Question for Todd, 1965 Blue Monster Cards, Poor Manufacturing Baked into Grading! Scan Heavy!
thedutymon11
Posts: 668 ✭✭✭✭
Good Afternoon Todd,
Last year you and I traded several Messages about the Complete set of 1965 Rosan (Rosan being Debateble as the Manufacturer) Blue Monster 84 Card Set that I had in for Grading.
My issue, if you will recall was that I had concerns about the changes in Grading standards in 2020/21. I was extremely concerned that they would now begin to be Graded by PSA such as all other Cards PSA Graded sets. Up until that time their had been 460 of this set graded, at least 200-225 of these by me. I had never been concerned about the Grading before, but it had been 8-9 years, so I wanted assurances. You could not find any comfort for me, I understood, nobody is going to Admit/Clarify/State that at least Some sets of Cards are Graded differently then most other sets! I say some because I don't want to be stating I have the one set Graded different!
Quick background. This set is some sort of a Pirated mid 60's Monster Cards that have as many Origin stories as Graded Cards. They were most definitely not Authorized, most likely some Rosan or Rosen or Terror Monster Card employees ripped off several sets they had access to and some they didn't, and created this set, even some Universal/Topps copyrites were violated. More info can be found on Monster Card Museum's site . What is known is that the 84 Card set was sold in the ads in one of the Monster Mags, which is why they are often found in complete sets. So here are some examples of some of the cards just back from PSA!
Lets be clear, I ask my questions and point out some things, not to Complain, Mostly I'm very pleased! But I am going to be subbing more of these hopefully eventually. So I need to know with PSA making some changes over the last year or so, what does it mean when I can't specify NQ when I sub these cards moving forward? This is the Crunch Time Question?
The #1 I had Pre-graded as an EX-5 and it gets an 8? Not Complaining! #2-4 I had as a NM 7's, they Both get 8's, the #5-#10, I had mostly as NM 8's/MINT 9's, they come back 6/7/8's. I swear most of the Cards from this set I had as NM 7-9MINT 9's. It looks like they took Darts and threw for 6's, 7's, and 8's, most of the Cards with the Multiple Print Lins, OC-ing, other Print Defects, ect, I have no Idea how to Pre Grade anymore?
Thanks for your help.
YeeHYaw!
Neil
Comments
I just went through a bunch of your scans and simply see that this set looks impossible to grade. I did not even look at the corners, color, print or backs. Did not even get that far. I simply could not establish any centering guidelines on 95% of the cards. Comparing like cards really didn't seem to work either (35 and 36 as an example). This is a very unique grouping of cards. Like you said about #1....you expected a mid grade. I immediately saw that and knew that accessing the grades for me would be impossible. The current PSA team may have actually never graded these before ????
Agree my head hurts looking at this group. Like grading snowflakes. No clue but looks like a tough set to know the proper grade.
This I would find totally believable. But if that is the Case, why did these not just get Graded all Poor 1- EX 5, because of all the different print lines and OC and other Flaws in the Manufacturing. Also if they haven't been Graded by this current PSA Team, that brings up as many questions as not. Are their Notes from previous Gradings, letting future Graders know to not deduct too much for this or that, or Compare them with identical Scans they have Archived for Previous Graded Cards. This is at least partially plausible as all most each Card # has the Identical Flaws across all sets I've seen.
Why does PSA have to be so Cyptic, especially when it comes to Outlier sets like these?
YeeHaw!
Neil
If my job was to grade 15 of the cards I think I would have actually graded them mostly low-mid grade based on i felt most cards were off centered or mis-cut. Maybe almost all of the cards in reality are mid grade and HIGH GRADE cards are quite rare. A good example of my confusion is #3....Is that well centered?? I can't say for sure.
Who's Todd?
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
From my experience, #3 & #4 are centered as much of the Set is, but on the flip side #10 & #11 are actually better centered, just too much T/B, as you would want just enough of the Body of Dark Blue background to make the White Border on Top of #3 & #4 to disappear. Hey I'm just throwing crap at the wall just to see what sticks?!!!
YeeHaw!!
Neil
Runs the Boards, one of the Moderators.
Is card #21 considered Al Pacino's Rookie Card even though the set is not authorized?
Who's Neil?
YeeHaw!!
yeah, with the white border sometimes on top, sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right, sometimes on the bottom, sometimes not even present, and then sometimes it is skinny and other times it is wider -- these do really make for a head-scratcher...I'd for sure need to have a better understanding of this set before I would make any attempt at applying a grade to each card...
Exactly.
Hey Neil. Just sent you a DM on this subject.
Thanks, Todd