Options
Tilt and Diamond Cut
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
People here often suggest that tilt is the reason a card received a lower grade. In my opinion, PSA has always been very consistent about not penalizing these defects. As much as I hate tilt and diamond cut, I do understand PSA’s likely reasons, as these defects are difficult to quantify.
Hopefully this example removes any doubt that these defects are not penalized as long as the card falls within centering requirements.
3
Comments
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
It's not often you see a card maxing out both the right and left rails. I'm shocked a) the submitter even sent that in and b) the slabber had the cajones to even holder that example without damaging.
How does a diamond cut like that survive with those corners? They always seem to have dinged corners from sticking out of a stack, even pack fresh.
I can't explain why, but just looking at that card too long makes my stomach queasy.
Oof...how that ends up in a 9 MINT holder is beyond me. I wouldn’t personally grade that card above a 7 with that centering tilt. Sorry if I am offending the owner, but that card doesn’t deserve that grade unfortunately.
About 10 years ago I sent in a 1965 Koufax that had a similar curve in the cut at the top. It was otherwise a beautiful card that would normally be in the 8-9 range. I didn't think it would get graded but since it was a Koufax I sent it in. It came back as miscut. I am surprised that this Aaron received a grade.
Great example PaulMaul -- thank you! What an unusual card, with great centering, despite the tilt. I'm just fine with PSA grading it thus -- it may not be for someone looking for a PSA 9, but it's clear as day from a scan what you'd be getting. My only concern would be if it was bought "sight unseen" and I can't imagine anyone doing that.
The thread title should have some type of warning. Looking at that card could cause a seizure.
Lots of “poof” in this here thread
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I intentionally didn’t mention the seller of the card because I feared it would go in that direction. 😕 My only purpose with the thread was to clarify what is and is not penalized so people are well-informed submitters.
I see some things cannot be said.
Good stuff. My biggest pet peeve are PSA 9's with way OC backs. I understand that 90/10 is the guideline and I accept that. But I have some that I'm going to upgrade, within the same grade, because backs are 97/3. I mean the tiniest sliver of border that your eyes can make out showing. With this said, I think PSA does a tremendous overall job. I wouldn't buy another graded entity. Constructive critique.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
My comment got poofed, but I guess it was too crass, and not constructive enough. I understand. Here's an effort at a constructive question: How is the card within centering requirements? It's an honest question. I don't understand the evaluation on centering for this kind of cut. The logic and math escape me.
Andy
Is that card tilting to the right or am I still feelings the effect of the coquito I drank last night ...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
The problem I have with using “within centering requirements” in a case like this is that the card could be 60/40 on top and 40/60 on the bottom. That card would meet centering requirements for a 9 yet it would look awful. In this case the card is almost perfectly centered on the bottom and (barely) 60/40 on top.
This card does not have a tilt, it is miscut.
N-8 Miscut - This term is used when the factory cut is abnormal for the issue, causing the card’s edges to deviate from their intended appearance.
Yes, it is diamond cut. The problem is, that can happen on a continuum of severity from barely noticeable to this, so it’s hard to say when it should suddenly be given an N-8.
Backside
Andy
Here's an OC PSA 9 for comparison. The difference in list price between this one and the one originally posted is $900.
Andy
I can somewhat agree with that. Similarly, when a card is undersized sometimes it gets the N-6, sometimes it grades. However, in this case because it is obviously noticeable I think it should not have been given a grade. Then again, I've seen obviously noticeable sheet-cut cards given a grade as well. Things happen.
@Littletweed There are always eye appeal judgment calls, I guess this is just another of those.
I've submitted cards with FAR less miscut than that, and they always come back as N-8s... Personally, I think it's embarrassing to have that card in a PSA 9 holder, and if I were PSA, I'd buy it back and chalk it up to a mistake by the grader.
DesertIceSports.Com
Corner wear is also on a continuum - from barely noticeable to severe ……….. but it gets graded.
that top right bumper is going to dent that card.
Quite interesting subject.
The art of simplicity is a puzzle of complexity
It’s also interesting how centering, miscuts, etc. seem not to affect CGC grades at all. If I see one more 9.8 with a huge white stripe or a parallelogram cut I may scream!
Yes, the miscut and centering on books is an odd omission when it regards quality of overall grade. When it comes to ehpemera collectibles, it’s truly odd there is not a more accepted, foundational standard that is more ubiquitous. Yet, comic books, novels, even posters, are different and clearly viewed and graded differently 🤔 I have no clue as to why.
However, we both know that with comic books, bad miscuts and centering will kill the book from achieving a high sale price. I personally am anal about miscuts and centering. No interest in books like that. I guess all I’m writing is that regardless of the grading standards that allow it, overall the market won’t. IMO👍🏻 Then again, with cards I have little background.
The art of simplicity is a puzzle of complexity
@Comicman I’m with you. I don’t really aspire to key Silver Age books, but I want the more modest books I do collect to present nicely. That’s why I love the Monterey Collection. It’s only the Bronze Age stuff that’s really nice but it looks like the original owner went through a stack of each comic to find the nicest one!
Fabulous books ‘PM’ just fantastic
The Monterey collection is indeed superb. Great eye appeal on those copies.
The art of simplicity is a puzzle of complexity
@PaulMaul Another thought, and you’d know more than me? Obviously cardboard is FAR easier to grade than pulp or comic paper. At least I’d assume so? Smaller overall surface and such on a card I realize, so perhaps that’s a factor. Otherwise card grading standards are a bit of a conundrum for me
The art of simplicity is a puzzle of complexity
Yeah, I would say there is a lot less that can go wrong with a card. It’s primarily corner/edge wear, centering, surface wear/imperfections, and printing imperfections.
One of the reasons I have grown to like graded cards is that encapsulated cards are rarely damaged within the slab, unlike comics and unopened wax packs. I would say cards are one of the few items that is well suited to encapsulation. Comics are not well suited at all in my opinion.