Ozzie Smith PSA 2 because of tilt?

jefferyadams

October 2019 I submitted a 100 card submission of personal cards from my collection. One of the cards was Ozzie Smith rookie. Graded psa 2. Is it because of the tilt of the card or does someone see a crease or something else? The price was $8 per card.

blurryface

tilt, o/c, pd.

but a 2 still feels harsh.

there a spider wrinkle or something not seen from a scan?

Barfvader

I've got old eyes but is there something going on in these two areas?

slimies

i also see a couple donuts beside his face and 2 on his jersey .

JoeBanzai

Bottom right corner soft, print dots, off center and it looks like barfvader found a crease.

Still a nice looking 2.

handyman

Card doesnt look like something I would want to have paid to grade. Centering,tilt,print(PD over most left of card) add on fish eyes ,corners(bottom left is the worst and other 3 show wear), and something hard to see via scan?

Chicago1976

Also some stains on the back (under "Shortstop" and in the "What Happened" box.

Frozencaribou

I'd call that card VG or VG-EX, as per the grading standards outlined by PSA. I'm not sure why a PSA 2 would be warranted even with the defects noted. Reading through the grading scale, PSA grading standards for the grade are much more tolerant than you might think, especially on mid-grade cards.

https://psacard.com/resources/gradingstandards

On another note-If those small circular oil stains are now going to significantly downgrade Topps cards, then what will happen to all the PSA 8's or above that have them on the back, or even the front? Those stains are so common.

Cakes

This is not directly at PSA but toward grading in general. To Hell with grading if that card is a 2. 10 years ago it's a 4 or 5.

IMHO grading is starting to take away from the hobby. In 79 you would have been happy with that card. Yes it's not perfect and you would not have been thrilled but it's got 3 decent corners, which back then was the focus and below average centering, some fish eyes too but overall not some beat up card that has never been cared for.

Fast forward to today and it gets a 2. Just gross! I am disgusted with this new trend. With this new trend more than half of the Ozzie Smith's and Eddie Murrays would be 5's and below now.

beachbumcollecting

looks like a crease on the back starting near smith as circled. and everything else mentioned. whould it be a 2, absolutely not unless there is a major fold in the card that we can't see. should be an ugly 4 every day of the week.

handyman

I have some freshly graded Psa 2 t3s that look like this. Makes me feel less cheated.

PlayBall

A PSA 2 on that type of card usually means some type of paper loss. As miniscule at it may be, look for any paper "disturbances", that may not show up on the scan.

jefferyadams

Thank you to all who commented.

grote15

Nice card for a raw set in a binder imo.

76collector

@Cakes said:
This is not directly at PSA but toward grading in general. To Hell with grading if that card is a 2. 10 years ago it's a 4 or 5.

IMHO grading is starting to take away from the hobby. In 79 you would have been happy with that card. Yes it's not perfect and you would not have been thrilled but it's got 3 decent corners, which back then was the focus and below average centering, some fish eyes too but overall not some beat up card that has never been cared for.

Fast forward to today and it gets a 2. Just gross! I am disgusted with this new trend. With this new trend more than half of the Ozzie Smith's and Eddie Murrays would be 5's and below now.

@Cakes said:
This is not directly at PSA but toward grading in general. To Hell with grading if that card is a 2. 10 years ago it's a 4.

👆👆👆👆

Well said. I couldn’t agree more. If that card is a 2 then grading is a joke now. That card has been viewed as a 4 for 20 years. I’ve now seen examples that look like 9’s graded 4, 8’s graded 6, 6’s graded 4 and 4’s graded 2. And of course countless perfect looking 9’s.

Jeff

Sgt_D

Eye appeal does come in to play in grading doesn’t it ?

That card is hideous looking ! I shant ever keep a copy such as that beast. 🤠.

Cakes

@Sgt_D said:
Eye appeal does come in to play in grading doesn’t it ?

That card is hideous looking ! I shant ever keep a copy such as that beast. 🤠.

I would assume you don't own a copy of Ozzie's rookie or the 78 Eddie Murray rookie. I would guess about half of them look similar. I would also guess that less than 10% of either ever produced would have graded above a PSA 7 right out of the pack.

Sgt_D

Am sticking with the card be a hideous specimen. No matter what cards I have If I had that card included in my lame little card wall displays, I would freak at it's ugliness each time.

JoeBanzai

@Sgt_D said:
Eye appeal does come in to play in grading doesn’t it ?

That card is hideous looking ! I shant ever keep a copy such as that beast. 🤠.

I agree. You have two major problems that each would bring the grade down 2 spots, plus soft corners. I really don't see it being undergraded. At least not much.

Centered with no print dots the card looks to be a 6? Knock it down 2 grades for being OC and 2 for the fisheyes, there's your 2.

blurryface

personally, i would never call a card hideous. i kinda divide up my collection into diff categories. cards i purchased and cards i ripped personally. for the oz, this is basically a typical example. i cherish my personal pack pulled one which is eerily similar to the one op’d more than the 9 i bought or the 9 i have signed.

like certain dogs, cars, artwork etc. sometimes things are so hideous looking, its hard not to love them outta straight compassion.

Sgt_D

@blurryface said:
personally, i would never call a card hideous. i kinda divide up my collection into diff categories. cards i purchased and cards i ripped personally. for the oz, this is basically a typical example. i cherish my personal pack pulled one which is eerily similar to the one op’d more than the 9 i bought or the 9 i have signed.

like certain dogs, cars, artwork,** and even myself in this selfie** etc. sometimes things are so hideous looking, its hard not to love them outta straight compassion.

Blurry, fixed your comment above. wacka wacka

blurryface

@Sgt_D said:

@blurryface said:
personally, i would never call a card hideous. i kinda divide up my collection into diff categories. cards i purchased and cards i ripped personally. for the oz, this is basically a typical example. i cherish my personal pack pulled one which is eerily similar to the one op’d more than the 9 i bought or the 9 i have signed.

like certain dogs, cars, artwork,** and even myself in this selfie** etc. sometimes things are so hideous looking, its hard not to love them outta straight compassion.

Blurry, fixed your comment above. wacka wacka

right. i mean think of our wives. im sure i thought id grade out as a psa 7.5. prolly come back a 4pd and pray the holder never cracks to require a regrade.

beachbumcollecting

@JoeBanzai said:

@Sgt_D said:
Eye appeal does come in to play in grading doesn’t it ?

That card is hideous looking ! I shant ever keep a copy such as that beast. 🤠.

I agree. You have two major problems that each would bring the grade down 2 spots, plus soft corners. I really don't see it being undergraded. At least not much.

Centered with no print dots the card looks to be a 6? Knock it down 2 grades for being OC and 2 for the fisheyes, there's your 2.

do you really think that is how grading works? knock a card 2 grades for each flaw? Then why are there standards that define what flaws are acceptable and what the tolerances are in each grade. They don't state " start with corners as the base grade and for each flaw keep deducting."

That logic is almost in line with a card with a qualifier would have been 2 grades lower if there was no qualifier. That is only the case for registry purposes. for grading purposes the qualifier card could have graded much worse than 2 grades lower.

on this card, centering is in the 4 range, fisheyes and print dots don't matter in a 4. corners are in a 4 range. there's your 4. if that crease on the back is heavy enough, then is a 3 and if it is very heavy that would be why it is a 2

Cakes

@blurryface said:

@Sgt_D said:

@blurryface said:
personally, i would never call a card hideous. i kinda divide up my collection into diff categories. cards i purchased and cards i ripped personally. for the oz, this is basically a typical example. i cherish my personal pack pulled one which is eerily similar to the one op’d more than the 9 i bought or the 9 i have signed.

like certain dogs, cars, artwork,** and even myself in this selfie** etc. sometimes things are so hideous looking, its hard not to love them outta straight compassion.

Blurry, fixed your comment above. wacka wacka

right. i mean think of our wives. im sure i thought id grade out as a psa 7.5. prolly come back a 4pd and pray the holder never cracks to require a regrade.

That's pretty funny!

Sgt_D

heh heh. I ended up a 4. Am here ain't I !

JoeBanzai

@beachbumcollecting said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@Sgt_D said:
Eye appeal does come in to play in grading doesn’t it ?

That card is hideous looking ! I shant ever keep a copy such as that beast. 🤠.

I agree. You have two major problems that each would bring the grade down 2 spots, plus soft corners. I really don't see it being undergraded. At least not much.

Centered with no print dots the card looks to be a 6? Knock it down 2 grades for being OC and 2 for the fisheyes, there's your 2.

do you really think that is how grading works? knock a card 2 grades for each flaw? Then why are there standards that define what flaws are acceptable and what the tolerances are in each grade. They don't state " start with corners as the base grade and for each flaw keep deducting."

That logic is almost in line with a card with a qualifier would have been 2 grades lower if there was no qualifier. That is only the case for registry purposes. for grading purposes the qualifier card could have graded much worse than 2 grades lower.

on this card, centering is in the 4 range, fisheyes and print dots don't matter in a 4. corners are in a 4 range. there's your 4. if that crease on the back is heavy enough, then is a 3 and if it is very heavy that would be why it is a 2

OK it's really a 4. I obviously have no idea how grading works.

beachbumcollecting

@JoeBanzai said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@Sgt_D said:
Eye appeal does come in to play in grading doesn’t it ?

That card is hideous looking ! I shant ever keep a copy such as that beast. 🤠.

I agree. You have two major problems that each would bring the grade down 2 spots, plus soft corners. I really don't see it being undergraded. At least not much.

Centered with no print dots the card looks to be a 6? Knock it down 2 grades for being OC and 2 for the fisheyes, there's your 2.

do you really think that is how grading works? knock a card 2 grades for each flaw? Then why are there standards that define what flaws are acceptable and what the tolerances are in each grade. They don't state " start with corners as the base grade and for each flaw keep deducting."

That logic is almost in line with a card with a qualifier would have been 2 grades lower if there was no qualifier. That is only the case for registry purposes. for grading purposes the qualifier card could have graded much worse than 2 grades lower.

on this card, centering is in the 4 range, fisheyes and print dots don't matter in a 4. corners are in a 4 range. there's your 4. if that crease on the back is heavy enough, then is a 3 and if it is very heavy that would be why it is a 2

OK it's really a 4. I obviously have no idea how grading works.

well if you make a statement that makes no sense then I guess not. do you really think fisheyes are going to knock a card down 2 grades from a 4 ? do you think fisheyes matter at all in a 4?

JoeBanzai

@beachbumcollecting said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@Sgt_D said:
Eye appeal does come in to play in grading doesn’t it ?

That card is hideous looking ! I shant ever keep a copy such as that beast. 🤠.

I agree. You have two major problems that each would bring the grade down 2 spots, plus soft corners. I really don't see it being undergraded. At least not much.

Centered with no print dots the card looks to be a 6? Knock it down 2 grades for being OC and 2 for the fisheyes, there's your 2.

do you really think that is how grading works? knock a card 2 grades for each flaw? Then why are there standards that define what flaws are acceptable and what the tolerances are in each grade. They don't state " start with corners as the base grade and for each flaw keep deducting."

That logic is almost in line with a card with a qualifier would have been 2 grades lower if there was no qualifier. That is only the case for registry purposes. for grading purposes the qualifier card could have graded much worse than 2 grades lower.

on this card, centering is in the 4 range, fisheyes and print dots don't matter in a 4. corners are in a 4 range. there's your 4. if that crease on the back is heavy enough, then is a 3 and if it is very heavy that would be why it is a 2

OK it's really a 4. I obviously have no idea how grading works.

well if you make a statement that makes no sense then I guess not. do you really think fisheyes are going to knock a card down 2 grades from a 4 ? do you think fisheyes matter at all in a 4?

Those are some pretty big fish eyes and the off-center combined with a "tilt"? That could be enough to warrant a 2, even though it would be a harsh grade.

Barfvader (who is superb at finding flaws) also noted some possible wrinkles, if the card also has those, is it now a 2? You bet.

I have said many times in the past that grading cards from a scan (even a good one like this) is nearly impossible.

beachbumcollecting

@JoeBanzai said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@Sgt_D said:
Eye appeal does come in to play in grading doesn’t it ?

That card is hideous looking ! I shant ever keep a copy such as that beast. 🤠.

I agree. You have two major problems that each would bring the grade down 2 spots, plus soft corners. I really don't see it being undergraded. At least not much.

Centered with no print dots the card looks to be a 6? Knock it down 2 grades for being OC and 2 for the fisheyes, there's your 2.

do you really think that is how grading works? knock a card 2 grades for each flaw? Then why are there standards that define what flaws are acceptable and what the tolerances are in each grade. They don't state " start with corners as the base grade and for each flaw keep deducting."

That logic is almost in line with a card with a qualifier would have been 2 grades lower if there was no qualifier. That is only the case for registry purposes. for grading purposes the qualifier card could have graded much worse than 2 grades lower.

on this card, centering is in the 4 range, fisheyes and print dots don't matter in a 4. corners are in a 4 range. there's your 4. if that crease on the back is heavy enough, then is a 3 and if it is very heavy that would be why it is a 2

OK it's really a 4. I obviously have no idea how grading works.

well if you make a statement that makes no sense then I guess not. do you really think fisheyes are going to knock a card down 2 grades from a 4 ? do you think fisheyes matter at all in a 4?

Those are some pretty big fish eyes and the off-center combined with a "tilt"? That could be enough to warrant a 2, even though it would be a harsh grade.

Barfvader (who is superb at finding flaws) also noted some possible wrinkles, if the card also has those, is it now a 2? You bet.

I have said many times in the past that grading cards from a scan (even a good one like this) is nearly impossible.

I agree grading from a scan is not realistic for certain things. I commented a few times that it looks like a crease/wrinkle on the back and if it is heavy enough that could be why it is a 2.

as for the fisheyes, let's agree to disagree. I am confident you can find many 8s with those size fish eyes on 70's topps cards.

I am sure you know what you are doing and know how to grade. Honestly I would have never even thought to send that card for grading. You probably wouldn't either. I would never grade 70's cards not looking for 8's or better, I guess now you can shoot for 7's on the stars. The lower/mid grades are reserved for older stuff. I have graded quite a few 30's and 40's cards shooting for mid/low grades. Since 95% of what we see these days in grade posts is on stuff that was produced in the last few years, I think we lose sight of what mid grade and low grade is. In my experience to get a 2 you need something major to be wrong with the card. Major as in paper loss , a crease caused by the card being bent in 1/2 , totally rounded corners , etc.

creases, off center, tilts , pds , dinged corners etc have always been graded 3-4's and 5's when it is not a combination of all of the flaws

Mickey71

Looks 4-5

Cakes

@Mickey71 said:
Looks 4-5

I agree, looks like a 4, at least it had been up until 2021. It seems like everyone, including many on this thread have become the " Graders of Death " from 2021 and forward.

It's just amazing to me how critical and strict people have become recently on the grading process. IMHO somehow the standards have become tighter the last year and I am having a hard time adjusting. Half the stack I was going to submit via the bulk service before 2021 will never get graded now and it's a dame shame, they are nice cards, but everyone is looking for perfection and I refuse to play the game. Yes I have become a broken record on this subject but I really feel it's unfair that prior to 2021 this card would have graded higher. I hope everyone can take a hard look at the subject, make some adjustments, and adopt new standards that make everyone happy. Hell at this point I would be okay with saying this card is a 3!

Barfvader

I'm not an expert and have never sent a card in. This is mine and when I was more active in card collecting I had thought about getting this slabbed but for my thinking the black ink spots and the touched corners in my mind made it visually less appealing (from an investment stand point) so never went any further with it.

I have no idea what they are looking at on this card when determining a grade but here is what I see on the front of this card.

There are a lot of black spots of ink where there should be none (marked some but there are many more). There are as far as I can see 5 "fish eyes". Chipping on edges. There are "scratch lines" where something made these marks during the printing process (noticeable around the word Smith at bottom) and of course the tilt.

I am not seeing any paper-loss in the scan of either the front or back (unless they count the chipping on the edges). There does appear to be a wrinkle (or light crease) on back and a possible indentation next to the number 6 and a couple little "grease" stains.

Does that warrant a 2? Here is a 4 that sold on eBay.

With all the "issues" the 2 has I would rather own that over that 4.

Frozencaribou

Barfvader

I'm looking at various listings of this card in all manner of grades and only thing I can do is scratch my head as it looks like no consistency in grading.

Not knocking PSA or the owners of these.

NM with chipping, stain, black ink, scratch lines and dinged (or touched corners).

"Fish eye" and lots of black ink and a purple/pink line on hat. For me (and it's just my opinion on how I feel) that takes away from the eye appeal.

Seeing lots of 8's with a load of black ink on the front and 8's without with all other aspects of the cards looking the same. Other higher graded cards then the PSA 2 in the OP with stains on front etc.

Conclusion for me is I have no idea why any card is given the grade it gets.

Gansetttime

In my opinion this card is seriously undervalued. So tough to find a nice clean example.