Guess the Grades: 1976 Topps Vida Blue, Nettles, Carew - ACTUAL GRADES ADDED
bobbybakeriv
Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭✭
I am curious to hear your thoughts here. Can anyone get three for three?
0
Comments
T/L/R=7/7/6
Great looking cards and really nice centering on the Blue and Nettles! But with the tough grading going on now I’m going to guess low. I hope I’m too low!
My guesses:
Blue: 7
Nettles: 8
Carew: 7
Thanks gents. When I sent these three in I was thinking 9 (always wishing for the unicorn 10) but was certain my floor was 8. Those are good guesses given the apparently "stricter" grading environment that exists currently though (which didn't seem to be the case when I submitted these). For the record, I have been submitting since 2004 and have never received lower than a 5 across about 100 subs. received my share of 5s but those are usually due to me missing something (typically a small surface wrinkle, etc.). This being said, you guys got one grade correct.
Anyone else? I will post my actual results later.
They look great, and I'm only guessing low grades due to the current grading climate.
Blue 7
Nettles 7
Carew 6
Blue 7
Nettles 8
Carew 8
Beautiful cards...I'd say 7's across the board.
I'd say Blue - 6, Nettles - 8, Carew - 7. That's mainly because of the centering. The Blue looks like it has a slight tilt and I'm not sure about the bottom right corner. The Carew looks a little o/c t/b. But it's hard to tell from the scans.
Yeah, my scanner sucks.
I think due to people being disappointed in their grades people are inherently guessing low. I've submitted dang near 1K 76's in my life, and those are all nice cards based on the pictures IMO. Can't see if the spider wrinkling is there on any of them due to the quality of the images so disregard that possibility. Also, the scan of the blue isn't "perfect" so I'm going off what I see and the top left and bottom right corner might be "touched" but again just based off that scan. Centering is great on the Blue and the Nettles but the bottom right of the Carew border is a bit bigger than bottom left, but still probably within standards of a 9 honestly. The Carew seems to possibly have a little print defect in the green and a little fuzziness in the black of his sleeves.
Blue - 7
Nettles - 9
Carew - 8
Jeff
Collecting:
post world war II HOF rookie
76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars
Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals)
successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
I’ll go with all 8s
Blue - 7
Nettles - 8.5
Carew - 8
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
Blue 8
Nettles 8
Carew 7
Blue - 7.5
Nettles - 6.5
Carew - 7
I'm sure way off, hard to see the corners clearly on the Nettles and Carew. Love the look of the '76 set
1959 Topps Football need help finishing
6
7
6
If that is truly the case it destroys the legitimacy of past grading an possibly will affect the future. The standards should be exactly the same - neither better or worse than 20 year ago. Otherwise why purchase a slab graded pre-2020/2021 - seems like an unrecoverable Collector, Deal and Public Relations nightmare. I do hope that it is not the case.
PSA is riding high at moment but inconsistencies in grading (their very business) is great way to affect future business in effect repeating one of BBG's mistakes.
Please note of course their are normal minor deviations in grading on any given day week and month. That cant be avoided as long as human are involved.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Makes sense. There are no spider wrinkles present and I admit the image quality is poor. I went over each card with a 10x loupe including corners. The centering is not perfect but I feel it is within the parameters of a 9. I know you know 76s so I certainly appreciate and respect your opinion. I've submitted hundreds of 76s myself (not nearly as many as you though) and love the design as well. I have received dozens of 8s and 9s and even two 10s (one being Hot Rod himself). I will let this run a little bit longer and then update with grades.
Centering is fine on Nettles and Blue, Carew is borderline could go either if difference was 9 or 10. I feel the carew has nice eye appeal. However note I prefer slanted borders when half of the card is near centered over off centered top to bottom.
I'm big 76 fan as well. The quality and size of the scans at least for me eliminate the possibility of identifying a 10
Here are my guesses:
Nettles 9
Blue 7.5 / 8
Carew 8 / 8.5
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
BLUE 8.5
NETTLES 5
CAREW 7.5
This post has turned into a pseudo-social psych experiment.
There are likely only two reasons that I would post these scans: 1) I am proud of my grades and wanted to share, or 2) I am highly disappointed with my grades and wanted to share. You all nailed that it is the latter (especially given the current "stricter" grading standards environment we seem to be operating within). I have 4 subs in waiting right now and I REALLY wish I didn't. Getting stricter is one thing (I personally feel it is BS) but being inaccurate is another. Neither the Carew nor the Nettles are 6s. That is ridiculous. But, whomever graded the Blue in particular needs their grading license revoked. That is an **absolute **joke. There are no creases, holes, paper loss, etc. on this card and even if there was the smallest surface wrinkle that I somehow missed (and am still missing), this card is NOT a 2. Unreal. I have submitted, purchased, and sold PSA cards for almost 18 years now. Those days are over. FWIW - I did get six 8s (including a nice 76 Reggie Jax) back with this submission and a few more 6s to join Nettles and Carew.
My very first sub to PSA brought me two 10s (76 Carew, 77 Brett), two 9s, and two 8s. Nearly 100 subs later, I have gotten decidedly worse in my ability to evaluate cards apparently. The Blue has me dumbfounded. When I saw the grade online for the first time, I was sure it had to have gotten damaged somehow. Nope, just strict grading. LOL
Thanks for all the guesses gents. I appreciate your input.
Ouch....that looks to be ridiculous...ar you sure there is no speck of paper loss on the reverse?...Brutal ...
If there is, it couldn't be seen with a 10x loupe. Buy the card, not the holder!
wow. a 2 is an insult on that card. Definitely be interested to see if you find anything upon closer examination that you missed. Regardless I cant see how even if it had the dreaded spider wrinkles it would be less than a 5. Definitely scratching my head on that one.
Jeff
Collecting:
post world war II HOF rookie
76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars
Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals)
successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
If certain retailer/dealers had submitted the same items they would have obtained two 10's and 9 - at worst.
Granted the scans do not show what we need to see but a 2 on the Blue is basically a flip of the bird. Glad I have nothing in the pipeline.
PSA are flying high right now, but the bubble will (nor but when) burst. BGS, CGC are waiting....
P.S. I's say SGC waiting as well but their recent price increases prevent them from gaining any ground among collectors and dealers. I guess they did not want to increase their share of the market
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
On Nettles look on back- upper left. There's a mark above the bat between the edge and the bat- looks like pen, could be ink
Its why i guessed 5. The Blue is a surprise- must be a pinhole or indent hidden somewhere-spider creases should be clear if that's the case . Carew has slight diamond canting and I cant tell if that's lint or paper loss I thought lint.
Your scans made real guesses tough
Damn! If that is PSA's new grading standards I will never submit raw again.
When grades come back like this there needs to be an explanation of why, included. Makes me nervous for my sub in grading 🙁
If it is ink it should have the MK qualifier or if no qualifiers not have been graded. Good catch on Nettles - depending on what that is, could be what knocked it down.
Those grades are absurd. Makes me wish I didn’t have a bunch of subs sitting there waiting for them to get graded.
Publish who grades every sub. Review graders regularly.
That's ridiculous. Unless there is a pinhole, paperloss or deep indents at the corners from photo album tabs, no way that card should be a 2. It actually makes me feel lucky on a 500 card sub a few years ago when I only got 5 9s and they were all 1970's Topps commons. The other four 500 card subs I sent at the same time ranged from 50-75 9s each.
I hope when they get complaints like this, they go back to the grader responsible to give them training. The only thing worse than poor grading consistency is passing an altered card through the inspection process. Both destroy the integrity of 3rd party grading.
Ridiculous. Gives credence to BGS's approach of subgrades so that you can get some "idea" why the grading went the way it did. A creased card can receive a higher grade than your Vida Blue.
Gretzky,Ripken, and Sandberg collection. Still trying to complete 1975 Topps baseball set from when I was a kid.
Incredible. I'm starting to second guess my decision to send my submissions! Especially when I see raw versions selling for a decent chunk on eBay. Are you the original owner of these cards or did you pick them up along the way?
No. I have been buying raw 70s AS cards for years (mostly on Ebay but other venues as well). There is no hole at all regarding the Blue. Like I said, I am dumbfounded. A 2? Really? I've seen cards that have seemingly been run through bike spokes come back better.
There is definitely no ink. I am tempted to go over to Office Max and scan these for you all. I know my scans suck and make it difficult to truly estimate with confidence. I never submit a card that I feel will grade below 8. I am not perfect but I would catch any damage or ink marks on a card. I have missed very minor issues from time to time but that has always resulted in either a 5, a qualifier, or a non-grade (usually min size). A 2 on this Vida Blue is flat out laughable. Although, I am not laughing presently.
Even a smartphone pic may help with a better view of the Vida card.
The Blue is simply unfathomable to me. But, it isn't my biggest concern. I am actually more concerned with PSA's seemingly sudden crackdown on the cards I collect (i.e., mid to late 70s) as well as in general. There seem to be far less 9s being given out and far more 6s and 7s. Granted, I don't know this to be a fact at all. My concern is based on my own experience and those of the subs of others I've seen....others who I know are pretty danged good at evaluating the cards they collect. Finally, even if I missed some minor imperfection (which has happened before), would any reasonable collector actually say that Vida Blue is a 2? Come on. If there was a small wrinkle somewhere, that means 5. Most 2s I've seen are beaters.
Hence my concern in my previous post. Sent (in my mind) a really nice 1975 Topps Mike Schmidt and am now questioning a lot!
I think this is more what happens when you hire a bunch of new graders and throw them in there quickly.
I think on a card like this where the grade is obviously 6 grades lower than how it appears on first look they should put some notation in your account or something. This would be maddening to me.
I hear ya. Good luck your way! I had a nice 75 Rose come back a 9 a few months ago and have had many of the same card grade 8 recently. There is hope!
I am seeing all kinds of specks or dots in the stats area and by the trademark line on the back of the Blue card, or is it just in the scan?
I will say that is the best looking 2 I have ever scene. That Blue is crazy.
Horrible scan. It looks at the low end like an 8 to me. I was expecting 9. In any case, there is just no way its a 2. I am just going to hold on to it for a laugh when I need one.
Did you do the smell test? Maybe a cat peed on old Blue?
I will be able to add some insight on this soon. I have about 400 late 70's cards sitting at PSA that "should" be completed in the next month or two. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned with the grades others are getting right now on these years.
Jeff
Collecting:
post world war II HOF rookie
76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars
Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals)
successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
Good luck to you! My previous few subs have been okay (not great) but this last one blows me away. I am hopeful that it is just an aberration as it is the worst sub I have ever had in terms of expectations vs. results. Far worse than any g.o.d. sub I've gotten back.
I sure hope someone over at PSA is paying attention and rights the ship. Changing standards mid-stream is entirely unacceptable no matter supply vs. demand. Heck, it's not like turnaround times are speeding up. I think you will be okay. With a sub that big, they better not screw around. My sub was small (15) so I might have just gotten unlucky. Very unlucky.
here is my 2 cents on the Blue, my original guess was PSA 5 due to a wrinkle on the lower right edge about a 1/2 inch up. I am guessing it is a wrinkle that was deemed to be spooned or rubbed out??
If that were true, it should be deemed "altered" and not slabbed.
@gemint That may be true, I am not sure, I recall back when I started and was learning about grading that it was actually posted that evid of spooning would result in a max 2 automatically, just like a pinhole is an automatic 1. I was unable to find it currently on their standards. I could be wrong just trying to help OP with a possible answer.
l> @OAKESY25 said:
No way you could even begin to tell that from the picture provided. It may perhaps be the case but you can’t tell that from the scan posted