guacamole?

jackstraw · April 7, 2003 10:47AM

on Winfield's mustache? well this is 2 gimme's in a week for on the hill. who's looking at these cards at psa? well i guess it doesn't distract from the overall appearence of the card.

Ullr · April 7, 2003 11:14AM

I don't understand why PSA thinks that card is mint. I pass on tons of '75's because I can't stand those print spots. Eye appeal is everthing in this hobby. PSA is only concerned with the surface, corners, edges, and centering(front). I, on the other hand, want a card that does'nt make me cringe when I look at it.

LloydsBaseballCards · April 7, 2003 11:22AM

nasty, wouldn't buy a 7 with a print mark like that

1420sports · April 7, 2003 11:41AM

I just posted the same pic on another thread - FLAWED LOGIC.

That is one ugly print dot. Now for the real question ... Does a 76 collector buy the card now for the serial number, or the card?

cakeman · April 7, 2003 11:50AM

that yellow print mark is barely there. in fact, when i squint, i can barely see it. you guys are just insanely jealous that you don't own that card. i bet all of you are working on 1976 topps sets as i type this.

mikeschmidt · April 7, 2003 12:11PM

Perhaps they forgot to put on the GCML (Guacamole) qualifier.

Agreed all around -- if there is a minor, not very contrasting print spot on a non-major portion of the card, I submit it. This card, I would not have even thought about submitting.

Back to what I said in the FLAWED LOGIC thread -- I think that I have a different set of standards than that which PSA employs -- PSA is a good starting point -- but is not my 100% ideal (nor is any competitor...).

That's why I like my detailed scans!

mcastaldi · April 7, 2003 12:11PM

In my mind, it's not the print dot itself. . .rather, where it is. Even on the uniform would have been more acceptable to me. However, I care for the diamond cut even less than the 'fish eye'.

Ullr> "I don't understand why PSA thinks that card is mint" The reason this card is in a PSA9 holder is because it does meet the standards for a PSA9. Now. . .it's definitely not a PSA9 I would like to own, but that doesn't mean it doesn't meet the criteria for a 9.

Mike

KING KELLOGG · April 7, 2003 12:55PM

'Ya think that's guacamole, or some of that good ball park mustard???

Take another look...

(I make a mess too!!!................Baseball season is here!!!)

Play Ball!!!

Larry

Ullr · April 7, 2003 1:07PM

Of course its meets PSA standards for a 9, but so far nodody has liked this card. Most of us here are PSA supporters and want to have confidence in their product. I have bought from "On The Hill" before because he provides nice scans. What if another seller had posted a smaller fuzzy scan? Would the diamond cut bother you then? The beauty of grading is it is supposed to give you the confidence to buy a "mint 9" card and know you are going to be happy with it. This isn't one of those cards regardless of the spot is

From PSA Grading Standards:
A PSA Mint 9 is a superb condition card that exhibits only one of the following minor flaws: a very slight wax stain on reverse, a minor printing imperfection or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

This card isn't superb because the "fish eye" is not minor

yawie99 · April 7, 2003 1:34PM

i'd say that's way more than "a minor printing imperfection" on the winfield, which is one ugly 9.

on a related note, i acquired this psa 8 '68-69 opc glenn hall card this weekend in a part-trade/part-cash transaction with an ebay seller. the problem wasn't really apparent in the seller's listing, but when the card arrived i was rather disappointed to see a big wad of snot on hall's nose. i guess it's not worth pursuing with psa since it's only an 8, but i wish psa would do a better job of differentiating between print imperfections that recede into the background and those that leap off a player's face.

goodriddance189 · April 7, 2003 1:38PM

hey yawie if you want to get rid of that card let me know. i need it for my set. thanks

mcastaldi · April 7, 2003 1:38PM

Ullr> As Schmidt said, I use PSA as a guide. For the most part I agree with the grades they assign, but I certainly don't take them as gospel.

Mike

yawie99 · April 7, 2003 2:01PM

i needed it for my set too, but i think i'll hold out for a cleaner 8. it's too bad because the corners are great and the centering's about as nice as one can ask for on a '68-69 o-pee-chee card. the fact that it's a beloved blue just adds to my disappointment. anyway, gr189, the card's here waiting for you. basically i just want to break even on the card: $44 plus shipping. e-mail me or pm me.

Wabittwax · April 7, 2003 2:09PM

So what do you think the Winfield should have gotten? It's not bad enough to receive a PD Qualifier (that would be a little harsh on such an otherwise nice card). Would a PSA 7 be in order? If it did get a PSA 7 and you were making an all PSA 7 1976 Topps set, would you prefer that 7 or a "rougher" 7 with no dot? Just wondering. Any opinions?

pc · April 7, 2003 2:51PM

<< <i>on a related note, i acquired this psa 8 '68-69 opc glenn hall card this weekend in a part-trade/part-cash transaction with an ebay seller. the problem wasn't really apparent in the seller's [L=listing]

>>

cheap lesson.beware tilted scans!
i always believe a card has some quality
the seller doesnt want others to see
when presented in this manner.

yawie99 · April 7, 2003 3:24PM

the seller didn't strike me as one who would try to pull one over on somebody, but you're right that digital camera shots, which i'm guessing the pic in the listing was, aren't very good at accurately representing a card.

sellerman23 · April 8, 2003 12:37PM

As someone who is new to the set, I have been seeing a lot of these 1976's listed with lots of print dots. I agree that is really depends on where the dots are. Guacamole and mustard and ketchup on players faces are a definite no-no. I also do not like it when there are dots on the two colored bars at the bottom of the cards. They are SO noticable there. I will usually put in a lower bid if there are too many print dots in these areas.

Dave
sellerman23

jackstraw · April 8, 2003 12:54PM

i would grade the card either a 9 PD or a 8 NQ. this just tells me that 3 graders are not looking at these cards coming in from the big submitters. sorry if you dont like what i think but the amount of cards that these guys submitt they probably have one guy grading them.
to have mis-cut backs get 9 NQ i can only come up with that. i may be wrong but when john bouffard sends in cards with print spots and mis cut backs he gets the big Q.i have submitted alot of 76's and i get a lower grade just because the ball on the back is soo close to the edge.

mike schmidt how come you have a smile as you title and not something like member/collector?

Wabittwax · April 8, 2003 1:03PM

I definately don't think that cards are graded by 3 people from any of us. Otherwise the grader of death wouldn't exist. I think if anything, only 50's and earlier stuff is reviewed by three people because too many 9's and 10's on that stuff would destroy the PSA market but I think PSA really doesn't care how many 10's get out from 70's and later.

jackstraw · April 8, 2003 1:06PM

sounds logical

downgoesfrazier · April 8, 2003 2:50PM

Straw,
Check out the goober on the '77 Ollie Brown Walt has up. Ollie should really see a doctor about that before it spreads... While you're at it check out the outrageous PD on his '77 Vida Blue! Those "flash-spots" are not uncommon to '77 vending, but that doesn't make it unoffensive. A 9? Not in my set. I agree with Mike about "where" the print flaw is, but on the players face??? That's a stretch. I'm suprised with Walt. When he submitted to SGC his stuff was first-rate...never a slider. Now he submits stuff that's soft or borderline in the hopes it will be "good enough" instead of just "good". He still sells some real nice stuff, of course, I just find I've got to look more closely before bidding.

downgoesfrazier · April 8, 2003 2:55PM

By the way, I see my favorite "cert/holder-buyer" is the high bid on the Guacamole...Do these people actually look at these cards? It seems so odd to me that anyone interested in owning a '76 Winfield would settle for THAT one. To each his own, I guess.

aconte · April 8, 2003 11:13PM

dgf,

To many the holder is much more important than the card. It's tough to compete on the registry and
try to be top dog while keeping your standards of quality cards.

aconte

jackstraw · April 8, 2003 11:18PM

fraz,
i saw the ollie brown with a bullet hole in his head.
i think that 77's look nice in a holder with a black insert, the colors stand out and you can judge the centering much easier from a scan.
pm me about your favorite bidder?

mikeschmidt · April 8, 2003 11:38PM

Well -- I was only one year old in 1977 -- so I did not immediately know if that was a print dot or something else.

When I first saw the card below, I had a flashback of the early 1980's Captain Lou Albano who had rubber bands pierced all over his face!

jackstraw · April 8, 2003 11:51PM

mike ,
why do you have a smile face as your title?

mikeschmidt · April 9, 2003 1:14AM

Jackstraw:

Either BJ or Carol gave it to me. Frankly, because I am such a SWELL guy.

jackstraw · April 9, 2003 1:24AM

i want one

mcastaldi · April 9, 2003 3:02AM

Conte> "To many the holder is much more important than the card. It's tough to compete on the registry and
try to be top dog while keeping your standards of quality cards."

Well. . .I suppose people collect for many different reasons. I know there are people who really allow their standing in the registry to dictate the cards they buy. I think this is really unfortunate. For me, I want to assemble the best set that I can. The numbers on the holders containing the cards in my set only give a vague idea as to the quality of the cards themselves. Given the choice of a nice set with cards I'm proud to own or arbitrary cards that happen to be in PSA9 holders, I'll take my set of nice cards every time. But. . .everyone's priorities are different.

Mike

Browntoni · April 10, 2003 1:12AM

Those are two ugly cards. I looked at the Winfield yesterday, almost bid, and then changed my mind. Just too hard to look past that print spot. Definitely not a MINT card.

downgoesfrazier · April 10, 2003 2:47AM

Brown,
First of all, WELCOME! Second, did you check out the Vida Blue as well? That type of print flaw is unreal for a mint 9 card. I've got stacks of 77's raw due to that type of "flashing" or powder issue.
Straw,
Email me for info on my favorite "cert/holder buyer"...

Mefer · April 10, 2003 3:59AM

Geez, that Winfield looks awful. It does upset me that the Winfield can pull a 9 when I just recently received back a 76 Schmidt as a PSA 9 pd due to some very minor, by my eye, background snow. Comparing my card to the Winfield, I would think the pd qualifier would be reversed. Arghhhh.

gaspipe26 · April 10, 2003 4:21AM

I'm with jackstraw. I havent submitted in awhile, but last year I submitted 14000 cards. Any card I sent in with a "goober" or "guacamole" on it came back with either a Q or a grade lower. NEVER a 9.

jackstraw · April 10, 2003 5:44AM

here is a gaspipe 8. i don't know how to make it part of the box so you guys are going to suffer by opening it.
unless big kid can do it for me

jackstraw · April 10, 2003 5:50AM

the little black spec on the right border is the encapsulaters dna. i think, its not on the card. the other two little white specs are my dna.
the card is about as perfect as they come except the mayo just below his elbow in the blue line bar. maybe king nong just got done with a blt.

guacamole?

Comments