Grading opinions - 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr.
nam812
Posts: 10,580 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm finishing up a submission and wanted to get some opinions on if this card has a chance for a PSA 9 based solely on the TB centering it has. Side to side is easy to see, the corners are strong, and any white specks are on the penny sleeve. I've subbed less than 5 of this card in my life so I really don't know what they use to determine the bottom thickness, so for that reason I will defer to those that know more than me (which is usually most everyone). I've also included a picture of the back because I've read here many times that the hologram matters, but I don't know if it needs to be whole or centered or both. Thanks
1
Comments
It does in my opinion but I am certainly not a Griffey nor 89 UD expert. It looks very sharp to me and the centering T/B looks 9 worthy to me. Others with more 89 UD Griffey experience will likely weigh in. Good luck with it.
I am not an expert on this card, but it looks like the best possible grade would be a 9.
Looks a bit low on centering and hologram is off, I predict an 8-8.5.
I think I'm with you on the low centering Joe. I wish I knew if they used the bottom of his name, the bottom of the y in his name, or the upper deck logo on the left to gauge the bottom border thickness.
The crazy thing is, even though my eyes tell me it's low just like yours did, if they use the bottom of his name to gauge the thickness of the bottom border then it's almost 50/50 with the thickness of the top border.
If they use the bottom of the y or the upper deck logo then I'm screwed. lol
While I still feel the same..................I am going to back pedal here.
In looking at some 10's on ebay, I see cards no better than this grading a 10.
Could get a 10. This one did;
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1989-Upper-Deck-Ken-Griffey-Jr-Star-Rookie-PSA-10-Gem-Mint-1-Mariners-Rc/284106521250?hash=item4226117aa2:g:HBoAAOSw5KpfzYQj
Strong shot at a 9 IMO. I personally love the centering on this example.
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
assuming corners and edges are perfect, and theres no surface dimples, centering and the hologram being intact make me think this card has a fair chance at a 10. ive seen way worse in 10 holders. I dont think PSA really worries about hologram centering much, as they do chipping. ive seen 10's with chipped holos.
myslabs.to/smzcards
Is there something in the white part along the green border on the back to the right and below ML TOT?
If that is ok, I wouldn’t bank on a 10. 9 is probably realistic in this current period.
For comparison, here is my grade run thread on this very card.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1042519/in-process-1989-upper-deck-ken-griffey-jr-psa-grade-run
Nic
Guides Authored - Graded Card Scanning Guide PDF | History of the PSA Label PDF
No, thankfully that was on the holder.
Trust me, I'm not even banking on a 9. My OP even mentions hoping the centering was good enough for a 9 since I dont know how PSA judges the bottom border.
Centering easily falls within standards for a MINT 9. They use the bottom of his name as the bottom border width. A dead centered copy will have a top border that is the same width of the two side borders. Yours appears to be slightly better than 55/45 T/B. The tricky thing with this card is to look for any tiny spider wrinkles anywhere on the front or back. I have seen many this clean land in PSA 5 holders because there is a microscopic wrinkle somewhere on the surface. Best of luck on the sub. Solid 9 IMHO.
Looks like a 9 to me ....
Don't think it will 10 -
The example referenced by mr Banzai had hologram centering issues, and was graded during the last holder grading era.
That coupled with the vise PSA has put on grades these days, I don't see a slam dunk 10.
sjjs28@comcast.net
Collector of 1964 Topps Stand Ups, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game and 1969 Topps Decals
Registered Sets: 1964 Stand Ups, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game, 1969 Topps Decals
I don't think anyone does, and getting a 10 never even entered my mind.
Here are some example 9s. Yours looks closest to the two on the far right...
9 potential all day long.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
As of yesterday it's on it's way to Newport beach. I will update this thread with the results when they become available. Hopefully before the summer, but who knows.
Good luck!
I just realized I never really gave any thoughts on what grade I thought it was due to not knowing how the bottom centering would be measured.
So with everything I thought about the card before I made this thread, and with all the helpful posts that were made in the thread, I will say that I believe it will be a PSA 8.5.
Just to close the loop,
Based on grading results posted on this forum, and the multitude of 10's garnered and shared for all to see,
I do think there are eyes out there that can put submissions together and _expect__ more 10's than not. (I know I can't).
Slam dunk, certainly not - but some of us can move the arrow to "expected 10" and see results close to expectations....
sjjs28@comcast.net
Collector of 1964 Topps Stand Ups, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game and 1969 Topps Decals
Registered Sets: 1964 Stand Ups, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game, 1969 Topps Decals
You lost me at just.
Well it took over 15 months from when I mailed it to PSA, but I can finally give this thread some closure. It was graded as a PSA 8.
I was hoping for your sake it was a PSA 9. 10's are hard to find today, and if you think it's a nine, it may come back a 8 today. I am waiting to see postings on ebay (maybe they are around already) advertising a card as PSA 9 or PSA 10 with brand new slab seeking a higher price than listed PSA 9s and 10s of yesteryear.
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
Send it in regardless. There are people trying to complete a "rainbow" of PSA Griffey cards. I sent in multiples and all came back 8, 8.5, and 9s Then one 3. I sold it quickly for cheap, only to find out I probably could've done much better in an auction on it as it was a very nice looking 3. I thought it would've graded much higher, obviously.
8?
I did, 15 months ago.
I bet the "8" is due to the centering of the logo, comparing yours to very recently graded 9's on eBay. I never would have thought to look at that in a million years until just pulling up this thread for the first time a few minutes ago. (edited to note that I'm referring to logo/hologram on back of the card at the bottom).
15 months ago wow that much time you almost forget you sent it in to get graded.