To grade, or not to grade?
GilR
Posts: 147 ✭✭✭
As someone who has just reentered the hobby after thirty years, I have been finding that I have a lot of questions, and am glad that I discovered this forum because it's the obvious place to ask them. In short, I collected baseball cards from 1986 to 1991 and then stopped midway through college. Hearing about the hobby's resurgence, when I was finally able to visit my parents in another state a few months ago I retrieved my collection with the intention of finally selling my duplicates and triplicates, the extra sets I had, etc. I've now made two important discoveries: first, that I still like collecting, and therefore have added to my collection a bit, and second, that selling what I was hoping to sell is FAR more complicated than I expected. So I want to have a thread where I can post on this, but of course any others in my situation are welcome to join in.
Specifically, it is the issue of grading that's clearly the most important to understand, and to figure out which cards to sell ungraded and which to grade (eventually). (I read somewhere that grading became a big thing in 1991, which is the last year I purchased new cards, so it's all new to me.) After about three months of going through my collection and selling a bunch of items on eBay I think I have a fairly good grasp of the situation, but the one thing I can't figure out with confidence is how to determine which of my cards would be PSA 9 or 10. While I do have a few to sell that are old enough that even a PSA 6-8 would have sufficient value, a lot of my best rookie and star cards are from that period of 1986-1991, which means that a PSA 10 could be worth $100+, but a PSA 9 or lower would go for less than the cost of getting it graded. (Needless to say, for these cards I'll have to wait until PSA once again has an "economy" option.) I have studied PSA's grading standards religiously (at https://www.psacard.com/resources/gradingstandards#cards) in the hope of figuring out which cards to send them, but find both that PSA's standards sometimes seem surprisingly flexible, and also that some of their language is a bit subjective (e.g., the amount of damage to corners). So I'm hoping to use this thread, over time, to get some advice on these issues.
Thanks in advance!
Comments
I'll start with two questions:
1) Can anyone explain, or is there something I can read or watch, to what extent grading standards are lowered for older cards, and if they are lower roughly when that cut-off is?
2) PSA's guidelines seem quite clear about centering as a critical factor in grading, but while looking at eBay and trying to learn how to grade I've noticed quite a few that seem rather off-center, which leads me to wonder whether a card can be PSA 9-10 based on looking good and lacking imperfections, even if it's quite off-center. Here, as an example, is a photo I downloaded last night of a card someone's selling, and that's PSA 9 even though it sure doesn't look to me like it's "60/40 to 65/35":
1) They aren't, or at least they shouldn't be. I'd imagine that some cards slip through.
2) It's not a 9, it's a 9(OC) for the very reasons you mention. If you look on the pop report you'll find this card in the third row as a card with a qualifier. I understand that for registry purposes this is equivalent to a 7.
Thanks. You know, I did read somewhere a while back that "OC" is "off-center" but forgot. But it seems that what you're saying is that an off-center PSA 9 is like a PSA 7 -- which for, say, my 1985 Topps Roger Clemens would go for much less than the cost of grading. Or can the price of a PSA 9(OC) be as high as a PSA 9? (Unfortunately, PSA's amazingly useful "Auction Prices" section doesn't provide prices for off-center cards.)
Okay, one more question for the night: when the description of PSA 9 includes a "minor printing imperfection" what can that mean? Does it refer to those small circles that sometimes appear, like the one under the 'R' in "E.R.A." in this photo of a card that sold earlier today? Those small circles are quite common, especially in older cards, but I saw one online in a photo of an otherwise perfect Kirby Puckett rookie card that sold a day or two ago.
(So if the league leaders card were otherwise gem mint but had this circle, or the Puckett was, would it only go down to PSA 9, or do these circles, which are hardly appealing, drop a card much lower?)
Unfortunately the years you collected are some of the worst years in terms of card values for Baseball.. And for the most part, just figure that the best any card you submit will be a 9, so if a 9 isn't worth the cost of grading, then it doesn't make sense. Getting 10's on cards that aren't super recent has become like winning the lottery!
Also, any card with a qualifier like (OC), is technically a 2pt deduction.. So a 9OC should sell for the price of a 7. Today they don't really give qualifiers except in certain situations, so a card that would have been a 9OC would come back as a 7 today.
My rule of thumb is for each imperfection you can find deduct 1 grade. For those “fish eye” circles you were asking about, deduct 2 grades. The only case where you wouldn’t deduct a grade point for each imperfection would be on corners. If you had VERY MINOR nicks on all 4 corners, and I mean slight flaking of the paint, that would technically be 4 imperfections but generally only deducts 2 grade points giving you a PSA 8. With the cards that you say make up the majority of you collection, determining the grade can be a little tricky. One thing that will make it somewhat easy is that 99% of those cards have borders. The downfall is that 75-80% of those are not perfectly centered so you can eliminate those from your “possible 10s” stack. Also be sure to check the centering on the back, it does make a difference. Next would be checking corners. Any slight nick of a corner will count against you. Even if it looks good and crisp make sure you don’t see chipping (where the color should be black, red, green, blue, etc. and you see specks of white). Then look closely at your edges. Another sad fact for cards in this timeframe is they weren’t cut cleanly. You are going to find a lot of your cards with “sawtooth” edges. This is where it gets tricky. I have seen cards with these sawtooth edges that still graded a 10. I think that’s where the grader has to take into account the timeframe. As long as those sawtooth edges don’t have any fraying or what looks like little tiny hairs, you MAY be ok. Lastly check your surfaces. For this you will need to angle the card so that the light hits it and reveals any blemishes. Tiny wrinkles on the surface have caused many cards that appear to be PSA 10 to drop to PSA 6 and drive people made trying to figure out why.
More than likely for the cards that you have that fall between the years of 1986-1991, there will be very few, if any, that are worth grading at the current prices. Don’t let that discourage you. It just means you have plenty of time to examine the ones that you think could be worth grading. Get those together in boxes and when they reopen the value service levels, buy a membership and sub them at that time. When that may be, who knows!!!
Good luck!
It is dangerous to make any universal assumptions like this about card price. I'd no more say that than that a 6.5 should sell for 2/3 of the way between a 6 and a 7. I say only that it counts that way for a registry set, and it is not a bad rule of thumb. I'd expect to see cards that sell for far more and far less.
Yes, it does. Take, for example, the card sold on 17 October. https://psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1985-topps/cal-ripken-jr/values/200675
RufussCkingston, parthur1607 and daltex,
Thank you very much for your responses, which I've been digesting.
I do hear you on the junk wax era and the relative lack of value of most cards from that time. And the point about not grading something unless it would still be worth grading if it turns out to be a PSA 9 makes sense, of course. It's a bit dismaying to read RufussCkingston's comment that getting a PSA 10 for such cards is like winning the lottery, but this dovetails with some other things I've been reading about how arbitrary grading services can sometimes be. (One piece I read online was by a guy who has a company -- many of you undoubtedly know about this sort of thing -- that advises people on getting their cards graded before sending on for grading the ones that are worth a shot. He was indicating that there are ways to raise the chances that more of one's cards will be rated gem mint, such as putting a few lesser cards first as sacrificial lambs so that the grader will be more likely to give 10's to the more important cards, which suggests that this is more of an art than a science. Which makes me wonder whether those grading companies that are starting to use computers and algorithms and optical technology, which IS science, might end up winning over customers.)
But despite your warnings and what I've read elsewhere, I can't help but think that out of my large number of 1986-1991 rookie and star cards a good number should grade as gem mint. I've been waiting until I remember to buy a magnifying glass before making any decisions -- and as parthur1607 notes, there's plenty of time, what with PSA still not accepting "economy" business -- but expect that I'll still try a number of these cards, even if PSA 9 would be a loss. Here's an example of my thinking. A 1988 Nolan Ryan at PSA 10/9/8 averages $92/$30/$15, so if I pay $90 to grade three -- an estimate -- that I think could be PSA 10 and I end up with PSA 10, 9 and 8 that's $137, but if I have two PSA 9's and a PSA 8 that's $75, so I'm weighing a potential gain of at least $47 (since I could instead have 2-3 PSA 10's) against the potential loss of $15-$30 (or, at worst, $45). It's sort of like pot odds in poker, but in this case, assuming I know enough not to look at a PSA 7 and convince myself it's a PSA 10, the greater upside makes it seem worthwhile.
Of course, since I'm certainly not the only one waiting for PSA to start economy grading again, there's a possibility that when they do there will be a glut of similar cards that will affect market value for 1988 Ryans and the like. So that's a concern.
After reading this, I'd suggest that you post here scans of any cards you might want to send in and see what the consensus is? The [[active]] posters here are generally very helpful and can help you maximize value.
I would certainly be careful with the thought that "a large number of your cards would grade 10". Unless you were very picky when you bought cards, and probably rejected 99% of the cards you examined, odds are very few of your cards would grade a 10. That's why 10's are so valuable. You really can't look at 30 year old cards and assume you'll get a 10. It doesn't work that way. Please remember that most cards from the 80's came out of the pack as a PSA 8 or lower. Like I've said many times, a PSA 9 will look virtually perfect with the naked eye and a PSA 10 will look virtually perfect under a 10x loupe. I agree, post some pics, and we will give our ideas about potential grades.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Take a look at Chris's thread here https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/995191/i-love-the-1980s-the-ultimate-unopened-rip-quest-to-build-topps-fleer-donruss-psa-10-sets/p1
It's a very long read, but well worth it and very realistic regarding 10s from the '80s. No need to play any games, IMO.
Something helpful is to buy a few inexpensive cards in the grades of PSA 6, 7, 8, etc.... and really look them over with a 10x lighted loop so you can see the different characteristics that make each one reach the grade they reside in. Obviously all EX, EX-MT, NM, NM-MT, etc.... cards are not created equal, but if you look at enough different ones you will eventually start to understand why a card is in the grade that it's in, and you can learn to evaluate your own raw cards (which is another mine field because everyone over estimates their own cards a little.) Go slow and have fun learning how to assess the grades your collection.
Edited to add: Feel free to show high resolution scans (not pictures) of any cards you are thinking of grading and you will get a lot of help from some very knowledgeable members here. These can even be cards you have already pre graded in your mind, and you can see how your pre-grade stacks up against what the members here think (lots of us with 20+ years of submitting 1000s and tens of 1000s of cards).
Like many have stated already it is almost impossible to get a 10 from that era. I got back into collecting about 9 years ago and I had the same mind set as you do today. I collected from 84 to 92 so roughly the same time period you did. When I was going through all my cards I picked out my best 20 to send to PSA thinking I'm going to be rich when these all come back 10's. I even had a bright light and mag glass to examine the cards. The anticipation was killing me while I waited for the grades to pop and one day I got the email. When I opened it and saw my grades I was confused on what had happened, not a single 10. My grades where ten 9's, eight 8's, one 7 and a 4. LOL...Thats when I realized that's why 10s cost so much.
Got a feeling what you think is "Gem Mint" and what PSA thinks are two different things.... Post a HIGH RESOLUTION pic of a card that you think is "Gem Mint"! We'll set you straight
I'm sort of picking up on a pattern in what you're all saying.
Okay, I can certainly accept that I'm just the latest to think that if something clearly looks mint then it could well be gem mint. I do sort of wonder, if the imperfections that can keep a card from being gem mint are invisible to the naked eye, what the point is -- it seems a bit extreme to expect perfection down to the molecular level. (If some electron is spinning in the wrong direction that can lower a card's value?) But that just means that I personally don't have to collect gem mint, and therefore can happily part with any that I might have in my possession.
I very much like the idea of posting scans, but it's going to be a bit of time before I can do that. (Of course, there's plenty of time before I'd be able to send anything off.) I can take photos with my phone, though it sometimes distorts them into trapezoids.
Part of the reason I think I must have some gem mints is that I do have a large number of cards, though to my regret I now see that they weren't all handled by the younger me as well as they should have been, since some cards that seem otherwise perfect have barely perceptible corner damage -- still great cards in my eyes, but they won't get higher than a PSA 6-7 as a result, I suspect. (It's possible that same of this damage occurred in the packs, of course.) Also, as I mentioned in my rookie cards thread, I did buy a bunch of them in bulk, so it seems a reasonable assumption that among my 50 1989 Topps Gary Sheffields that have not left the plastic box in which I bought them 32 years ago I've got at least one or two perfect cards. Same goes for my 20 or so 1990 Bernie Williams cards. Even a gem mint Al Leiter, Gregg Jefferies or Todd Zeile has values, and I've got enough that odds are at least one is worth grading.
I'm shuddering that we are talking about grading 1989 Topps Sheffeild's and anything Bernie williams, al leiter, Jefferies or Zeile! Am I wrong? Especially at $20-$30 a pop grading fee....
Entertain us with some cell phone pics!
I think you’re looking at this the wrong way. Why are you so insistent on trying to grade these cards that we are telling you for the most part are not worth grading? Why not enjoy the cards as they are. Grading is a lot trickier than you probably think that it is and you have some of the trickiest material that you could possibly be attempting to submit.
So you beat the odds and get one or 2 tens on Junk wax era cards. You’re going to waste a ton of grading fees on all the 789‘s so why go through that. It just doesn’t make any sense.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
It's not worth sending in a few dozen late 1980's cards even if they 9. PSA's cost of shipping and insurance is probably over $75. The guys making money on grading 80's cards are buying mass collections raw and sending in 500 plus cards at a time to be graded so they can get a discount on fees & shipping..
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
At first, there was no mention of which cards we are talking about. But I agree, I wouldn't even think about grading the cards you mentioned. And please remember, even if you just grade "the 10's", chances are they aren't all 10's. Just today, I saw a post on here or on one of my facebook groups, where a guy got his best 20 cards that he thought would get a "10" and was very disappointed when he got zero 10's, only (2) 9's, some 8's, 7's, and a 4. With the cards that you listed, you will not come out ahead if you grade them. This is just an estimate, but I probably wouldn't think about a grading a card that I thought was pristine unless a PSA 8 example of that cards sells or more than the grading fees.
Again, give us some pics and we will take a look.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
You mentioned you have discovered the love of collecting again, I suggest that if you are eager to send in cards to PSA (when value levels reopen) and receive gem mint 10 grades you should start collecting ultra modern cards of interest and submit those. You are far more likely to get gem grades with those issues as opposed to your older collection. The new era of PSA grading is proving again and again that seasoned submitters are being stymied from receiving the grades they expected on 80's and 90's cards.
You should save yourself the trouble of spending $30 plus shipping to send in a 1989 Topps Gary Sheffield and just buy a PSA 10 on Ebay for $45. Plenty to choose from.
Thanks for your responses. I've been too busy to respond -- dealing with a work deadline -- but have time now. No photos just yet, since my phone needs to recharge first. In the meantime...
It's clear from some of the above posts that I should clarify where I'm coming from. Basically, I have the collection I put together all those years ago, and then I have the extra cards -- some, like the 50 Sheffields, bought as an "investment," others simply the duplicates, triplicates, etc. that one acquires. I do not plan to sell any part of my collection, but DO want to sell as many of the superfluous cards as I can, now that the hobby has roared back and values have gone up. So back 2-3 months ago when I started trying to sell those extras on eBay I quickly noticed that ungraded cards were going for far less than graded cards (when ungraded cards were even selling), so I've been trying to figure out what to grade while waiting for that to again be an option for "economy" customers. (I don't have any plans to grade the cards that will remain in my collection, since I already have a fairly good idea of their condition, and it doesn't matter to me whether, say, my Bill Ripken error card, which is the only major error card I've ever found in a pack, would be PSA 8, 9 or 10. Nor does it matter to me whether my 1962 Mickey Mantle with the rounded corners and thumbtack hold through the face is PSA 1, 2 or 3 -- just glad to own a 1962 Mantle.
While the bulk of the cards I've been considering are from the junk wax era, some are not, and a few are obvious candidates for grading (assuming that my estimate of roughly $30/card for economy grading, shipping, etc. is correct). Unfortunately, I've not yet figured out all of the ones I'm hoping to grade, in part because there are various aspects of grading that I don't know -- which is part of my reason for starting this thread, so I could ask questions about specific defects and how PSA might view them. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg thing: I need to know more about grading standards before pulling out the cards that seem ideal candidates, but I can't ask you about specific candidates until I've pulled them. But I already have an idea of what some of these cards will/might be, and will start posting photos later.
So returning to the issue of junk wax cards, if I'm reading you (collectively) correctly, it seems that PSA holds those cards to a higher standard because there are more of them. If so, that strikes me as perverse: unless printing and packaging technologies took a major step back in 1981, there should be far more gem mints for the junk wax era, since the number of gem mints per 100 or 1000 cards produced should have remained level, or improved as technology got better. But you appear to be saying it's HARDER to get a PSA 10 grade for those years despite (= because of) the greater number of cards. If that is the case then obviously I need to rethink some of this. (This leads to a related question: if PSA is raising the bar in this manner, is it equal for all cards, or might they be more generous to cards of lesser stars than those of the Griffeys and Bonds and others like that who are being sent to them in relatively large numbers?)
I think folks are saying you should do a lot of research on the grading process before submitting any cards. Most PSA 10's from the 1980's come from people buying vintage wax boxes. Plus graders use visual enhancement technology to see things you can't see with the naked eye which makes it nearly impossible to get a gem mint grade on cards that have been handled...
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
All cards are graded consistently across the board. Of course, there is always the possibility of human error. So, cards from the late 80's aren't graded harder because there are a lot out there. The technology still wasn't the greatest and at that point, manufacturers weren't terribly worried about quality, because everything was selling.
Like Vols1 said above, many of the PSA 10's are coming from wax that is now just being opened. That being said, still, most cards out of those packs won't make a PSA 10. In fact, I would suspect less than 5% would be worth submitting.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
vols1 and dontippet,
Thanks for your responses. I had read somewhere that fingerprints are an issue, but assumed that meant visible stains, perhaps from having ink on one's finger. But are they truly looking for something like that? If so, then nothing I own would be PSA 10, since I've had to handle everything at some point. (I have to wonder how when packs are opened these days the people doing it avoid handling. Do people wear gloves to open an old wax pack?!?)
Do the other grading services do this? I know that one gets less money for a card graded by them since their standards are lower, but if they don't care about invisible fingerprints or something like that then a gem mint rating seems more likely for some of my cards. (I'd still submit to PSA the older ones that would be valuable even if not gem mint. But perhaps something like a 1986 Topps Will Clark rookie card should go elsewhere.)
It is possible that quality declined over the '80s, though it is hard to imagine cards of lower quality than 1981 Donruss. The quantity increased so much that it would have been difficult to keep up with any standards at all.
Okay, I've taken a bunch of photos of some of the cards I had at hand, and would be eager to have any thoughts on, well, "to grade, or not to grade." There are certainly others I'll want to ask about, but this seemed like a good start.
I should mention that I'm providing the info from the PSA Auction Prices database, since I didn't want anyone to waste time looking it up. Also, since these are photos from a camera, they're distorted, but I think any obvious problems should be visible. In some cases I didn't take the card out of the plastic sleeve because the less handling, the better -- and since I almost damaged the 1982 Rickey Henderson card while holding it that's certainly true. Lastly, you'll be pleased to know that in reexamining some cards in light of this conversation I've already noticed defects that are barely visible, but will keep them from being PSA 10.
So, here they are, starting with two 1961 Topps Gil Hodges, the better of which I bought for $20 and is the one I'd hope to keep, unless might be at least a PSA 8, in which case I'm happy with the one that's in worse condition. The better one seems to have no major problem other than small circles over the name, but one of you said I need to deduct two points for those, so I figure PSA 8. The other has rounded corners, so it seems like PSA 5.
Gil Hodges 1961 Topps: PSA 10 n/a, PSA 9 averages $311 (pop. 53), PSA 8 $72 (pop. 342), PSA 7 $39 (pop. 260), PSA 6 $19 (pop. 139), PSA 5 $20 (pop. 56)
Next, I have one of those odd cards with Ted Williams and Jim Thorpe that Fleer put out in 1959 for some reason. The minor damage to one corner that's visible on the back seems to reduce this from PSA 7 to 5 or 6.
PSA 10 n/a, PSA 9 averages $134 (pop. 79), PSA 8 $51 (pop. 333), PSA 7 $43 (pop. 154), PSA 6 $47 (pop. 82), PSA 5 $45 (pop. 44)
Here are the 1962 N.L. K's Leaders from the 1963 Topps set. The gunk over Billy O'Dell's name is on the plastic sheath, not the card, but the lower-right corner is slightly damaged. Perhaps PSA 6?
PSA 10 n/a, PSA 9 averages $511 (pop. 33), PSA 8 $97 (pop. 336), PSA 7 $47 (pop. 324), PSA 6 $35 (pop. 223), PSA 5 $29 (pop. 114)
Next a Rickey Henderson 1982 Donruss, which is in great shape, though the centering seems to mean it will top out at PSA 8 or 9.
PSA 10 averages $240 (pop. 100), PSA 9 $30 (pop. 233), PSA 8 $15 (pop. 189)
Here's one I guarantee none of you expected to see: the 1976 Topps Rick Manning. Why? Because in going through my extra cards from that year I noticed that it was in exceptionally good shape, and then saw that graded ones actually have some value. However, on closer examination it seems there is minor damage to one corner, so PSA 8?
PSA 10 averages $500 (pop. 9), PSA 9 $44 (pop. 40), PSA 8 $31 (pop. 40) (Only one recent PSA 10 auction, though, so $500 can hardly be counted on)
Next, two from 1981 Topps: Tim Raines and George Brett. The white fleck above Raines was dust or lint on the card, not a spot. However, the small discoloration under the pink hat seems to mean this is at best PSA 9. As for Brett, there are minor blemishes -- probably not a technical term -- on the front, so probably PSA 8?
Tim Raines: PSA 10 averages $841 (pop. 170), PSA 9 $81 (pop. 1373), PSA 8 $17 (pop. 1947), PSA 7 $11 (pop. 755)
George Brett: PSA 10 averages $797 (pop. 111), PSA 9 $50 (pop. 641), PSA 8 $16 (pop. 499), PSA 7 $6 (pop. 159)
Jumping into the heart of the junk wax era. Here's a Randy Johnson 1989 Topps rookie card that I thought could be PSA 10 until noticing with magnification a small dot on the white border to the right of Johnson's nose. But is PSA 9 still possible/likely?
PSA 10 averages $72 (pop. 1483), PSA 9 $10 (pop. 2778)
Next, an odd one: a card that I believe is the rare black eagle variant of the 1990 Upper Deck Jose Canseco. The card seems to be in excellent shape, though the centering looks like it can't be higher than PSA 9.
PSA 10 averages $29 (pop. 27), PSA 9 $23 (pop. 22) [People on eBay are asking for much more, though, which is why I set it aside.]
Lastly, an error card, a 1990 George Brett Upper Deck. I've actually got a bunch of questions about error cards, some of them having to do with cards I see listed on eBay with errors that don't seem to be recognized by PSA, or anyone reputable. But a topic for another time! This is one has an undeniable error. Actually, two: the 133 runs as a career total, AND the copyright is missing.
133 runs AND no copyright: PSA 10 averages $500, based on one eBay sale (pop. 9), PSA 9 n/a (pop. 1)
133 runs, with copyright: PSA 10 averages $29 (pop. 92), PSA 9 $14 (pop. 35)
I'm a bit confused because it seems to me that the 133 runs was never corrected, so any 1990 UD George Brett with 133 runs has an error, is not an error card. Am I right about that? However, the lack of a copyright is definitely an error, though I can't believe it's actually worth the $500 for which one of these PSA 10's sold on eBay. I realize that this one is in plastic so it's hard to judge, but I can't see any obvious defect, so it seems like it could be PSA 10.
They are all nice cards, but nothing I personally would grade for more than $10 in grading fees, and even then maybe not for most. Hard to do from pictures, but here are my best guesses:
Hodges 1 - PSA 6
Hodges 2 - PSA 3
Ted W - PSA 6 or 7 (depends on that back corner)
NL Ldrs - PSA 4
82 Rickey - PSA 7
81 Manning - PSA 7
81 Raines - PSA 8 (if not warped)
81 Brett - PSA 6
89 Randy J - PSA 8
UD Canseco - PSA 8
UD Brett - PSA 8
I'd probably only grade Ted Williams personally, but not at today's prices. Good luck either way.
Bosox1976
Consistently figuring out the difference between a 9 and 10 seems virtually impossible sometimes. Probably never with photos. Having said that, I think the only card I would guess is a 9 or better is your Brett error. I couldn't see any defects with the photo posted. I'm operating under the assumption that the scratches and flecks on the card are from the holder, not the card itself. Often overlooked by us hobbyists is the importance of the surface condition. Inconsistencies of any size can lead to point deductions. Particularly foil cards and early holographic logos were subject to easy damage, often right out of the pack even before handling.
As for when to grade, I am not a great judge because I will have stuff graded just so that it looks right in my displays or I am grading for completion (like my 1975 Boston Redsox set). Many cards in that team set would not justify getting graded in mid-grade but I just can't handle having some ungraded!
This video kind of shows you what to look for when grading. Both Gil Hodges have small print defect. The first one has yellow circles around his name and the other one has a white mark on his cap.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NqTmPs-pmWU
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
Don’t waste your money grading those cards, just enjoy them as they are.
Not trying to be mean just trying to save you money and aggravation.
MULLINS5,1966CUDA,nam812,nightcrawler,OAKESY25,PowderedH2O,relaxed,RonBurgundy,samsgirl214,shagrotn77,swartz1,slantycouch,Statman,Wabittwax
There is, or at least there used to be, a concept o UER, that is an uncorrected error. I honestly don't remember if your Brett qualifies for that designation, but, for example, the 1965 Jim Kaat certainly does:
The key card for the entire 1980s is the rookie card of potential HoFer Mike Scioscia in 10. 1981 Topps, that is. No one ever mentions the person on the card who has reasonable HoF chances, but there you go. I wouldn't be surprised to see one go for five figures were one to show up.
Don't overlook commons, either. This listing https://ebay.com/itm/125015448161 feels absurd, but earlier this month a 9 sold for $202 and this summer a 7 sold for $36 and an 8 $107 (both Probstein). I'm not an expert on 1986 Fleer by any means, but it seems reasonable to expect at east a 7 out of a box.
If if it were me I would not sub any of these cards for grading.
Thanks for all of your comments.
Bosox1976, I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts on each card. I understand in most cases, but am wondering if you could say what makes the N.L. Leaders card only PSA 4, Rickey PSA 7 (the centering on the back?), 1981 Brett PSA 6, and UD Brett PSA 8. (Also, if anyone can confirm that the Canseco is the black eagle variant I'd appreciate it.)
I should stress that I have plenty of other cards to consider, but these were the first I've found that seemed worth grading. (Among my other cards, I have some in factory sets that I've barely touched, and therefore should have some cards in mint condition. It makes sense to go through those, and if I find a definite candidate for grading I can replace it with a card that's not mint quality.) But before taking the time to engage in a systematic search I want to be sure I know what I'm doing, and your comments pretty much prove that's a good idea.
Regarding the ones you collectively say shouldn't be graded, I guess my choice is selling them on eBay ungraded or hoping that a year or two from now there might be a service (ideally PSA) that would bulk grade for $10-$15/card, which in at least a few of these cases would make sense (whereas grading them for $30 or so doesn't). As you all know, very nice junk wax star and rookie cards are listed on eBay all the time for less than a dollar and don't sell, which could be the fate of one or two of these, along with a lot of my other cards. (The N.L. Leaders card would definitely sell.) As I've mentioned above, these are mostly not cards I need, since they're duplicates, so I do want to find them new owners SOMEHOW, so doing nothing is not an option. But it will be hard to make a decision for most of these and a lot of other cards without knowing what the cost for economy and bulk grading might be (for PSA or elsewhere) when that starts up again. You know, a card that might end up a PSA 7 rather than the 8+ I'm hoping for, and therefore would only go for $20 rather than $50+, makes no sense to grade if my only option is economy at say, $30, but would make sense if there is a $10-$15 bulk option. Any insights into that?
vols1, I watched the video, as well as the one when they got the results back, and it was quite interesting -- thanks for the tip. I was a bit surprised that the two were expecting certain cards to be PSA 10 that obviously weren't, either because of clear vertical centering issues or small printing defects. (I also noticed they were wearing gloves while opening their rack packs, to avoid fingerprints, which has me wondering: before sending cards to PSA do people wipe them with cotton or linen in an attempt to remove fingerprints?)
Don’t rely solely on PSA’s APR prices - not all sales show up there, and prices on a lot of stuff have plummeted in the past year. Some items I’m looking at don’t have APR updates since early 2021 but a slew of recent eBay sales exist with prices well south of the APR. If your decision on grading is solely the recent APR, you may be doubly disappointed (grades lower than you expected AND things selling for less than you expected as the market seems to be coming back to earth in a lot of areas).
Also take into account ancillary fees. An item that costs $10/15 to grade that sells for $20 still needs to ship to and from PSA on your dime (plus insurance) and eBay takes their 12ish% plus your shipping costs (depending on whether you charge, whether the $20 someone is willing to pay includes shipping, etc - APR doesn’t tell you those details). Grading for $10 and selling for $20 is a slim margin, and $15 for grading a $20 card is nearly a wash. And if it comes back lower than you expected, there’s no profit at all (I speak from experience, as I graded a ton of 1966 Pirates in a sad excuse for a registry chase and came out negative on a bunch of commons).
Jim
Bosox1976, I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts on each card. I understand in most cases, but am wondering if you could say what makes the N.L. Leaders card only PSA 4, Rickey PSA 7 (the centering on the back?), 1981 Brett PSA 6, and UD Brett PSA 8.
Sure GilR:
NL Ldrs: Bottom corners rough, but one appears to be wrinkled or dinged pretty badly too - if you can see ripples it is usually a 4
82 Rickey: Corners do not look sharp enough for an 8 to me, particularly on the picture of the reverse.
81 Brett: from the pic of the front, the top two corners are touched. From the pic of the reverse, another corner is touched, and there is also edge chipping on the front
UD Brett: Bottom right corner on the front may be touched (hard to see in photo), rest of the corners look sharp but not razor sharp. Also hard to tell if the imperfections are on the surface of the card or on the holder - but looks like scratches by his face on both sides (hope its just on the holder).
I will say this - it is much easier to be critical of other people's cards than your own. There is always a hopeful bias for your own cards.
Bosox1976
I thought the 82 Ricky was the best of the bunch. If any of them have a chance at a 10 it would be that one. That being said, none of those are really worth submitting. You should start with cards that will bring at least $100. That’s why in my previous post I said it would take a lot of time and research. I have also read your other thread about rookie cards. You are still of the mindset that players cards from other years should be valuable but that’s just not the case. I know it seems like I’m being rude but I promise I’m saying this as advice. You have to start with Rookies, particularly in the era you are talking about. Undoubtedly you should have some Griffey, Bonds, McGwire, Canseco, Bo Jackson, Frank Thomas…Those guys fall right into your late 80s early 90s collecting years. There are others that’s just a few off the top of my head. Focus on those types first then go to your second and third year cards.
Good luck!
My summary:
In the kindest way possible, I would not advise you to grade these cards if profit is your goal. If you want to preserve them for your collection and for memories--then by all means! I hope you have a great weekend!
Thanks for all of your latest comments, to which I finally have time to reply.
burghman, what you're saying about the additional costs certainly makes sense. As to your other point, I've been vaguely aware of prices coming down, but didn't realize that I shouldn't rely solely on PSA's Auction Prices section, so thank you for that tip. Of course, since it will be ages before I can grade most of the cards for a low fee, there's plenty of time to study prices. My goal for now would simply be to go methodically through everything and set aside cards that are or might be worth grading, evaluate as objectively as I can what their grades might be, and then let PSA's costs and current prices dictate which ones to send in. (And to do that, of course, I need to have a better sense of what graders look for -- and have been learning quite a bit from this thread.)
Bosox1976, thanks for giving me your additional thoughts on those cards. Regarding the 1963 1962 N.L. K's card, it seems I should just put that on eBay ungraded. The 1990 Brett card actually looks pretty good, and what looks like damage to the card is just the plastic. (I put it in a reused sheath because I haven't gotten around to buying new ones, and it had gunk from a price sticker on the outside.)
Bosox1976's reference to the 1981 Brett card having a "touched" corner raises an important issue for me that I'm hoping he or another one of you can address. PSA's grading standards screen (https://www.psacard.com/resources/gradingstandards#cards) is quite helpful, but its descriptions of the different degrees of damage to corners aren't always clear to me. So I'm wondering, if one had a gem mint card except that it had a touched corner what would that card's grade be? Would it be PSA, since that allows for the "slightest fraying at one or two corners"? I have a large number of cards -- too large -- that look perfect until one examines a corner or two very closely, so it certainly makes a difference if they would max out at PSA 8 or lower.
parthur1607, I definitely appreciate your comments, and of course do not think you are being rude. Unfortunately, from the junk wax years there's a limit to what I've got that would be worth a lot if mint. You wrote that I "should have some Griffey, Bonds, McGwire, Canseco, Bo Jackson, Frank Thomas," but that's not the case. I did have a bunch of 1990 Griffeys but already sold those on eBay, getting a somewhat fair price, given that I was a new seller. (In retrospect, I certainly should have held back on those until I had some more reviews.) Unfortunately, while back then I did buy rookie cards in bulk, it wasn't for those other guys, mainly because their rookie cards were already expensive, so I bought batches of 25-50 for guys who had star potential but weren't there yet, like Bernie Williams or Devon White, rather than a small number of rookie cards for guys who already were stars. I had two 1986 Topps Bo Jacksons, one of which was too off-center to grade, so I've already sold it, while the other because of centering and some minor printing imperfections would top out at PSA 8. I also sold four 1986 Barry Bonds on eBay, none of which was well-centered, and got an okay amount. As for McGwire, I'll post on him below. No Canseco or Thomas rookie cards.
The night I took the photos I posted above I took a few others, but didn't want to post everything at once. So I'm curious what people think of these:
Are my evaluations more accurate this time?
Very nice looking cards there. The Griffey is probably a 10 (but that’s from looking at a picture so there could be something not seen). As far as centering, corners and edges, that is what you would want your “10s pile” to look like. I see some white on the top right edge of the will Clark. Those 86s are notorious for that! Any cards with colored borders are tough because it’s so easy to see the white underneath, if the cards flake. Little bit of white along the bottom border on the back of that one. Does that Will Clark seem to be more glossy than your other 1986 Topps? The back looks to be the bright red that the Topps Tiffany had. On the regular Topps series the back was more of a dull red. Great looking card but I’m afraid you wouldn’t want to grade that one unless it is a Tiffany. On to the McGwire cards…again both great looking cards but as you pointed out there is a print dot beside his name on the first one and the small stain in the white border on the right, otherwise that card is definitely a 9 and possibly 10. It’s slightly off center left to right but maybe not enough that it would count against you. With the defects on the front of that one I would guess PSA 8 would be the best you could get. Probably 7 and maybe even 6, not sure exactly how harshly they grade stains like this one has. But it’s really a great looking card! The second one has a few print dots. One to the left of his hand. One below his collar. One to the left of the “B” in First Base. Otherwise this card is an easy 9 maybe 10. I don’t think the centering on the back of that one would drop this card from a 10, if everything else was perfect. I have seen plenty of 10s with worse centering than that. One last thing on the second 85. Check the left edge. It looks a little jagged. I said in a previous post that a lot of cards from that era came out of the pack with jagged edges and sometimes the graders don’t deduct for it and sometimes they do. That is one that I would think they would probably deduct for. But with all that said, you are getting a better idea for what to be looking for and by the time PSA does start accepting bulk subs I think you will know what to send and what to save.
Last thing. When looking for card values just check “sold items” on eBay and you will usually see several recent sales of whichever card you are researching. That does take a lot of time but again, there’s plenty of time!
Good luck
Clark is Traded, not Tiffany.