Common print issues & PSA grading
thehallmark
Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭
If a card has a print defect 100% of the time, I've read that PSA takes that into consideration and will not downgrade for it. Can we be 100% sure that's true? What if a new or less experienced grader isn't familiar with that particular issue?
And what about those other cards that will often have a common print defect, but it's not 100% of the time. What will PSA do then? Is there some mechanism to ensure all the graders are on the same page - working with the same info and instructions?
0
Comments
Every 2013 Panini Prestige Giannis Antetokounmpo PSA 10 I have seen (I obviously havent seen every copy) has the white print spots over his right shoulder. I have subbed 2 myself, both with the white print spots, and both have received grades of PSA 10.
as for dimples, sometimes I feel they are downgraded for it, sometimes not. ive seen plenty of PSA 10's with dimples.
myslabs.to/smzcards
You can never be 100% sure of anything regarding grading. There are probably a bunch of new graders right now and they might not be aware of all the variations.
Tell us what card you are asking about and post a scan and that will keep the speculation to a minimum.
Certain cards have print defects that even become variations and are worth MORE. Others may get downgraded even if 100% have the defect until it's known that they all have it.
Every card I have seen graded or ungraded of 1981 Valenzuela ; if the front is centered (Dead on ) the back is off centered badly. (95/5 ).This could explain why there is no 10's ? If the back is centered, the front is o/c enough to keep it from 10, but ok for a 9. If this is true for all Valenzuelas (#302) then there will never be a 10.
Great example there w/ Valenzuela. There's also Shaq's Topps Gold RC with the skinny dark line on the left margin. There's the scraping effect on a number of different 1982 Topps FB - including bottom left of Ronnie Lott's RC. Plenty more out there.
Where I was ultimately going with this is it would be great if PSA could chime in on how they view this subject and how they determine when a print issue is common enough to be disregarded during grading. Furthermore, if PSA made public their database of these types of print issues, imo that kind of transparency would benefit all involved. Frankly, access to an updated list like that might be a value add for a CC membership. Lord knows I'd use that more than the knapsack.
Not to beat this dead horse yet again, but I still will never understand how the 1975 Topps Robin Yount (full sized version only) can have that ugly blue "puddle" between his legs and then not end up with a PD designation. It is a somewhat common PD, but there are much greater quantities produced without that blue area on the card. This particular print error is completely ignored in the grading process, apparently.
Couple of examples with the blue between his legs.
.
.
And one without the blue.
.
There's also the group of collectors that would consider the "puddle" card a variation and not a print spot.
I agree, but there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement in the hobby at all on this blue defect, either from collectors or PSA. I thought it was common knowledge until I brought it up in a thread a couple of years ago, when someone posted about a particular high grade Yount. They were all dissecting the corners and centering, and yet not one person commented on the ugly blue color between his legs. I pointed it out, and a very good thread followed, that was eventually deleted for by the mods for reasons that I don't recall. I believe every single responder in the thread said it was the first time they had ever noticed or heard of the "puddle".
It's not a couple of fisheyes, or a smudge, or some flecks of snow. All of which often knocks your grade. It's an ugly swatch of blue, right in the center of the card! Once you see it, you can't unsee it, and yet it doesn't affect the grade one bit. Just a strange standard.
Going off memory...
1982 Topps Lawrence Taylor. Many have a red mark, thin, near top. The Ronnie Lott as well has issues on many. 8's and 9's have them. LT 10's, some, have the mark.
1955 Bowman John Henry Johnson. Print junk fairly common bottom left. I've seen 9's with it.
1974 Topps John Hannah if I remember correctly has, or many do, an issue similar to the 82 Lott. Cascading print flaw. Seen 9's with it.
Dot on top border of most if not all 1986 OPC Patrick Roy rookies. 10's have it.
78 Topps Molitor/Trammell smudge. Good luck and god speed with that card