub and requested no qualifiers and they still stuck me w/ it. was hoping for the straight "a" grade. but still. i love the 71 cards, love pete rose, love that he was w/ the reds, but has a red sox team, i just love everything about that card. will never part w/ her!

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Mesquite

Thanks for the replies. Please excuse my ignorance on the lingo, but what does registry set mean?

swarmee: if you wouldn't mind explaining, could you describe what takes this card (ignoring the centering) down to EX-5 that you mentioned (I'm assuming that would be the grade you'd give it, ignoring the centering)?

I didn't look at the card too hard, I was just theorizing that if it was a 5, it would be a 5(MC). I think it would be more likely to be a 7(MC) looking at it further. As to something getting two qualifiers, I had never seen it. But AUTH(QUAL) is not the same as 7(MC)(ST) which I thought was what begsu was proposing.

http://www.psacard.com/PSASetRegistry/

Take a look around the link. Dial down to the 1952 Topps Baseball set. You can see that there are OVER 200 COLLECTORS trying to complete this set in the best condition possible. The top set has a 9.01 GPA with 100% completion, meaning they've put together this 65 year old set in MINT condition average for all 407 cards. Pretty amazing!

Some would say that PSA's set registry has boosted the overall value of all vintage cards, because making people compete to have the best set of all will get them to open up their wallets. As in, a PSA 10 Nolan Ryan 1978 Topps just sold for $17K, rather than the $20 it may have sold for 10 years ago ungraded.

I am working on two registry sets, for two tobacco issues that are not commonly collected (T51 College Series and T56 Emblem Fraternal series). If you go into the Non-Sports or Multi-Sports, you can even see scans of all the cards on the PSA website that I've uploaded. It's fun, but grading fees can become excessive. ;-)

[begsu1013]

yes, i am number 7 on the 52 topps set w/ pack, actually just got bumped down to number 8. so, these are not the droids you are looking for. move along, move along...

my psa registry sets link is listed below....it's pretty neat. you can do player sets, rookie sets, yearly sets, type sets, whatever your collecting addiction/fix requires....

but yes, i was sayin that there are labels out there that do say 3mc w/ stain written on the bottom line of the flip out there. they aren't common but they do exist and are usually found on older cards...

[Bestdj777]

I've never seen the multiple qualifiers either. I was wondering what they do. And, OP, I was really just pondering but realize my comments may have seemed a little harsh. I see nothing wrong with grading--I have a Mantle registry and have submitted a couple of cards for grading (high value cards for insurance purposes or for resale).

For whatever it is worth, some people like the miscut cards. I'll pick up reasonably priced, miscut cards if they have part of a Mantle card showing.

Oh, and welcome to the board! I look forward to reading your posts.

[Mesquite]

No problem Bestdj777, and thanks for the welcome.

Here are a couple other cards I'd appreciate some grading guidance on.
1974 McCovey #250, first at regular size (looking at the one in the upper left), then zoomed front and back:







The front centering is 85/15 which would be a PSA 5 best case for centering.
As far as staining on the back, PSA says "very slight" for 8 and 9, "slight" for grade 7, and "minor" for grade 6. Which of those 3 stain levels would this be? It stands out more when you zoom in, that's for sure.

For the corners, PSA 8 says "1 or 2 corners with very slight fraying." Would this card meet that (just as a grade for the corners, realizing the other things will drop it overall)?

But I'm not sure how to combine all those into an overall grade.


and also this 1970 Munson #189.





Centering is good, and on the corners it seems that if you look closely, 3 of the corners have a very slight fuzziness to them. So does that make it at most a PSA 7 overall? There might also be some sort of print imperfection in the gray part on the face of the card (or maybe it's a defect in the print stock not the printing itself)...is that at a level that it would get dinged?

I have to say, I'm thoroughly confused on PSA's corner grading consistency. I've seen ebay cards with 4 sharp corners and no other flaws grade at a PSA 5, and quite a few card that only grade 6 or 7 but have 4 sharp corners and no other apparent flaws.

Thanks for any tips.

PS, thanks for the PSA registry links. A person could spend waaaay too much time browsing through that.

[begsu1013]

my opinions:

mccovey: 5(st)
munson: 6

[swarmee]

The Munson could even get a half-point bump for better than average centering for the grade, or it could get a 7 straight.
And although PSA has semi-well worded descriptions of grades, there are times when the grades you get back don't make sense. At first I thought one of the stains on the front of the McCovey was a pinhole as well, which would have dropped it to an automatic 1.

If you decide to apply for oldbaseballcards, their grading scale goes like this:
http://www.oldbaseball.com/funstuff/Gurugrading.htm

[begsu1013]

I agree w. swarmee on the possible 7. the fish eye and the bottom left corner warranted my 6, but on the right day it could garner the 6.5 or even 7. the centering is fantastic!

[Mesquite]

Thanks guys. One thing I'm noticing as I look through my 1974's is a lot of them have staining similar to the McCovey card on the back. I don't remember noticing this as much, when I last looked at these decades ago. I wonder if this is from finger oils reacting with the paper over 40+ years rather than a packaging stain? Or maybe it was accelerated by the plastic sleeve I've had it in for the past 25 years.

The only thing PSA mentions for staining is "wax stains." Does it matter if the stain is due to something else like finger oils, or more just about how much of the card face the stain covers and how dark it is, regardless of what caused the stain?

If it is due to finger oils, I guess it might be a good idea, if you have valuable 1974's, to wear some nitrile gloves when handling them as naked cards.

[begsu1013]

no, does not have to be wax....could be, but not limited to:

gum residue, acidic breakdown of old 9 pocket binder pages, water, oils, wine, coke, nehi, tire marks, moon pie fingers, possibilities are endless really.

[Mesquite]

For the fish-eye on the Munson card (and I take it you mean the little white circle above the number "1" in the Dave McDonald portion of the card), I didn't realize that would be a downgradable print error. Even for a grade 10, PSA says very slight print imperfections allowed if no visual impact, and they change that to "minor" imperfections at grade 9. I wish they were more specific on what constitutes slight and minor (two words that most people might use interchangeably in normal discussion).

That little circle is barely noticeable at normal viewing size, so I guess this is one place where magnification matters. In general, for a fish-eye print defect like this, do you subtract 1/2 to 1 point for that if it's on an unimportant part of the card visually, and maybe more if for example it were in the middle of Munson's face?

I was thinking these fish-eye print defects might be random and infrequent, but the below photo shows it can definitely be duplicated, almost identically, on the two Fisk cards (a triple fish-eye in the upper right of both cards, and it tracks with the printed portion not the alignment):

[begsu1013]

fisheyes, if significant can be considered another qualifier..(pd). I don't think the munson is bad enough to constitute a pd, but you just never know...

but check out the 61 berra. usually has fisheyes down in player name/position boxes. some get the pd, others don't. on the other hand, the entire run of frank thomas nnof were a result of a print defect, yet none of them are designated w. the pd.

long thread but def informative

the more you try and figure out psa's grading scale and better yet, verbage, to try and figure it out, the more you will scratch your head.

it really is the "who's on first" joke.

it all depends on the day and/or if you get the g.o.d. (grader of death)

he does exist. and you must keep the johnny cochran defense:

"if the grade does not fit, you must crack and resubmit"

bought this online a lil while ago...cracked it out and now resides in an 8.5 holder

[Mesquite]

Another grading question or two...
Notice the horizontal white line in the top border of these two 1970 Don Sutton cards.



Is this considered a miscut? It almost seems like the white line represents where the ideal cut should have been, but if any showing of ink from the adjacent card is what qualifies as a miscut, I'm not sure. I see lines like this on a lot of my 1970's.

On the centering question, has poor centering become a thing of the past on modern cards printed with modern printing (maybe since the 1990's) equipment, or do you still see the 90/10 types of poor centering even on modern cards?

[swarmee]

I believe those would get marked with a miscut qualifier. Modern technology (and general malaise from customers) has caused the manufacturers to improve their centering. Some would say it's based on the grading companies, but centering was much better when I was collecting in the late 80s. Modern card collectors complain when their cards don't meet BGS 9 (55/45) centering and consider mailing their cards back to the manufacturer for replacement.

Topps recently recalled an entire product line this year because the card stock made the autographs streak and bleed during shipping. That is unprecedented.

[vthobby]

To answer your original question. With the gum residue on the back and the centering, your Carew is a 3 at best. I have submitted hundreds of cards to PSA, Beckett, and SGC. The residue is not good, the centering is very bad. McCovey is a 4. Munson is a 5 or 6.

Mike

[Mesquite]

How do you distinguish between a PSA 9 and 10? Other than a slight difference in centering allowance for those 2 grades, it doesn't seem there's much difference, especially for newer cards from a factory set where there's no chance of staining.

I've looked at many 9's vs 10's on ebay and I'm not able to conclude much.

What percentage of a just-opened factory sets would likely be 10's versus 9's (Is it the case that a newly-opened set--if centering is good--would have no card that would grade lower than 9?)

PS, and just curious, anyone know the number of cards that are submitted for grading each year across all card grading services? Do you think it's over a million cards?

[swarmee]

http://www.psacard.com/ shows that they've graded/certified 24 million items since '98. So a million cards a year just through PSA wouldn't be surprising.

There might be minor edge/corner wear on a 9 compared to a 10. Base cards from a modern factory set should all be 9s or 10s unless they have some kind of defect. I saw a modern card with a smeared numbering stamp that was awarded a 3.5 recently. Not sure why someone sent it in for grading in the first place.

Modern cards can also have surface issues that might knock them down, or they may have gotten dinged in the packing process. Cards with windows to see the jersey/bat sometimes have creasing around the window area, that knocks them down to about 6s.