Comments

  • countdouglascountdouglas Posts: 814 ✭✭✭✭

    It is indeed a nice card, but 7 looks about right to me. Just a quick looksie, and I can see small issues on 3 corners, with a noticeable fisheye on bottom left border, as well. Looks like there is a "dullness" to the printing of the black border all around, or spotting, if you will. On the back scan, looks like a bit of curling or crimping on the upper left border.

  • @countdouglas said:
    It is indeed a nice card, but 7 looks about right to me. Just a quick looksie, and I can see small issues on 3 corners, with a noticeable fisheye on bottom left border, as well. Looks like there is a "dullness" to the printing of the black border all around, or spotting, if you will. On the back scan, looks like a bit of curling or crimping on the upper left border.

    I have a bunch of PSA 71 7's. Non of them look as good as this Bench.

  • dennis07dennis07 Posts: 1,784 ✭✭✭

    @coolstanley said:

    @countdouglas said:
    It is indeed a nice card, but 7 looks about right to me. Just a quick looksie, and I can see small issues on 3 corners, with a noticeable fisheye on bottom left border, as well. Looks like there is a "dullness" to the printing of the black border all around, or spotting, if you will. On the back scan, looks like a bit of curling or crimping on the upper left border.

    I have a bunch of PSA 71 7's. Non of them look as good as this Bench.

    Is it your card?

    Collecting 1970 Topps baseball
  • countdouglascountdouglas Posts: 814 ✭✭✭✭

    @coolstanley said:

    @countdouglas said:
    It is indeed a nice card, but 7 looks about right to me. Just a quick looksie, and I can see small issues on 3 corners, with a noticeable fisheye on bottom left border, as well. Looks like there is a "dullness" to the printing of the black border all around, or spotting, if you will. On the back scan, looks like a bit of curling or crimping on the upper left border.

    I have a bunch of PSA 71 7's. Non of them look as good as this Bench.

    Then perhaps you should post those PSA 7s under a topic header, "Are these cards over-graded?"

    I don't know what else to say about the Bench. I see lot of things that likely made it get the grade it did. You could always buy it and try for a bump.

  • miwlvrnmiwlvrn Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭✭

    It is presently at a bit over double what the usual going rate is for a PSA 7 of this card, with time left to keep rising. Nowhere near PSA 8 price yet, but I'm assuming the top couple bidders are gambling on a bump on this one.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Discussing 1971's and how they are graded can be futile.

    You can add 1962's and 1975's to that list.

    Example being discussed is a beautiful card with great centering. 1971's often look worse when scanned as the bright light from the scanner can make those corners look worse than they really are.

    Print defect on border is meaningless to me on this card.

    YES this card appears to me to be undergraded, I would say a 7.5 minimum or 8 would be more accurate.

    I have a Killebrew PSA9 (graded a long time ago) and found one that blew mine away, it came back a 7.5.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • PROMETHIUS88PROMETHIUS88 Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    **> Discussing 1971's and how they are graded can be futile.

    You can add 1962's and 1975's to that list.**

    Example being discussed is a beautiful card with great centering. 1971's often look worse when scanned as the bright light from the scanner can make those corners look worse than they really are.

    Print defect on border is meaningless to me on this card.

    YES this card appears to me to be undergraded, I would say a 7.5 minimum or 8 would be more accurate.

    I have a Killebrew PSA9 (graded a long time ago) and found one that blew mine away, it came back a 7.5.

    I know they can be found, but older graded 62's and 71's don't compare to the new "grading standards". If I'm going to buy a card from either set, I look for newer slabs and get a much nicer card than in the older slabs. A lot of people don't care about the actual look of the card, just want the number on the flip. When I buy Uecker rookies, I still see folks pay the same amount for say a 7 in the old holder as in the new holders and they don't even compare.

  • brad31brad31 Posts: 956 ✭✭✭✭

    Any card can be re-holdered. Maybe everyone else understands the numbering system and knows if a new holder was originally graded in an earlier time period - I have no idea. I evaluate each card and make a decision. To me the holder is irrelevant, there are strong for the grade cards and weak for the grade cards in all types of holders. If you go back far enough it was pre half grades so the best of them might get a half grade higher today If the owner never reviewed the card. It seems the market sees this card as strong for the grade based on the bids. I think the card is a strong 7.

  • hyperchipper09hyperchipper09 Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭

    @brad31 said:
    Any card can be re-holdered. Maybe everyone else understands the numbering system and knows if a new holder was originally graded in an earlier time period - I have no idea. I evaluate each card and make a decision. To me the holder is irrelevant, there are strong for the grade cards and weak for the grade cards in all types of holders. If you go back far enough it was pre half grades so the best of them might get a half grade higher today If the owner never reviewed the card. It seems the market sees this card as strong for the grade based on the bids. I think the card is a strong 7.

    Agreed. Same phenomenon, buy comic not grade or age of slab, occurs on the comic / CGC slab aisle.

    The Bruce McLaren of Collectors

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PROMETHIUS88 said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    **> Discussing 1971's and how they are graded can be futile.

    You can add 1962's and 1975's to that list.**

    Example being discussed is a beautiful card with great centering. 1971's often look worse when scanned as the bright light from the scanner can make those corners look worse than they really are.

    Print defect on border is meaningless to me on this card.

    YES this card appears to me to be undergraded, I would say a 7.5 minimum or 8 would be more accurate.

    I have a Killebrew PSA9 (graded a long time ago) and found one that blew mine away, it came back a 7.5.

    I know they can be found, but older graded 62's and 71's don't compare to the new "grading standards". If I'm going to buy a card from either set, I look for newer slabs and get a much nicer card than in the older slabs. A lot of people don't care about the actual look of the card, just want the number on the flip. When I buy Uecker rookies, I still see folks pay the same amount for say a 7 in the old holder as in the new holders and they don't even compare.

    My point is that the standards have seemingly changed for a few sets. The darker bordered cards are being undergraded in my opinion in the last several years.

    Without the Bench card in hand, it's tough to take a strong stand, but it sure looks better than a 7 to me, even if the two left side corners are "touched".

    A 1967 or 1969 card with the same characteristics would probably grade a 9 or even a 10. No print flaws on the white border, or they wouldn't be visible.

    I have posted this card before, here it is again;

    Yes, I see the print spots. In hand this card is AMAZING! Also the photography on this card is always a little "fuzzy".

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @brad31 said:
    Any card can be re-holdered. Maybe everyone else understands the numbering system and knows if a new holder was originally graded in an earlier time period - I have no idea. I evaluate each card and make a decision. To me the holder is irrelevant, there are strong for the grade cards and weak for the grade cards in all types of holders. If you go back far enough it was pre half grades so the best of them might get a half grade higher today If the owner never reviewed the card. It seems the market sees this card as strong for the grade based on the bids. I think the card is a strong 7.

    True, but the holder becomes relevant if you purchase a raw card that appears mint and it comes back a 7.

    Numbering system? Neither the Killebrew or the Bench even got 7.5's. As I understand it a beautifully centered card was generally supposed to receive a .5 "bump".

    I don't submit 1962, 1971 or 1975 any longer, just not worth it.

    Just my opinion.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 99
    edited January 13, 2020 10:28PM

    Same here.> @JoeBanzai said:

    @brad31 said:

    I don't submit 1962, 1971 or 1975 any longer, just not worth it.

    Just my opinion.

    Good advice. What about 1970? Also a dark border.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coolstanley said:
    Same here.> @JoeBanzai said:

    @brad31 said:

    I don't submit 1962, 1971 or 1975 any longer, just not worth it.

    Just my opinion.

    Good advice. What about 1970? Also a dark border.

    I have had a little better luck with 1970. Those are tough as well, 1963 has the colored bottom borders and that year is a challenge too.

    Most of the cards in my set are self submitted. I never saw the reason for buying "fillers", always looking for "mint", (with some exceptions for the VHTF item) so I usually got good grades when I sent my cards in. The last few years have been impossible for me to get a 9 or even an 8 on any of these years.

    I had a perfectly centered 1971 Killebrew, edges and corners were beautiful, I had bought three out of a vending box from Mark "the baseball kid" Murphy and one was superb. You guessed it..................7.

    I don't have the money to throw away, it's getting to the point where it might make more sense to submit to SGC if the PSA's come back so low. That Killebrew 7 is a money loser, I wonder what a SGC 8 (maybe higher?) would bring.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • mtcardsmtcards Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭

    Definitely not mint due to the corners. I think it might get an 8 if you get the right grader at the right time of day. I would probably say 7.5 would be a good call, but maybe a 1 in 10 shot at an 8

    IT IS ALWAYS CHEAPER TO NOT SELL ON EBAY
  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It would have gotten an 8 in 2004. Nowadays, three corners with any hint of white = guaranteed 7.

  • @PaulMaul said:
    It would have gotten an 8 in 2004. Nowadays, three corners with any hint of white = guaranteed 7.

    As a general guideline, what would you say is a reasonable hope/expectation for 1975 cards that are well centered but have one dinged corner and the odd tiny print mark? Is an 8 still a possibility in such cases? I’m still trying to decide whether to submit many of the ones I have...

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Yosaifweiss said:

    @PaulMaul said:
    It would have gotten an 8 in 2004. Nowadays, three corners with any hint of white = guaranteed 7.

    As a general guideline, what would you say is a reasonable hope/expectation for 1975 cards that are well centered but have one dinged corner and the odd tiny print mark? Is an 8 still a possibility in such cases? I’m still trying to decide whether to submit many of the ones I have...

    See above Killebrew card. NO dinged corners and near perfect centering. A few small print dots that aren't too noticeable.

    By the way, cracked it out once and it came back a 7 again.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • fiveninerfiveniner Posts: 3,907 ✭✭✭

    7 is accurate but still a darn great looking card.

    Tony(AN ANGEL WATCHES OVER ME)
  • 71 is terrible because of the black border. I have a Mays I assumed was a 7. It graded a 6.

Sign In or Register to comment.