Will the Graders Be Prepared?

dom

I have been pouring over thousands of cards from the eighties since PSA announced their most recent Special. It dawned on me (and others I'm sure) that the graders have not graded too many commons from all of the sets from the decade.

In any particular set, certain cards may have printing quirks that will not appear on any other card. For instance, I may have discovered that common Card X from 198_ Fleer has a slight discoloration in parts of the background that is identical on every card of that player. I know that because I've seen twenty of them. If the graders don't see that card, other than the one I submit, what are the chances it will get a qualifier because of their ignorance of the nuance and nothing else?

Opinions?

boggs301012

I thought about that as well , Boggs has an 1988 Topps allstar 80% have a blemish on it . Is that then considered normal? Do they have that info ? Or will it get the dreaded MK?

mikeschmidt

Boggs -- I think that if 80% have the blemish, and 20% don't, it is the ones that don't have it that will get graded highly.

I think that when someone reviews a large number of cards, they really need to have a stratisfied set of examples to ensure that the printing anomaly or whatever is not just isolated to the vending case, print run, etc. that a particular card came from.

Dom -- if you have 1,000 of the same card, and the printing quirk is on every example, I think you have a case. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to tell.

I've pored through thousands of Mike Schmidt cards -- and there are many that often have a particular blemish or anomaly. But not in every case. For example, his 1974 Topps card often has two yellow print dots in the Philadelphia red banner on the top left of the card. I would say that 85% of the examples I have seen have that. However, there are some that don't.

Printing quirks and blemishes need to be studied quite carefully, in my opinion. It's not much different than having a card that was misaligned on the printing sheet, so it is nearly always found off-center. It doesn't mean that a well-center version can't be found sometime. (Even if it means every other card on the sheet would have been off-center as a result)

NickM

With some of the '81 and '82 Fleer cards, I'd be worried that the entire print run of a card could get a OF qualifier. The '82 Ripken may be the most embarrassing rookie card of a HOFer (worse than Bob Gibson in pink).

Nick

dom

Hey Nick,

Agree on those 81's and 82's, but the graders have probably seen enough generic cards of those sets to be aware of it. That doesn't mean it should be overlooked. Maybe the modern rarity of the out-of-focus-thus-in-focus will be born. Or maybe they'll call the truly sharp pictured cards OF.

Funny you mention the Gibby rook. I'm old enough to remember pulling what I dubbed then to be the ugliest card ever made. Usually that meant death to the card. In this case, not only did it survive, it survived well enough to be housed in a PSA 8 slab..... Don't ask, I don't know how I let it live either. I think I kept it away from the other cards so it wouldn't scare them.

riccaboni

Hmm... funny you should mention Gibson... I have a bunch of 81 Fleer lying around, and with my first WWF submission, I tacked on a few 81 Fleer, one of those was Gibson. I agree, he should have a nicer rookie card, but what is the problem with the 82 Ripken, I think it looks alright?...

Ian

NickM

Anyone have the PSA pop #s for the '82 Fleer Rod Carew? That is one of the worst offenders in the set (unless the Angels uniforms are now blurry and greenish).

riccaboni - can you see Ripken's face in that picture?

Nick

dom

Nick,

1982 Fleer #455 Rod Carew- ten cards graded:

2-8's
3-9's
5-10's

BTW, Ripken has 30 Tens from that set.

riccaboni

Nick, can't see it very well, but I can tell Fleer put the effort to bring his face to the card because I can tell it's there and effort is the key to success!

Ian

69topps8

Riccaboni - I think Nick was referring to the 1959 rookie of Bob Gibson, not Kirk Gibson's 1981 rookie. It's 50's pastel pink.

brucemo

<< <i>With some of the '81 and '82 Fleer cards, I'd be worried that the entire print run of a card could get a OF qualifier. The '82 Ripken may be the most embarrassing rookie card of a HOFer (worse than Bob Gibson in pink).

Nick >>



I think the pink 59's are great. They look like strawberry ice cream.

bruce

riccaboni

D'oh!

Well, Kirk's isn't as pretty either... he almost blends in with the background.

cameocards

Guys, Pink was THE color of the 50s! Elvis' pink caddy etc. I found the red and black on the back of the 7th series cards really cool. My "little" bother still recounts my dragging him around to all of the corner stores looking for those elusive 7th series cards. I got soaked, frustrated and grounded (we had to be home by the time the street light went on). I was still hoping for a Ted Williams cards to show up. I wasn't satisified with an 80 card set and yes, I spent a small fortune looking for #68 to no avail.

riccaboni

The only thing I'm hoping for is that the graders take it easy on the blue bordered beauties that are the 1987 Topps WWF cards .