Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Grading standards for packs - somebody please explain

I made a pack submission recently and i really didnt do horribly but still I am lost when it comes to the grading standards of packs. Some looked perfect and got 8s...some 9s and i have no idea why not 10s. Then a 10 that doesnt look like a 10 compared to my lower graded packs. This is all a big mystery to me.

I get how neatly the pack is folded, no rips/tears/holes, the seal, centering of the pack wrap all are a part of that. But still, the grades are a mystery to me.

Any insight is appreciated.

Comments

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,524 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Don't feel bad. It's a mystery to me as well. I have an easier time figuring out how the great pyramid was built.

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,478 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The primary factor is condition of wrapper (any wear, tears or splits in cello), as well as how clean the seal is on back and how tight the corner folds are. To a lesser degree, centering of the wrapper itself and with a cello, centering of card on top.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • ReggieClevelandReggieCleveland Posts: 3,854 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the tough part is that once the pack gets put into the slab it ever so slightly pushes some of the wrapper upwards to the top so when you're looking at the pack it looks slightly baggy on the top and doesn't look as nice as it looked when it was raw. Maybe this causes some confusion too? I don't know. I don't really get it either.

    Arthur

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,267 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Another thing I noticed is that even decent dings on the top card corner in a cello apparently don't sink a grade much as I have a PSA 9 cello pack with a pretty good ding in a corner on the top card.

    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

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    Hey Softparade! I don't come here much anymore but you are certainly a blast from the past! Do you still have your graded 78 baseball set? I remember you opening and grading so much of that stuff. It was always a big interest to me because 78 is my favorite set as well. First one I opened as a kid.

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    @grote15 said:
    The primary factor is condition of wrapper (any wear, tears or splits in cello), as well as how clean the seal is on back and how tight the corner folds are. To a lesser degree, centering of the wrapper itself and with a cello, centering of card on top.

    Thats what I THOUGHT as well. One pack I subbed was an 84 Topps grocery cello with Mattingly on top. It's really tight, well wrapped, etc...looks perfect...and I get an 8 :s

    Thats just one example. It just doesnt seem consistent at all to me. J guess I'll just keep practicing :)

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,267 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 10, 2019 3:18PM

    @yankeeno7 said:
    Hey Softparade! I don't come here much anymore but you are certainly a blast from the past! Do you still have your graded 78 baseball set? I remember you opening and grading so much of that stuff. It was always a big interest to me because 78 is my favorite set as well. First one I opened as a kid.

    Hell yeah I still have that set! Ripping and submitting in those days was way too much fun. Debauchery! I’m still upgrading it slowly when it makes sense but I’m almost exclusively a unopened collector these days. Only Topps Heritage still has me ripping. Good to see you! Here’s the set!

    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

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,267 ✭✭✭✭✭

    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

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,478 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @grote15 said:
    The primary factor is condition of wrapper (any wear, tears or splits in cello), as well as how clean the seal is on back and how tight the corner folds are. To a lesser degree, centering of the wrapper itself and with a cello, centering of card on top.

    Thats what I THOUGHT as well. One pack I subbed was an 84 Topps grocery cello with Mattingly on top. It's really tight, well wrapped, etc...looks perfect...and I get an 8 :s

    Thats just one example. It just doesnt seem consistent at all to me. J guess I'll just keep practicing :)

    Any gum dust under the wrap on the grocery cello? Those are not retail packs and were wrapped very tightly. I'm not a fan of PSA even grading them, personally, as they weren't sold individually in stores that way but can understand the appeal.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • balco758balco758 Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yankee - good to see your name. Aren’t you a fellow Munson fan?

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    Jealous! haha...beautiful! Ive thought about building a PSA 9 set. Maybe one day I'll do it. I did however get all the HOFers from that set signed.

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    @grote15 said:

    Any gum dust under the wrap on the grocery cello? Those are not retail packs and were wrapped very tightly. I'm not a fan of PSA even grading them, personally, as they weren't sold individually in stores that way but can understand the appeal.

    No gum dust.

    I see your point not being a fan. I have just had that grocery cello as it is for years. Thought if I was going to sell it, better to have it in a slab.

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    @balco758 said:
    Yankee - good to see your name. Aren’t you a fellow Munson fan?

    Fellow Yankees fan in general!

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,478 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @grote15 said:

    Any gum dust under the wrap on the grocery cello? Those are not retail packs and were wrapped very tightly. I'm not a fan of PSA even grading them, personally, as they weren't sold individually in stores that way but can understand the appeal.

    No gum dust.

    I see your point not being a fan. I have just had that grocery cello as it is for years. Thought if I was going to sell it, better to have it in a slab.

    Definitely was worth grading it to maximize value and appeal and there are many people who collect and like individual grocery cellos. An 8 is not a bad grade, either. A 9 is ideal of course, but 10s are virtrually non-existent for packs.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • nam812nam812 Posts: 10,531 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:
    Hell yeah I still have that set!............

    Dan, I saw that sharp 1978 Ryan of yours and I thought since all of the 1978s you have were graded so long ago, I would take any sharp/centered hall of fame 9s (and any 9s that are expensive low pops) and look them over to see if any need to be sent in for review. Maybe become a member (if you arent already) and send in your best 15 HOF or low pop 9s as your free 15 submissions. I think the free 15 can be reviews, just make sure though.

    Either way, great accomplishment on the set.

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,524 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I guess we will figure out if the Loch Ness monster really does exist before we'll figure this one out.

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,267 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @nam812 said:

    @softparade said:
    Hell yeah I still have that set!............

    Dan, I saw that sharp 1978 Ryan of yours and I thought since all of the 1978s you have were graded so long ago, I would take any sharp/centered hall of fame 9s (and any 9s that are expensive low pops) and look them over to see if any need to be sent in for review. Maybe become a member (if you arent already) and send in your best 15 HOF or low pop 9s as your free 15 submissions. I think the free 15 can be reviews, just make sure though.

    Either way, great accomplishment on the set.

    My Ryan I love but it's no 10 because of L-R centering. The one card I think about this all the time is the Eddie Murray I pulled from a rack pack. THAT is candidate IMO. Thanks for the feedback!

    Barry, I think that's yankeeno7's name .... sorry to derail your thread but you started it! :p

    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

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    My Ryan I love but it's no 10 because of L-R centering. The one card I think about this all the time is the Eddie Murray I pulled from a rack pack. THAT is candidate IMO. Thanks for the feedback!

    Barry, I think that's yankeeno7's name .... sorry to derail your thread but you started it! :p

    Yes, Barry is correct....and don't be sorry! I derailed my own thread LOL I enjoy 1978 Topps discussion no matter how and where! I'll have to search to see if I ever made a thread showing my signed 78 HOFers. There may be a couple HOFers missing now that there have been new elections since I had completed it. I know I need Trammell now. If I find it, I'll bring it to the top or maybe I'll just make a new post.

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    I found the thread but many pics are missing. When I get some time I will make a new post.

  • lawnmowermanlawnmowerman Posts: 19,477 ✭✭✭✭

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @balco758 said:
    Yankee - good to see your name. Aren’t you a fellow Munson fan?

    Fellow Yankees fan in general!

    Booo

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    @lawnmowerman said:

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @balco758 said:
    Yankee - good to see your name. Aren’t you a fellow Munson fan?

    Fellow Yankees fan in general!

    Booo

    Very disappointed in you.

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,267 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @lawnmowerman said:

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @balco758 said:
    Yankee - good to see your name. Aren’t you a fellow Munson fan?

    Fellow Yankees fan in general!

    Booo

    Very disappointed in you.

    I'm a lifelong Yankee fan

    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

  • lawnmowermanlawnmowerman Posts: 19,477 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 11, 2019 10:37AM

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @lawnmowerman said:

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @balco758 said:
    Yankee - good to see your name. Aren’t you a fellow Munson fan?

    Fellow Yankees fan in general!

    Booo

    Very disappointed in you.

    🤣
    I'm just a bitter Mets fan. Carry on

  • nam812nam812 Posts: 10,531 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 11, 2019 12:06PM

    @lawnmowerman said:
    I'm just a bitter Mets fan. Carry on

  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @lawnmowerman said:

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @balco758 said:
    Yankee - good to see your name. Aren’t you a fellow Munson fan?

    Fellow Yankees fan in general!

    Booo

    Very disappointed in you.

    I'm a lifelong Yankee fan

    I was a Yankee fan when I was in school in NYC.

    Hi Barry!

    Mike
  • lawnmowermanlawnmowerman Posts: 19,477 ✭✭✭✭

    @nam812 said:

    @lawnmowerman said:
    I'm just a bitter Mets fan. Carry on

    😂😂
    You saved the original teddy! So cool because I actually lost him.
    *Saved

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    @Stone193 said:

    I'm a lifelong Yankee fan

    I was a Yankee fan when I was in school in NYC.

    Hi Barry!

    Hi Mike
    Nice to see you still hanging around. Hope all is well!

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    @lawnmowerman said:

    😂😂
    You saved the original teddy! So cool because I actually lost him.
    *Saved

    LOL now that was a classic!

  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @Stone193 said:

    I'm a lifelong Yankee fan

    I was a Yankee fan when I was in school in NYC.

    Hi Barry!

    Hi Mike
    Nice to see you still hanging around. Hope all is well!

    Couldn't be better if I were twins!

    Thanx!

    Mike
  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,225 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @lawnmowerman said:

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @lawnmowerman said:

    @yankeeno7 said:

    @balco758 said:
    Yankee - good to see your name. Aren’t you a fellow Munson fan?

    Fellow Yankees fan in general!

    Booo

    Very disappointed in you.

    🤣
    I'm just a bitter Mets fan. Carry on

    Is there any other kind?

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,680 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:

    Is there any other kind?

    That does seem to be a fairly common trait. Kind of like entitlement with Yankee fans.

  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭

    lol

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,225 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PaulMaul said:

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:

    Is there any other kind?

    That does seem to be a fairly common trait. Kind of like entitlement with Yankee fans.

    I don’t think it’s that Yankees fans are entitled; it’s just that we deserve and have a birth right to more championships than every one else does.

    (Looks up entitlement)

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,680 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Man, Oxford really nails it!

Sign In or Register to comment.