“Fixing” the lower end of the grade scale

1951WheatiesPremium

This is a topic that comes up from time to time. As an avid reader of the boards, I have seen people comment often that the lower end of the grade scale (1-5) often produces as many head scratching grades as the disparity between 9 and 10.

Obviously we’re talking about vastly different values so perhaps it’s a little less important.

Granted.

My question would be:

“Does anyone have a practical solution they’re willing to offer?”

I’ll offer two scans with my honest opinions held of the cards pre submission. I thought the ‘53 Topps had a range of 1-3. It’s a toughie because the corners are in rough shape, it had a well hidden scratch but the card body is crease free and color is still pretty vibrant. I thought the ‘63 would be 3-5 - again a nice overall card with some factory ink smear issues along the right side, mild tilt that’s more noticeable on back and mild corner wear. The card fronts…

I was happy with the grades - totally - but the ‘range’ aspect is the best I can do at present (landed in middle) so I’d like to be able to tighten it up for myself a little.

Thoughts?

1951WheatiesPremium

This is them raw…

1951WheatiesPremium

And again, I just want to get better myself. I am not complaining about grades and I hope to avoid this thread becoming that, if possible.

graygator

The lower end of the grading scale is fine. The eye appeal disparities in the same lower grades are a feature, not a bug. People whose eyes stop at the flip stay away, and those of us who look at the cards get some great buying opportunities.

JoeBanzai

Surprised the 63 graded as high as it did with that lower right corner.

I think grading the lowest grades are the toughest. When you get cards with multiple problems and good eye appeal is when people seem to get confused.

"Eye appeal" should have nothing to do with a cards grade. Each flaw should be considered.

1959

I think your cards are graded correctly, but I do think that ''eye appeal" should effect the grade. Lets say a small crease on the back knocks the card to a 5, but the front has great "eye appeal" , you could get a 5.5. I think that was part of the reason for the half point.

beachbumcollecting

@JoeBanzai said:
Surprised the 63 graded as high as it did with that lower right corner.

I think grading the lowest grades are the toughest. When you get cards with multiple problems and good eye appeal is when people seem to get confused.

"Eye appeal" should have nothing to do with a cards grade. Each flaw should be considered.

so are you saying that any type of wear on a corner should knock a card down to a 2 or 3 ? or are you saying the lower right corner is recolored? Personally that looks like a hell of a 4. I continue to struggle with the 2020's mindset that a card in a 4 should be flawless with a wrinkle but to each his own. There is no way that card would have been sold raw by any auction house and listed lower than vg/ex and most would probably list it as EX

The 53 on the other hand with the heavy wear could have received a 1 but no way could have gone into a 3 holder with heavily rounded corners

1951WheatiesPremium

@beachbumcollecting
@JoeBanzai
@1959
@graygator

Thanks, fellas!

Just trying to get better.

I don’t disagree with anything posted with respect to my card.

The right side of the ‘63 had printing issues - black and blue ink adorns the entire right border if you look closely; black on bottom right and blue squiggles too. No creases but soft corners.

Agree of the ‘53 corners; it just begs the question (for me) of where the corners end.

I’ll also say I wasn’t disappointed in the grades (I posted my thoughts here before they were graded by PSA). The opposite, really, since neither was given a grade as ‘low’ as I thought it could.

Thanks for taking the time.

nendee

I think the 4’s in general have a lot of variability to work with, and it’s fine with me. I’ve bought 4’s that have excellent eye appeal - and the price typically shows that. I don’t think of it as “damn I wish this was a 5” - more of a way - wow this is a great looking 4. PWCC “kinda” quantifies that problem with their eye appeal pcts - although sometimes I wonder if it’s to increase a sale price.

JoeBanzai

@beachbumcollecting said:

so are you saying that any type of wear on a corner should knock a card down to a 2 or 3 ? or are you saying the lower right corner is recolored? Personally that looks like a hell of a 4.

>
Lower right corner looks horrible. Looks like possibly the top layer of paper is separated from bottom and is either missing or folded under? This is a major flaw. Lower left corner looks possibly "dog eared", with chipping along lower left side in the green. Upper left is "blunted/touched" and ink in border in upper right area, along with the printiing defects mentioned by 1951WP.

I have a feeling that on 1963 Topps Baseball cards the graders immediately go to the lower corners and work from there. Cards with the tiniest bit of white showing get dropped to 8's even though this would go un-noticed on a white bordered card (imo).
>
I continue to struggle with the 2020's mindset that a card in a 4 should be flawless with a wrinkle but to each his own.

>
There are a whole lot of scenarios where a card "deserves" a 4. I don't happen to think a nearly invisible wrinkle is as bad as a smashed corner, but that's how grading works (or doesn't work depending on your point of view).

The Mantle card is very nicely centered, but has several problems that all deduct from even a 6 grade. I would be happy with the 4 on that card, could easily have graded lower. A 3 or 3.5 would not have surprised me.

Very attractive card. Beautiful until you get to the bottom corner(s).

beachbumcollecting

Very attractive card. Beautiful until you get to the bottom corner(s).

all 4 corners on the 4 below are worse than the op's yet PWCC calls this Top 30%

next example , again all 4 corners are worse even more than my last example

example 3 , I am not even going to comment how much worse this is than the op's card. I will stop here. These were not cherry picked examples. They were the 3 most recent sales in VCP.

1951WheatiesPremium

@graygator said:
The lower end of the grading scale is fine. The eye appeal disparities in the same lower grades are a feature, not a bug. People whose eyes stop at the flip stay away, and those of us who look at the cards get some great buying opportunities.

Well, you don’t have a lot of posts but always seem to say (or post) something great when you do.

And as someone who likes to buy raw cards and occasionally get them graded (for fun) and to keep my skills sharp, I will just reiterate that I was happy on both cards.

It’s a hobby I have enjoyed since I was a kid and graded wasn’t a thing then but evolving is part of living and knowledge is power.

Thanks for taking the time to offer your insight.

graygator

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@graygator said:
The lower end of the grading scale is fine. The eye appeal disparities in the same lower grades are a feature, not a bug. People whose eyes stop at the flip stay away, and those of us who look at the cards get some great buying opportunities.

Well, you don’t have a lot of posts but always seem to say (or post) something great when you do.

And as someone who likes to buy raw cards and occasionally get them graded (for fun) and to keep my skills sharp, I will just reiterate that I was happy on both cards.

It’s a hobby I have enjoyed since I was a kid and graded wasn’t a thing then but evolving is part of living and knowledge is power.

Thanks for taking the time to offer your insight.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

Your cards are great and I’d be proud to own them graded or not. Trying to ascribe some rationality to PSA grading is a mug’s game. As I have said before, PSA giveth and PSA taketh away.

1951WheatiesPremium

@graygator said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@graygator said:
The lower end of the grading scale is fine. The eye appeal disparities in the same lower grades are a feature, not a bug. People whose eyes stop at the flip stay away, and those of us who look at the cards get some great buying opportunities.

Well, you don’t have a lot of posts but always seem to say (or post) something great when you do.

And as someone who likes to buy raw cards and occasionally get them graded (for fun) and to keep my skills sharp, I will just reiterate that I was happy on both cards.

It’s a hobby I have enjoyed since I was a kid and graded wasn’t a thing then but evolving is part of living and knowledge is power.

Thanks for taking the time to offer your insight.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

Your cards are great and I’d be proud to own them graded or not. Trying to ascribe some rationality to PSA grading is a mug’s game. As I have said before, PSA giveth and PSA taketh away.

I just like the cards. As you said, not all fours are created equal…

😁😁😁

1951WheatiesPremium

@JoeBanzai said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

so are you saying that any type of wear on a corner should knock a card down to a 2 or 3 ? or are you saying the lower right corner is recolored? Personally that looks like a hell of a 4.

>
Lower right corner looks horrible. Looks like possibly the top layer of paper is separated from bottom and is either missing or folded under? This is a major flaw. Lower left corner looks possibly "dog eared", with chipping along lower left side in the green. Upper left is "blunted/touched" and ink in border in upper right area, along with the printiing defects mentioned by 1951WP.

I have a feeling that on 1963 Topps Baseball cards the graders immediately go to the lower corners and work from there. Cards with the tiniest bit of white showing get dropped to 8's even though this would go un-noticed on a white bordered card (imo).
>
I continue to struggle with the 2020's mindset that a card in a 4 should be flawless with a wrinkle but to each his own.

>
There are a whole lot of scenarios where a card "deserves" a 4. I don't happen to think a nearly invisible wrinkle is as bad as a smashed corner, but that's how grading works (or doesn't work depending on your point of view).

The Mantle card is very nicely centered, but has several problems that all deduct from even a 6 grade. I would be happy with the 4 on that card, could easily have graded lower. A 3 or 3.5 would not have surprised me.

Very attractive card. Beautiful until you get to the bottom corner(s).

Don’t hold back, tell me how you really feel.

😂😂😂

I am just giving you a hard time. I still buy the vast majority of my cards raw, by look and price. I don’t chase corners because I can’t afford to but ai like a nicely centered card. When I was a little kid, I thought old cards were produced with rounded corners. 😁

All three of the above were self subbed and I was very happy with all of the grades.

Still am.

JoeBanzai

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

so are you saying that any type of wear on a corner should knock a card down to a 2 or 3 ? or are you saying the lower right corner is recolored? Personally that looks like a hell of a 4.

>
Lower right corner looks horrible. Looks like possibly the top layer of paper is separated from bottom and is either missing or folded under? This is a major flaw. Lower left corner looks possibly "dog eared", with chipping along lower left side in the green. Upper left is "blunted/touched" and ink in border in upper right area, along with the printiing defects mentioned by 1951WP.

I have a feeling that on 1963 Topps Baseball cards the graders immediately go to the lower corners and work from there. Cards with the tiniest bit of white showing get dropped to 8's even though this would go un-noticed on a white bordered card (imo).
>
I continue to struggle with the 2020's mindset that a card in a 4 should be flawless with a wrinkle but to each his own.

>
There are a whole lot of scenarios where a card "deserves" a 4. I don't happen to think a nearly invisible wrinkle is as bad as a smashed corner, but that's how grading works (or doesn't work depending on your point of view).

The Mantle card is very nicely centered, but has several problems that all deduct from even a 6 grade. I would be happy with the 4 on that card, could easily have graded lower. A 3 or 3.5 would not have surprised me.

Very attractive card. Beautiful until you get to the bottom corner(s).

Don’t hold back, tell me how you really feel.

😂😂😂

I am just giving you a hard time. I still buy the vast majority of my cards raw, by look and price. I don’t chase corners because I can’t afford to but ai like a nicely centered card. When I was a little kid, I thought old cards were produced with rounded corners. 😁

All three of the above were self subbed and I was very happy with all of the grades.

Still am.

I hope I am not coming across as harsh!

I really like those cards, BUT once you go down the road of "what grade does it get?" those are not going to grade very high.

One interesting things I am seeing is the fairly recent thoughts on centering. Years ago, a card with border all the way around was just fine, now a card has to be nearly perfectly centered to be acceptable and in the case of the above mentioned 63 Mantle, being VERY nicely centered raises the hoped/expected grade?

Grading has been a great help in the hobby, but it has done some pretty horrible stuff as well.

I have a bunch of PSA 9's on ebay right now that could/should be 10's, but since they are 9's they are not of much interest.

One of them is a stunningly beautiful Mark McGwire card that's colors and gloss make it look like a Tiffany. Truly a "blazer" LOL.

A lot of beautiful cards, no matter the era, aren't appreciated by collectors. I have recently been picking up "perfectly" centered PSA 9 Kirby Puckett cards. He was one of my all time favorite Minnesota Twins and I don't see much/any difference between a 9 and a 10. Certainly not to justify the price difference!

This card is an 8. barely worth anything. Not a "perfect" card, but an 8?

1951WheatiesPremium

@JoeBanzai said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

so are you saying that any type of wear on a corner should knock a card down to a 2 or 3 ? or are you saying the lower right corner is recolored? Personally that looks like a hell of a 4.

>
Lower right corner looks horrible. Looks like possibly the top layer of paper is separated from bottom and is either missing or folded under? This is a major flaw. Lower left corner looks possibly "dog eared", with chipping along lower left side in the green. Upper left is "blunted/touched" and ink in border in upper right area, along with the printiing defects mentioned by 1951WP.

I have a feeling that on 1963 Topps Baseball cards the graders immediately go to the lower corners and work from there. Cards with the tiniest bit of white showing get dropped to 8's even though this would go un-noticed on a white bordered card (imo).
>
I continue to struggle with the 2020's mindset that a card in a 4 should be flawless with a wrinkle but to each his own.

>
There are a whole lot of scenarios where a card "deserves" a 4. I don't happen to think a nearly invisible wrinkle is as bad as a smashed corner, but that's how grading works (or doesn't work depending on your point of view).

The Mantle card is very nicely centered, but has several problems that all deduct from even a 6 grade. I would be happy with the 4 on that card, could easily have graded lower. A 3 or 3.5 would not have surprised me.

Very attractive card. Beautiful until you get to the bottom corner(s).

Don’t hold back, tell me how you really feel.

😂😂😂

I am just giving you a hard time. I still buy the vast majority of my cards raw, by look and price. I don’t chase corners because I can’t afford to but ai like a nicely centered card. When I was a little kid, I thought old cards were produced with rounded corners. 😁

All three of the above were self subbed and I was very happy with all of the grades.

Still am.

I hope I am not coming across as harsh!

I really like those cards, BUT once you go down the road of "what grade does it get?" those are not going to grade very high.

One interesting things I am seeing is the fairly recent thoughts on centering. Years ago, a card with border all the way around was just fine, now a card has to be nearly perfectly centered to be acceptable and in the case of the above mentioned 63 Mantle, being VERY nicely centered raises the hoped/expected grade?

Grading has been a great help in the hobby, but it has done some pretty horrible stuff as well.

I have a bunch of PSA 9's on ebay right now that could/should be 10's, but since they are 9's they are not of much interest.

One of them is a stunningly beautiful Mark McGwire card that's colors and gloss make it look like a Tiffany. Truly a "blazer" LOL.

A lot of beautiful cards, no matter the era, aren't appreciated by collectors. I have recently been picking up "perfectly" centered PSA 9 Kirby Puckett cards. He was one of my all time favorite Minnesota Twins and I don't see much/any difference between a 9 and a 10. Certainly not to justify the price difference!

This card is an 8. barely worth anything. Not a "perfect" card, but an 8?

I asked for opinions and I like a variety of them.

From in hand examination and applying the limited common sense I have 😁, it looks like the ink was smeared ‘up’ and I’m guessing the original lower right corner was covered in black ink, too, and perhaps from the card below; since it seemed to happen up the entire right side of the card and it seemed factory produced I am guessing there’s a good chance it was common to the sheet and perhaps related to not enough ‘dry’ time…

JoeBanzai

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

>

From in hand examination and applying the limited common sense I have 😁, it looks like the ink was smeared ‘up’ and I’m guessing the original lower right corner was covered in black ink, too, and perhaps from the card below; since it seemed to happen up the entire right side of the card and it seemed factory produced I am guessing there’s a good chance it was common to the sheet and perhaps related to not enough ‘dry’ time…

>
Personally, I don't knock cards with barely noticeable production flaws. This Killebrew gets slammed for fisheyes. I don't even see them! LOL I have seen 8's on ebay that don't compare to this card!

1951WheatiesPremium

Plus, again, corners have always equaled big bucks so centering was just the next logical attribute to pursue. Or some reasonable combination thereof…

There has to be some flaws, though, otherwise I can’t afford them!

JoeBanzai

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

>

There has to be some flaws, though, otherwise I can’t afford them!

>
LOVE the 1964 Mantle!

All of those are great!

Similar to my collection. My Killebrew Master set has very few 10's. The few I have were self submitted and a couple were purchased before the 10 insanity hit. Many undergraded, and some might get a .5 "bump" if resubmitted.

Was nice to be "#1" for a while, but not worth the $ to pursue it any longer.

I consider my more complete master set far superior to the #1 set even though the #1 set has 10's to my 9's.

I wouldn't trade him if he threw in a few grand!

Kepper19

@JoeBanzai said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

so are you saying that any type of wear on a corner should knock a card down to a 2 or 3 ? or are you saying the lower right corner is recolored? Personally that looks like a hell of a 4.

>
Lower right corner looks horrible. Looks like possibly the top layer of paper is separated from bottom and is either missing or folded under? This is a major flaw. Lower left corner looks possibly "dog eared", with chipping along lower left side in the green. Upper left is "blunted/touched" and ink in border in upper right area, along with the printiing defects mentioned by 1951WP.

I have a feeling that on 1963 Topps Baseball cards the graders immediately go to the lower corners and work from there. Cards with the tiniest bit of white showing get dropped to 8's even though this would go un-noticed on a white bordered card (imo).
>
I continue to struggle with the 2020's mindset that a card in a 4 should be flawless with a wrinkle but to each his own.

>
There are a whole lot of scenarios where a card "deserves" a 4. I don't happen to think a nearly invisible wrinkle is as bad as a smashed corner, but that's how grading works (or doesn't work depending on your point of view).

The Mantle card is very nicely centered, but has several problems that all deduct from even a 6 grade. I would be happy with the 4 on that card, could easily have graded lower. A 3 or 3.5 would not have surprised me.

Very attractive card. Beautiful until you get to the bottom corner(s).

Don’t hold back, tell me how you really feel.

😂😂😂

I am just giving you a hard time. I still buy the vast majority of my cards raw, by look and price. I don’t chase corners because I can’t afford to but ai like a nicely centered card. When I was a little kid, I thought old cards were produced with rounded corners. 😁

All three of the above were self subbed and I was very happy with all of the grades.

Still am.

I hope I am not coming across as harsh!

I really like those cards, BUT once you go down the road of "what grade does it get?" those are not going to grade very high.

One interesting things I am seeing is the fairly recent thoughts on centering. Years ago, a card with border all the way around was just fine, now a card has to be nearly perfectly centered to be acceptable and in the case of the above mentioned 63 Mantle, being VERY nicely centered raises the hoped/expected grade?

Grading has been a great help in the hobby, but it has done some pretty horrible stuff as well.

I have a bunch of PSA 9's on ebay right now that could/should be 10's, but since they are 9's they are not of much interest.

One of them is a stunningly beautiful Mark McGwire card that's colors and gloss make it look like a Tiffany. Truly a "blazer" LOL.

A lot of beautiful cards, no matter the era, aren't appreciated by collectors. I have recently been picking up "perfectly" centered PSA 9 Kirby Puckett cards. He was one of my all time favorite Minnesota Twins and I don't see much/any difference between a 9 and a 10. Certainly not to justify the price difference!

This card is an 8. barely worth anything. Not a "perfect" card, but an 8?

I'd guess the t/b centering got ya on the Bonds...quite a bit more space on top than bottom...and I hear ya with Puck -- always loved watching him play and you knew that everyone on the other teams liked/appreciated him to...such an easy guy to root for. So sad that his career was shortened by that hit-by-pitch. Morneau also had a shortened career due to injury.

coinkat

I try to buy affordable cards with a look that captures that they was cared for and have withstood the test of time. I am not going to debate the grading scale and how we arrive at the ultimate outcome. I do think there are factors that were simply not adequately contemplated in the 1-10 grading scale. And for that reason, I am not really impressed with a one size fits all approach. Back in the day, cards were made for kids. The grading standard is really not reflective of the traditional target audience. Further, production and wear/preservation issues are really separate but the production side of the equation clearly and significantly limits a grade that is simply outside the control of the kid that bought the card in the first place. I understanding that centering, quality of the print and color are important, but these cards represent mass production with all its faults. The quality was never intended to be perfect... it was something to satisfy kids. So we are now looking at cards from the 1950s and earlier with a 21st lens and yardstick to point out condition issues. There really should be a better way of creating the yard stick to grade vintage cards...

As for the Mantles and the Killebrew cards pictured, they are quite attractive. I don't understand the 7 on the Killebrew. That seems harsh. The Mantles seem to be graded at reasonable levels. I have no problem with the 63 grading at 4. I see the green border as highlighting the bottom corners to make them appear worse than they likely are. Flip the card over and the corners have a better look.

There will always be a subjective component to grading and that will never change.

1951WheatiesPremium

I’ve been able to learn quite a bit from these boards over the years and threads like these often provide those opportunities; I feel like seeing the same card raw and graded can be pretty helpful.

I appreciate all who have weighed in already.

😁

coinkat

There likely will never be the final comment on grading...especially in this grading range. I see the review process as critical. I prefer to look at raw cards out of any plastic to look at the surfaces of the card. I usually tilt the card, using a glass, to look not just at the quality of the card stock but to see what remains of what I like to call the sheen and the slight reflectivity that will capture wear and other surface imperfections from wear and handling. The cards that have this characteristic will likely have above average color and the eye appeal that should flow from that. Also this helps with identify issues that maybe production related and not attributable to wear/handling. I am more concerned with physical condition of the card attributable to wear. Further, the surfaces can help justify the most appropriate grade in the 3.5-5.5 range. I suspect that my views to to production issues is in the minority. I just have a hard time accepting a significant grading discount based on a slight ink imperfection. I have a Frank Howard rookie card that I will never have graded for this reason.