I wasn’t asking because of the “T” beside the card number. The traded series was also printed in a Tiffany set. But I see the symbols in the bottom left corner now, indicating it is the regular version. Sometimes pictures make the back look much brighter than it actually is in person.
And please remember, we certainly can't see all of the faults from an online picture, or even a scan. I would definitely look at corners, front and back, in different lighting, tilting the card back and forth, to see any minor issues. In my opinion, if a card looks perfect it may have a chance at a 9. If you do this with a 10X loupe and it's still perfect, it may have a chance at a 10.
Please note that I used the word "may". I agree with those who say that I wouldn't send any of these in for grading without scrutinizing them further.
[Ack. I just deleted a lengthy post I'd written when I used the "Edit" function. Not sure how that could happen. I'll have to recreate it, but here's the follow-up post.]
Also, I'm curious to get your opinion of a card. I bought this 1960 Gil Hodges card about 30 years ago, and have kept it in the plastic case. As you can see from the scan, the dealer thought it NM+, which does seem right. Any thoughts on what its grade would be? Unfortunately, my parents' scanner decided to focus on the surface of the plastic, not the card about 2 mm. behind it, so it's not a great image, but I can say that there are no obviously major printing defects visible to the naked eye, though the -OD- in "Hodges" have minor issues that you can make out, and there is a smidgeon of dark blue at the upper-right. The back has a tiny spot or two.
Okay, it ain't coming back, so I'll recreate that lost post, which will be mercifully shorter.
I began by thanking those who posted most recently in this thread. I then mentioned that while visiting my parents I've retrieved the rest of my card collection, and made an interesting surprise. I thought that my peak years for collecting were just 1986-1989 and that I'd dabbled in 1990-91, buying factory sets instead of putting together my own sets, but it turns out that I bought quite a few from those two years, especially 1991. For that year I have enough cards to fill two set boxes, and have a good number of duplicates, triplicates, etc. I don't know why I didn't finish putting together a set, but I was well on the way, since many of the cards were in numerical order. It turns out that the cards are in great shape, as if they went from pack to box with minimal handling. (I guess I was finally learning...)
Yes, I KNOW this is peak junk wax, so it's not a truly exciting find, and not one that should go to PSA en masse, but I'm glad to have so many cards for stars and rookies from that year. Most notably, I thought that I didn't own a Chipper Jones rookie card other than the one in that factory set, and it turns out I've got four. I also have two of the 10-hit Mattingly error cards. Sadly, just one Griffey, and its vertical centering makes it near mint at best. But those Mattingly cards and especially the Jones cards look much better. Here are scans of those cards. (In general, the centering and lower number of printing defects makes me think that Topps really stepped up its game in 1991.)
Scans with a contrasting background are much better than what you have provided.
You didn't tell us why you wanted to send your cards in, but if it's to try to sell them and make a profit, the short answer is none of the cards are valued high enough to submit at this time.
I really like the Hodges card, but the holder you have it in might have ruined the card. Those non recessed screw downs are notorious for causing cards to come back ungraded. A PSA 8 is about a hundred dollar card. I would not send it in.
The Jones cards seem to be selling for about $100.00 in a PSA 10. I don't see why you would consider sending any of them in at the current cost of grading. On cards like these, I figure I am most likely to get a PSA 9 (at best) and if the card in a 9 doesn't sell for more than the grading fee, don't send it in. Ebay will take 15% off the top of what your card sells for.
If you just HAVE to get something graded, pick your best Chipper card and send it in. A couple of yours look to have imperfect corners, so even a 9 is going to be a money loser.
If you send in any cards that have to be a 10 to "break even", you will be throwing money away. PSA will obliterate you.
I would not bother sending in a Mattingly.
Get the Hodges out of the screw down and put it, and any other of your favorites into "Card Saver" 1's, and wait for the grading fees to drop to $20.00 per card.
I don't mean to bring you down, it's really fun to find great sportscards that you didn't know you had!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@jimrad said:
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.
You aren’t being mean, collect for the joy of collecting. Give me a nice raw card or set and I am happy.
I have 14 retired sets on PSA .I sold them all. Needed money for other expenses.
Don't worry -- I have no intention of sending these (or any other cards) in for grading until some sort of economy/bulk discount option exists again, at which point I'll look at prices and the condition of each card to figure out what is worth sending in. But there's no harm in going through my collection looking for potential candidates for grading at $10-$20, which is what I'm doing these days.
JoeBanzai, what you say about the Hodges card is disquieting, especially because my single best card, a 1969 Johnny Bench that is a bit off-center but otherwise in tremendous shape, is also in a screw-down holder from 30+ years ago. You're saying that the pressure has some effect on the card that leaves it ungradable? That strikes me as odd, since a card with a crease and badly rounded corners can be graded (just not very high).
@GilR said:
Don't worry -- I have no intention of sending these (or any other cards) in for grading until some sort of economy/bulk discount option exists again, at which point I'll look at prices and the condition of each card to figure out what is worth sending in. But there's no harm in going through my collection looking for potential candidates for grading at $10-$20, which is what I'm doing these days.
JoeBanzai, what you say about the Hodges card is disquieting, especially because my single best card, a 1969 Johnny Bench that is a bit off-center but otherwise in tremendous shape, is also in a screw-down holder from 30+ years ago. You're saying that the pressure has some effect on the card that leaves it ungradable? That strikes me as odd, since a card with a crease and badly rounded corners can be graded (just not very high).
PSA sometimes calls those cards "ALTERED". I am not positive about this, but it gets discussed often on the boards.
It sure would help if you got the reason on all "ALTERED" cards. Sometimes they say "evid of trimming" or "recolored" sometimes not.
Seems silly to me that a card that is put in a holder to protect it can get rendered ungradeable. I would think that they would be able to see the cause of the "problem".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Okay, I have liberated both cards from their plastic screw-down cases, and fortunately cannot see any damage. With minimal handling I got them into plastic sleeves and have now made new scans. I'm curious how these might grade. Using what I've learned in this thread and elsewhere, I think that the Bench card's centering would have it top out at PSA 7, though barely perceptible damage to the side right next to the trophy might knock it down to PSA 6. The corners on the left side, which looked great while the card was still encased, show very minor damage, but since PSA 6 allows for this I don't think it goes down to a PSA 5. The centering on the back also suggests PSA 6, while the tiny spots don't lower it further. So a PSA 6, or generous PSA 7? As for Hodges, the back looks great (those two white spots in the lower-right are from stuff on the scanner), while the front has some printing defects. I was curious how common those are to this card so I checked eBay, and while I didn't find any PSA 9-10 for comparison I did find three PSA 8's and several PSA 7's. One of those PSA 8's has similar printing defects on the front, such as a small dot on one of the letters, and the blue splotch at the upper right seems fairly common, so this might be a generous PSA 8, but PSA 7 is more likely. Does that seem about right? Or am I missing something?
@GilR said:
Thanks.. It's good to know that I'm starting to get the hang of this.
The Bench card looked much better in that plastic case, and before I zoomed in.
Sometimes I will scan a card and look at it on the computer screen and see things I miss looking at the card, even when I examine it under a good light and magnification.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Thank you to everyone sharing on this thread. It has been a great education for me as well. For taking photos or for scanning images, are there any ways to build confidence in the accuracy of the images? I have been photographing them trying to avoid clutter in the background and reflection of my camera, but in reading this and some other threads, that appears to maybe be a way people use to mislead potential buyers. Thanks again for all the input. This has been super helpful!
@bruin805 said:
The damage from screw-downs that causes PSA to sometimes classify them as altered is that the corners sometimes look like they've been "pressed"
So even if they look fine to the naked eye, PSA might think otherwise.
Then it's a good thing that I have no intention of grading, let alone trying to sell, the Bench card, since I'm happy with raw cards and still consider that one the best in my collection. (I do have some other big vintage cards purchased 30+ years ago, such as a 1952 Irvin, 1956 Williams, and 1962 Mantle, but their condition is around VG.) As for the Hodges card, I might someday try to grade and sell it, since I nabbed a comparable one on eBay for $7 a few days before Hodges was elected to the Hall -- I had a good feeling about his chances -- and could opt to keep it instead, so we shall see.
Not a grading question -- more of those to come -- but I'm wondering about something. I know that buying unopened packs on eBay is quite risky, since those can be tampered with. But also, as I know from my own experience back around 1986-1989, it was possible to thumb through unopened rack packs to see who was inside. Is that also true of rack packs from earlier and later years, or at some point did Topps produce tighter compartments that wouldn't allow the cards to move around enough for that? If rack packs were always this way then it would simply never make sense to buy a loose rack pack, because even if the dealer is reputable, it might have come from someone who had searched it.
As promised, more cards I might have graded -- and far more interesting ones this time. And scanned rather than photographed, which reveals more warts than I was aware of. These are actually from a group of cards given to my older brother by a family friend in the late 60's or early 70's who obviously knew how to pick them, since most of the cards are of hall of famers and other stars. Sadly, not one has four good corners -- the result of being played with and then kept in a desk drawer for many years before I rescued them thirty years ago and put them in proper storage. Here are three that might make sense to grade, and I'm curious to see if my estimation of them is right:
1964 Hank Aaron that due to its corners, damage to the front surface, and coin-scratching on the bottom -- stupid Topps ENCOURAGING kids to damage the cards... -- seems likely to be PSA 3, with PSA 4 a possibility.
1964 Pete Rose that because of corners, centering and a light scratch is probably PSA 4.
1965 Joe Morgan that has less corner damage but has edge damage, plus minor surface issues, that is probably PSA 4, even though to the naked eye it's a pretty good looking card.
Does this all seem correct?
@GilR said:
As promised, more cards I might have graded -- and far more interesting ones this time. And scanned rather than photographed, which reveals more warts than I was aware of. These are actually from a group of cards given to my older brother by a family friend in the late 60's or early 70's who obviously knew how to pick them, since most of the cards are of hall of famers and other stars. Sadly, not one has four good corners -- the result of being played with and then kept in a desk drawer for many years before I rescued them thirty years ago and put them in proper storage. Here are three that might make sense to grade, and I'm curious to see if my estimation of them is right:
1964 Hank Aaron that due to its corners, damage to the front surface, and coin-scratching on the bottom -- stupid Topps ENCOURAGING kids to damage the cards... -- seems likely to be PSA 3, with PSA 4 a possibility.
1964 Pete Rose that because of corners, centering and a light scratch is probably PSA 4.
1965 Joe Morgan that has less corner damage but has edge damage, plus minor surface issues, that is probably PSA 4, even though to the naked eye it's a pretty good looking card.
Does this all seem correct?
1's for the Aaron and Rose. Morgan maybe a 2, but might be a 1 too with that edge. Probably not worth grading. Keep them without fear of handling and just enjoy them.
Someone actually wrote something on the back of the Aaron card, bottom right in the white box. Not real sure how any of those would grade but probably close to what the above post says most likely 1s possibly 2. The Morgan could go up to 4 depending on how hard they graded that chipped edge. If you are keeping them then I would definitely grade them in a few months once value submissions come back. You would lose money grading them to sell them. I just bought this 1962 Topps Mantle PSA 2. I’m posting the picture to give you an idea of grading standards. Although the corners of this mantle look like someone ran them over a belt sander, the edges, surface and color are all still pretty good. Corners make a difference but surface and edge chipping really get you. Those 3 cards you listed are great cards to have I’m just afraid they won’t grade well.
Thanks for your responses. What you say about the grades makes sense. And in an odd way I'm relieved, because if any of these cards might have brought in real money I'd have been tempted to sell grade -- when prices come down -- and split the money with my brother, but I'd much rather keep these in the family. (Technically, they are still my brother's, since the only one of those cards he was given as a kid that he gave to me was a Steve Carlton rookie card with similarly bad corners, but since they've been in my closet for 3+ decades I consider them on semi-permanent loan to my collection.)
It's good that you asked and I'm sorry that the answers have been a let down. Ultimately I think the best thing you can do is dive in and submit a batch of cards to PSA (and maybe a few to SGC), see how those final grades compare to your predictions, and then sell what you can. Go through the entire cycle once and see how the process works. Catalogue every little expense & all the time spent. If you enjoy that journey, commit to getting better at it.
We all know how this turns out but don't take anyone's word for it - just give it a go and don't be afraid to fail. I think you'll gain an appreciation for anyone who is able to embrace the variance and eek out a profit flipping cards.
thehallmark,
Thanks for your comments, which I appreciate. I will definitely be submitting SOMETHING to PSA (and perhaps a rival) when economy is again available -- it's just a question of what. Am I'm sure I'll learn then. For me the main thing isn't flipping cards -- though I'm not above it! -- but trying to move the extra cards I don't need. It's pretty clear that, since most of them are junk wax, there are very few that might make sense to grade, but at the same time, it's clear from eBay that lots of very nice cards for major stars from those sets aren't selling, even when bidding starts at $.99 or sometimes lower, so it makes little sense to put raw cards on eBay. (For example, I just checked, and a 1982 Donruss Nolan Ryan that looks at least Near Mint got no bids at $.99 before its bidding period ended.)
I have a new question, which is what exactly the "PSA Price" is. Taking the 1969 Johnny Bench card that we were discussing earlier as an example (https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1969-topps/johnny-bench/summary/188174), there are the "Most recent price" and "Average price" columns, and of course I understand what those mean, but I can't find anywhere on their website that explains whether the "PSA Price" column is for raw cards or is their opinion of the true value of graded cards. And there can be quite a difference, as the Bench page shows, since, e.g., Near Mint "Average Price" is $418 but "PSA Price" is $125. (I know that the info in the "PSA Price" column is the same found under "Price Guide.")
One of you had indicated to me a while back that one shouldn't only look at auction prices, and he was obviously pointing to this, but it's hard to know what to make of PSA's pricing unless one knows whether it's for raw cards or not.
Auction price is the better valuation tool. People have complained for years about SMR price (PSA) not being accurate. The auction price is an average of recent sales, usually from eBay.
Two more cards that I'm thinking of grading, at least one of them only if/when PSA again has an option at or below $20.
First, I recently bought two 1962 1961 A.L. H.R. Leaders cards with Mantle and Maris, the one on the left (with the smudge/defect over "Leaders") for the 1962 G/VG/VG-EX set that I'm putting together and the one on the right to sell eventually. Am I right that the latter at the very least would grade PSA 5, but has a chance at PSA 6? It is unusually free of those small, circular printing defects that normally plague 1962 league leader cards, and the only significant problem is that lower-left corner.
Second, I now have a 1961 1960 N.L. K's Leaders card that looks tremendous (centering, lack of printing defects), though if one looks very closely it has minor damage in one corner -- damage which, thanks to the border being white, is barely visible without magnification -- and a slight smudge or printing defect near Koufax. It looks to me like a virtual lock for PSA 6, but is there a chance of PSA 7?
So I found myself in the same situation about a month ago not knowing anything about grading and card value. I have old cards as well 1990 asking all the same questions about grading and value. I got all the same answers as you as well. I have a pretty fair understanding of all the grading standards and what determines a card to be a 10. I've listened and researched for hours on this topic, I realized that I was very naïve in thinking I had a bunch of 10s. However....I also was looking at a market spike in value of the particular cards I was investigating 1990 marvel universe cards. (2021 these cards spiked) The spike has gone on the down side but the cards are still holding a decent value now. From what I determined with the help of the kind ppl here, is that at todays market these cards needed to be PSA 10 to turn a profit PSA 9s are selling for less than the grading fee (PSA prices realized)...so to pay $100/card for grading + shipping + insurance + selling fees = a loss of my $$. Just didn't add up to a profit. However....lol...predicting tomorrow's market for these cards was also on my mind I did some homework as to why these cards spiked in 2021 and came up with a few thoughts. Comic books go up in value as new movies based on the specific comic are filmed and released, so why not the superhero character featured in the film and therefore the character card. There are some 30 + movies based on superheroes already released. There are some long awaited moves being released this year that have been delayed in production (due to covid protocols) There are superhero movies being filmed and TV shows being released as well. There is still a great BUZZ in the air about these superhero cards PSA Magazine even has an article this month on the 1990 marvel universe cards. https://www.psacard.com/articles/articleview/10616/1990-marvel-universe-set-finally-being-marveled
So.... I still went ahead and sent in 5 cards for grading despite being told its not worth it, realizing I may get only grades of maybe PSA 9 (still think my Thor card is a 10) ($50/card with lotteries submissions)
I'm thinking that there will be a second card value spike in this particular series of cards making a PSA 9 market value profitable.
Unfortunately the baseball seasons of the 80s is over and the players from that era are no longer rookies or making sports headlines there value will remain pretty consistent without the spikes.
Dinners ready ttyl..
"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens" Jimi Hendrix.
instagram dgilbert008
I sure know that feeling of being new at this and thinking you have a bunch of PSA 10's! Thanks goodness prices were way too high for me to send anything in before I knew better.
I'm going by the operating assumption that at some point, even if it's more than a year out, PSA will again offer grading options as low as $10-$15. I know I've read in this forum comments that that time is gone forever, but I figure there's a decent chance it will come again because of various forces: the surge in collecting caused by the pandemic and those government checks will abate, but PSA will still have its recently added grading capacity; other grading companies in order to compete will lower their prices and that could pressure PSA to do likewise; and, if computer optical analysis plays a greater role in grading this semi-automation of the process should lead to greater efficiency and lower prices. Not to mention that PSA knows better than anyone how much they're leaving on the table by effectively rendering so many cards ungradable. I note all this to say that some cards that today would make no sense to grade -- like your potential PSA 9's or my N.L. K's Leaders card -- may well be possible to grade a bit down the road.
Another card I'm not sure about. I recently got this green-tint Jackie Brandt for the 1962 set I'm putting together, but it turns out to be in slightly better shape than I expected, so maybe it would be worth grading if/when prices come down sufficiently. I bought it figuring it was EX or EX-MT, but am I right that it has a shot at NM (but not NM-MT)? The issues I notice are:
All four corners have very minor fraying
Printing imperfections on the front in the form of vertical lines, one of which cuts across Brandt's forearm, that become visible when one zooms in
Tiny specks (printed, not on the surface, I belief) in the darker part of the background
A slight imperfection in the way the card was cut, which on the front can be seen at the upper-left where a bit of cardboard sticks out, and on the back is in the lower-right near the ".278"
A very slight indentation just around the corner from that, where the cardboard is very slightly raised, either from the factory, the pack or a (not very tight) rubber band
This is a rather low-pop card, but there are certainly people who collect higher-grade green-tint 1962's, so if this has a reasonable chance of NM then it would be worth grading, since it would be about a $40 card (whereas PSA 6 is around $20).
Any thoughts on this one? I suspect that it would be NM if not for those two issues with the edges, but don't know. Thanks!
(In addition to two scans of it I'm adding one that shows it next to a regular 1962, in case it's of interest to anyone.)
I have enjoyed seeing your cards and reading all the responses. I have sent in many, many cards which I was positive would rate at least a nine. It rarely, if ever does. Even happens less if you try and get a "bump" on an already card. At this point I only buy raw cards if I like the way they look and don't want to get it graded. If I want a certain card at a certain grade, I look for an already graded one. It has gotten too cost prohibitive and life is too short.
mexpo75,
Thanks. Like you, I don't have to have something graded -- certainly not the F/G/VG/VG-EX 1962 set I'm working on! But it's clear to me that some cards do need to be graded in order to get proper value, so I'll patiently wait until the price comes down, which seems like it's at least a year away.
1959,
Thanks for your opinion. Unless someone else posts here with a rosier opinion of the card I'll be glad to consider it EX-MT, and it will be one of the better cards in my set. (I'm surprised that the corners are a bigger issue than the edges.)
All,
I might as well ask about one other recent 1962 acquisition. a Dick Williams card that looks to me EX-MT, but I'm wondering if it has a shot at NM. It has very minor fraying at the lower corners and light wax staining on the back, but no other issue I can see. (The white dots at the upper-right were on the plastic sleeve or scanner.) I know from PSA's site that even a PSA 8 can have "very slight" staining or a PSA 7 "slight" staining, but I'm not sure what constitutes very slight or slight staining. (I'll add that a 1962 Williams at PSA 7 goes for about $13, so I'm not exactly having visions of getting rich by flipping this card -- just trying to figure out what I have, and learn the grading criteria better.)
If anticipation of the day when Economy grading is lower, I'm wondering about this card. It seems at least a PSA 3, with PSA 4 more likely, but the online description of PSA 5 suggests that might be possible: "...very minor rounding of the corners is becoming evident. Surface wear or printing defects are more visible...." It seems the main issue is the printing defect (as it appears to be) above "1961," and then the light wear on the surface, but arguing in favor of a better grade is the rather decent centering (for this card) along with eye appeal. Any thoughts? PSA 5 would definitely be worth grading eventually, and probably PSA 4 as well, but probably not PSA 3.
I recently opened a lite hobby box of 2021 Topps Update series while trying to complete set -- I'm old-fashioned that way -- and got two very nice hits, an Independence Day Jazz Chisholm, jr. rookie debut card (22/76) and an Aaron Judge Black Gold Platinum card (39/70). I am pretty sure that the Chisholm would grade as at least a PSA 8, based on looking at it from different angles and scanning it, so I will at some point send it off to PSA. I'm wondering about the Judge card, though. The left-right centering on the front is just slightly a bit off, so I suspect that from the front it would be a PSA 9, but the back, in addition to being more off-center, has a minor imperfection that can only be seen if one zooms in and looks for a horizontal line both below Judge's waist and then in a more smudge-like form just above the MLB logo and word "Topps." PSA's own description of PSA 9's allows for a "minor printing imperfection," so do you think this has a shot? Or does the line/smudge knock it down to PSA 7 or lower? I'd welcome your thoughts on either card, but especially the Judge. Thanks!
Well, if there's one thing I've learned from this forum it's that one can never assume a 10, but I appreciate your optimism.
Yeah, I know scanning outside of a sleeve is better, but there's greater risk to the card.
As for Greek tragedy, I've long thought it's Sophocles's "Antigone," since it sets up two strong-willed characters who are both correct in their diametrically opposed positions (human law vs. divine law), leading to catastrophe and multiple deaths. An argument can certainly be made for Euripides's "Medea" or "Bacchae," more because their stories are so compelling and entertaining than because they involve great tragic downfalls. (Please feel free to let me know if you agree or disagree.)
I've still got four opinions left, for anyone else who wishes to opine on the Judge or Chisholm cards...
I primarily collect vintage, so my opinion may not be worth much here.
It looks like a raw Judge card like yours sold for $100.00 on eBay. If there are problems with it, that might be the best way to go.
I don't think the Chisholm card is worth a lot, it seems that on the newer cards you need the "black diamond gold sapphire rainbow refractor autograph card limited to 10" to be worth much. I think one like yours in a PSA 10 sold for $30.00. Not worth grading?
With Judge in the news right now Judge/Yankee fans might really "NEED" this one right now.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
JoeBanzai,
I appreciate your thoughts on this. My thinking on Chisholm is that since he has the potential to be a star I would want to hold on to the card for a few years, regardless of whether I grade it now or later, so I'm gambling on its being worth more than $30 down the road. (I doubt it will ever go below $10-$15, should he turn into just an ordinary player, given its relative rarity.)
I, too, prefer vintage cards, and have been working on a 1962 set, but I've also gotten into newer Topps, putting together sets while trying to recoup some of my expenses when I hit a rare card that I don't really want. The Judge card could buy me quite a few 1962 commons I still need (or pay for another new unopened Topps box I need for the Chrome set).
I know it's modern and a reprint but would it be worth grading. 1/7 2021 Topps. I know it's not that special but my lowest numbered card ever pulled. So I might just to slab my find for myself. Thanks for looking or responding in advance
I have been looking around and some other cards in the set also #/7 parallel have sold for $200-300 range. And some ebay sellers asking $1000+. Mostly all ungraded. Not expecting much but to learn more
Comments
I wasn’t asking because of the “T” beside the card number. The traded series was also printed in a Tiffany set. But I see the symbols in the bottom left corner now, indicating it is the regular version. Sometimes pictures make the back look much brighter than it actually is in person.
And please remember, we certainly can't see all of the faults from an online picture, or even a scan. I would definitely look at corners, front and back, in different lighting, tilting the card back and forth, to see any minor issues. In my opinion, if a card looks perfect it may have a chance at a 9. If you do this with a 10X loupe and it's still perfect, it may have a chance at a 10.
Please note that I used the word "may". I agree with those who say that I wouldn't send any of these in for grading without scrutinizing them further.
>
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.
[Ack. I just deleted a lengthy post I'd written when I used the "Edit" function. Not sure how that could happen. I'll have to recreate it, but here's the follow-up post.]
Also, I'm curious to get your opinion of a card. I bought this 1960 Gil Hodges card about 30 years ago, and have kept it in the plastic case. As you can see from the scan, the dealer thought it NM+, which does seem right. Any thoughts on what its grade would be? Unfortunately, my parents' scanner decided to focus on the surface of the plastic, not the card about 2 mm. behind it, so it's not a great image, but I can say that there are no obviously major printing defects visible to the naked eye, though the -OD- in "Hodges" have minor issues that you can make out, and there is a smidgeon of dark blue at the upper-right. The back has a tiny spot or two.
Am I wrong to think PSA 8 is most likely?
Okay, it ain't coming back, so I'll recreate that lost post, which will be mercifully shorter.
I began by thanking those who posted most recently in this thread. I then mentioned that while visiting my parents I've retrieved the rest of my card collection, and made an interesting surprise. I thought that my peak years for collecting were just 1986-1989 and that I'd dabbled in 1990-91, buying factory sets instead of putting together my own sets, but it turns out that I bought quite a few from those two years, especially 1991. For that year I have enough cards to fill two set boxes, and have a good number of duplicates, triplicates, etc. I don't know why I didn't finish putting together a set, but I was well on the way, since many of the cards were in numerical order. It turns out that the cards are in great shape, as if they went from pack to box with minimal handling. (I guess I was finally learning...)
Yes, I KNOW this is peak junk wax, so it's not a truly exciting find, and not one that should go to PSA en masse, but I'm glad to have so many cards for stars and rookies from that year. Most notably, I thought that I didn't own a Chipper Jones rookie card other than the one in that factory set, and it turns out I've got four. I also have two of the 10-hit Mattingly error cards. Sadly, just one Griffey, and its vertical centering makes it near mint at best. But those Mattingly cards and especially the Jones cards look much better. Here are scans of those cards. (In general, the centering and lower number of printing defects makes me think that Topps really stepped up its game in 1991.)
>
It's terrific that you found some nice cards!
Scans with a contrasting background are much better than what you have provided.
You didn't tell us why you wanted to send your cards in, but if it's to try to sell them and make a profit, the short answer is none of the cards are valued high enough to submit at this time.
I really like the Hodges card, but the holder you have it in might have ruined the card. Those non recessed screw downs are notorious for causing cards to come back ungraded. A PSA 8 is about a hundred dollar card. I would not send it in.
The Jones cards seem to be selling for about $100.00 in a PSA 10. I don't see why you would consider sending any of them in at the current cost of grading. On cards like these, I figure I am most likely to get a PSA 9 (at best) and if the card in a 9 doesn't sell for more than the grading fee, don't send it in. Ebay will take 15% off the top of what your card sells for.
If you just HAVE to get something graded, pick your best Chipper card and send it in. A couple of yours look to have imperfect corners, so even a 9 is going to be a money loser.
If you send in any cards that have to be a 10 to "break even", you will be throwing money away. PSA will obliterate you.
I would not bother sending in a Mattingly.
Get the Hodges out of the screw down and put it, and any other of your favorites into "Card Saver" 1's, and wait for the grading fees to drop to $20.00 per card.
I don't mean to bring you down, it's really fun to find great sportscards that you didn't know you had!
You aren’t being mean, collect for the joy of collecting. Give me a nice raw card or set and I am happy.
I have 14 retired sets on PSA .I sold them all. Needed money for other expenses.
I'm not sure that you have posted a single card worth grading..... possibly even at $10 a card. Well, you can grade Gil for 10 bucks!
Don't worry -- I have no intention of sending these (or any other cards) in for grading until some sort of economy/bulk discount option exists again, at which point I'll look at prices and the condition of each card to figure out what is worth sending in. But there's no harm in going through my collection looking for potential candidates for grading at $10-$20, which is what I'm doing these days.
JoeBanzai, what you say about the Hodges card is disquieting, especially because my single best card, a 1969 Johnny Bench that is a bit off-center but otherwise in tremendous shape, is also in a screw-down holder from 30+ years ago. You're saying that the pressure has some effect on the card that leaves it ungradable? That strikes me as odd, since a card with a crease and badly rounded corners can be graded (just not very high).
PSA sometimes calls those cards "ALTERED". I am not positive about this, but it gets discussed often on the boards.
It sure would help if you got the reason on all "ALTERED" cards. Sometimes they say "evid of trimming" or "recolored" sometimes not.
Seems silly to me that a card that is put in a holder to protect it can get rendered ungradeable. I would think that they would be able to see the cause of the "problem".
Okay, I have liberated both cards from their plastic screw-down cases, and fortunately cannot see any damage. With minimal handling I got them into plastic sleeves and have now made new scans. I'm curious how these might grade. Using what I've learned in this thread and elsewhere, I think that the Bench card's centering would have it top out at PSA 7, though barely perceptible damage to the side right next to the trophy might knock it down to PSA 6. The corners on the left side, which looked great while the card was still encased, show very minor damage, but since PSA 6 allows for this I don't think it goes down to a PSA 5. The centering on the back also suggests PSA 6, while the tiny spots don't lower it further. So a PSA 6, or generous PSA 7? As for Hodges, the back looks great (those two white spots in the lower-right are from stuff on the scanner), while the front has some printing defects. I was curious how common those are to this card so I checked eBay, and while I didn't find any PSA 9-10 for comparison I did find three PSA 8's and several PSA 7's. One of those PSA 8's has similar printing defects on the front, such as a small dot on one of the letters, and the blue splotch at the upper right seems fairly common, so this might be a generous PSA 8, but PSA 7 is more likely. Does that seem about right? Or am I missing something?
Much better scans!
Bench looks like a 5-6, Hodges looks like a 7.
Very attractive cards.
Thanks.. It's good to know that I'm starting to get the hang of this.
The Bench card looked much better in that plastic case, and before I zoomed in.
Sometimes I will scan a card and look at it on the computer screen and see things I miss looking at the card, even when I examine it under a good light and magnification.
The damage from screw-downs that causes PSA to sometimes classify them as altered is that the corners sometimes look like they've been "pressed"
So even if they look fine to the naked eye, PSA might think otherwise.
Thank you to everyone sharing on this thread. It has been a great education for me as well. For taking photos or for scanning images, are there any ways to build confidence in the accuracy of the images? I have been photographing them trying to avoid clutter in the background and reflection of my camera, but in reading this and some other threads, that appears to maybe be a way people use to mislead potential buyers. Thanks again for all the input. This has been super helpful!
Then it's a good thing that I have no intention of grading, let alone trying to sell, the Bench card, since I'm happy with raw cards and still consider that one the best in my collection. (I do have some other big vintage cards purchased 30+ years ago, such as a 1952 Irvin, 1956 Williams, and 1962 Mantle, but their condition is around VG.) As for the Hodges card, I might someday try to grade and sell it, since I nabbed a comparable one on eBay for $7 a few days before Hodges was elected to the Hall -- I had a good feeling about his chances -- and could opt to keep it instead, so we shall see.
Not a grading question -- more of those to come -- but I'm wondering about something. I know that buying unopened packs on eBay is quite risky, since those can be tampered with. But also, as I know from my own experience back around 1986-1989, it was possible to thumb through unopened rack packs to see who was inside. Is that also true of rack packs from earlier and later years, or at some point did Topps produce tighter compartments that wouldn't allow the cards to move around enough for that? If rack packs were always this way then it would simply never make sense to buy a loose rack pack, because even if the dealer is reputable, it might have come from someone who had searched it.
As promised, more cards I might have graded -- and far more interesting ones this time. And scanned rather than photographed, which reveals more warts than I was aware of. These are actually from a group of cards given to my older brother by a family friend in the late 60's or early 70's who obviously knew how to pick them, since most of the cards are of hall of famers and other stars. Sadly, not one has four good corners -- the result of being played with and then kept in a desk drawer for many years before I rescued them thirty years ago and put them in proper storage. Here are three that might make sense to grade, and I'm curious to see if my estimation of them is right:
Does this all seem correct?
1's for the Aaron and Rose. Morgan maybe a 2, but might be a 1 too with that edge. Probably not worth grading. Keep them without fear of handling and just enjoy them.
Even a PSA 3 '64 Aaron is less than $100.
Someone actually wrote something on the back of the Aaron card, bottom right in the white box. Not real sure how any of those would grade but probably close to what the above post says most likely 1s possibly 2. The Morgan could go up to 4 depending on how hard they graded that chipped edge. If you are keeping them then I would definitely grade them in a few months once value submissions come back. You would lose money grading them to sell them. I just bought this 1962 Topps Mantle PSA 2. I’m posting the picture to give you an idea of grading standards. Although the corners of this mantle look like someone ran them over a belt sander, the edges, surface and color are all still pretty good. Corners make a difference but surface and edge chipping really get you. Those 3 cards you listed are great cards to have I’m just afraid they won’t grade well.
Thanks for your responses. What you say about the grades makes sense. And in an odd way I'm relieved, because if any of these cards might have brought in real money I'd have been tempted to sell grade -- when prices come down -- and split the money with my brother, but I'd much rather keep these in the family. (Technically, they are still my brother's, since the only one of those cards he was given as a kid that he gave to me was a Steve Carlton rookie card with similarly bad corners, but since they've been in my closet for 3+ decades I consider them on semi-permanent loan to my collection.)
GIlR,
It's good that you asked and I'm sorry that the answers have been a let down. Ultimately I think the best thing you can do is dive in and submit a batch of cards to PSA (and maybe a few to SGC), see how those final grades compare to your predictions, and then sell what you can. Go through the entire cycle once and see how the process works. Catalogue every little expense & all the time spent. If you enjoy that journey, commit to getting better at it.
We all know how this turns out but don't take anyone's word for it - just give it a go and don't be afraid to fail. I think you'll gain an appreciation for anyone who is able to embrace the variance and eek out a profit flipping cards.
thehallmark,
Thanks for your comments, which I appreciate. I will definitely be submitting SOMETHING to PSA (and perhaps a rival) when economy is again available -- it's just a question of what. Am I'm sure I'll learn then. For me the main thing isn't flipping cards -- though I'm not above it! -- but trying to move the extra cards I don't need. It's pretty clear that, since most of them are junk wax, there are very few that might make sense to grade, but at the same time, it's clear from eBay that lots of very nice cards for major stars from those sets aren't selling, even when bidding starts at $.99 or sometimes lower, so it makes little sense to put raw cards on eBay. (For example, I just checked, and a 1982 Donruss Nolan Ryan that looks at least Near Mint got no bids at $.99 before its bidding period ended.)
I have a new question, which is what exactly the "PSA Price" is. Taking the 1969 Johnny Bench card that we were discussing earlier as an example (https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1969-topps/johnny-bench/summary/188174), there are the "Most recent price" and "Average price" columns, and of course I understand what those mean, but I can't find anywhere on their website that explains whether the "PSA Price" column is for raw cards or is their opinion of the true value of graded cards. And there can be quite a difference, as the Bench page shows, since, e.g., Near Mint "Average Price" is $418 but "PSA Price" is $125. (I know that the info in the "PSA Price" column is the same found under "Price Guide.")
One of you had indicated to me a while back that one shouldn't only look at auction prices, and he was obviously pointing to this, but it's hard to know what to make of PSA's pricing unless one knows whether it's for raw cards or not.
Thanks!
I'm still hoping that someone can explain this "PSA Price" business, which I find completely opaque. To give another example...
I was just checking the prices of some 1950's cards that I've owned for 30+ years, more out of curiosity than any intent to sell, and see that for 1956 Topps Herb Score the auction prices and "PSA Price" are extremely close (https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1956-topps/herb-score/summary/180021) -- especially for Excellent, which is what I probably have -- but for 1952 Topps Monte Irvin there is an enormous difference (https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1952-topps/monty-irvin/summary/178548), with my card's obviously Good condition making it either worth about $15 according the PSA Price column or four times that according to the auction columns. What's going on here? Thanks!
Auction price is the better valuation tool. People have complained for years about SMR price (PSA) not being accurate. The auction price is an average of recent sales, usually from eBay.
Ignore anything besides COMPLETED AUCTION SALES and you’ll be on the right track.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
Two more cards that I'm thinking of grading, at least one of them only if/when PSA again has an option at or below $20.
First, I recently bought two 1962 1961 A.L. H.R. Leaders cards with Mantle and Maris, the one on the left (with the smudge/defect over "Leaders") for the 1962 G/VG/VG-EX set that I'm putting together and the one on the right to sell eventually. Am I right that the latter at the very least would grade PSA 5, but has a chance at PSA 6? It is unusually free of those small, circular printing defects that normally plague 1962 league leader cards, and the only significant problem is that lower-left corner.
Second, I now have a 1961 1960 N.L. K's Leaders card that looks tremendous (centering, lack of printing defects), though if one looks very closely it has minor damage in one corner -- damage which, thanks to the border being white, is barely visible without magnification -- and a slight smudge or printing defect near Koufax. It looks to me like a virtual lock for PSA 6, but is there a chance of PSA 7?
Great chance for a 7 IMHO
So I found myself in the same situation about a month ago not knowing anything about grading and card value. I have old cards as well 1990 asking all the same questions about grading and value. I got all the same answers as you as well. I have a pretty fair understanding of all the grading standards and what determines a card to be a 10. I've listened and researched for hours on this topic, I realized that I was very naïve in thinking I had a bunch of 10s. However....I also was looking at a market spike in value of the particular cards I was investigating 1990 marvel universe cards. (2021 these cards spiked) The spike has gone on the down side but the cards are still holding a decent value now. From what I determined with the help of the kind ppl here, is that at todays market these cards needed to be PSA 10 to turn a profit PSA 9s are selling for less than the grading fee (PSA prices realized)...so to pay $100/card for grading + shipping + insurance + selling fees = a loss of my $$. Just didn't add up to a profit. However....lol...predicting tomorrow's market for these cards was also on my mind I did some homework as to why these cards spiked in 2021 and came up with a few thoughts. Comic books go up in value as new movies based on the specific comic are filmed and released, so why not the superhero character featured in the film and therefore the character card. There are some 30 + movies based on superheroes already released. There are some long awaited moves being released this year that have been delayed in production (due to covid protocols) There are superhero movies being filmed and TV shows being released as well. There is still a great BUZZ in the air about these superhero cards PSA Magazine even has an article this month on the 1990 marvel universe cards. https://www.psacard.com/articles/articleview/10616/1990-marvel-universe-set-finally-being-marveled
So.... I still went ahead and sent in 5 cards for grading despite being told its not worth it, realizing I may get only grades of maybe PSA 9 (still think my Thor card is a 10) ($50/card with lotteries submissions)
I'm thinking that there will be a second card value spike in this particular series of cards making a PSA 9 market value profitable.
Unfortunately the baseball seasons of the 80s is over and the players from that era are no longer rookies or making sports headlines there value will remain pretty consistent without the spikes.
Dinners ready ttyl..
"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens" Jimi Hendrix.
instagram dgilbert008
I sure know that feeling of being new at this and thinking you have a bunch of PSA 10's! Thanks goodness prices were way too high for me to send anything in before I knew better.
I'm going by the operating assumption that at some point, even if it's more than a year out, PSA will again offer grading options as low as $10-$15. I know I've read in this forum comments that that time is gone forever, but I figure there's a decent chance it will come again because of various forces: the surge in collecting caused by the pandemic and those government checks will abate, but PSA will still have its recently added grading capacity; other grading companies in order to compete will lower their prices and that could pressure PSA to do likewise; and, if computer optical analysis plays a greater role in grading this semi-automation of the process should lead to greater efficiency and lower prices. Not to mention that PSA knows better than anyone how much they're leaving on the table by effectively rendering so many cards ungradable. I note all this to say that some cards that today would make no sense to grade -- like your potential PSA 9's or my N.L. K's Leaders card -- may well be possible to grade a bit down the road.
Another card I'm not sure about. I recently got this green-tint Jackie Brandt for the 1962 set I'm putting together, but it turns out to be in slightly better shape than I expected, so maybe it would be worth grading if/when prices come down sufficiently. I bought it figuring it was EX or EX-MT, but am I right that it has a shot at NM (but not NM-MT)? The issues I notice are:
This is a rather low-pop card, but there are certainly people who collect higher-grade green-tint 1962's, so if this has a reasonable chance of NM then it would be worth grading, since it would be about a $40 card (whereas PSA 6 is around $20).
Any thoughts on this one? I suspect that it would be NM if not for those two issues with the edges, but don't know. Thanks!
(In addition to two scans of it I'm adding one that shows it next to a regular 1962, in case it's of interest to anyone.)
I have enjoyed seeing your cards and reading all the responses. I have sent in many, many cards which I was positive would rate at least a nine. It rarely, if ever does. Even happens less if you try and get a "bump" on an already card. At this point I only buy raw cards if I like the way they look and don't want to get it graded. If I want a certain card at a certain grade, I look for an already graded one. It has gotten too cost prohibitive and life is too short.
I think a 6 is as good as you're going to get on the Brandt. (corners).
mexpo75,
Thanks. Like you, I don't have to have something graded -- certainly not the F/G/VG/VG-EX 1962 set I'm working on! But it's clear to me that some cards do need to be graded in order to get proper value, so I'll patiently wait until the price comes down, which seems like it's at least a year away.
1959,
Thanks for your opinion. Unless someone else posts here with a rosier opinion of the card I'll be glad to consider it EX-MT, and it will be one of the better cards in my set. (I'm surprised that the corners are a bigger issue than the edges.)
All,
I might as well ask about one other recent 1962 acquisition. a Dick Williams card that looks to me EX-MT, but I'm wondering if it has a shot at NM. It has very minor fraying at the lower corners and light wax staining on the back, but no other issue I can see. (The white dots at the upper-right were on the plastic sleeve or scanner.) I know from PSA's site that even a PSA 8 can have "very slight" staining or a PSA 7 "slight" staining, but I'm not sure what constitutes very slight or slight staining. (I'll add that a 1962 Williams at PSA 7 goes for about $13, so I'm not exactly having visions of getting rich by flipping this card -- just trying to figure out what I have, and learn the grading criteria better.)
Bringing this thread back to life...
If anticipation of the day when Economy grading is lower, I'm wondering about this card. It seems at least a PSA 3, with PSA 4 more likely, but the online description of PSA 5 suggests that might be possible: "...very minor rounding of the corners is becoming evident. Surface wear or printing defects are more visible...." It seems the main issue is the printing defect (as it appears to be) above "1961," and then the light wear on the surface, but arguing in favor of a better grade is the rather decent centering (for this card) along with eye appeal. Any thoughts? PSA 5 would definitely be worth grading eventually, and probably PSA 4 as well, but probably not PSA 3.
three
Okay, thanks! It's actually a pretty decent looking card, if one doesn't look at it via a high-res scanner.
Time to revive my thread...
(Post deleted because no longer an issue.)
I recently opened a lite hobby box of 2021 Topps Update series while trying to complete set -- I'm old-fashioned that way -- and got two very nice hits, an Independence Day Jazz Chisholm, jr. rookie debut card (22/76) and an Aaron Judge Black Gold Platinum card (39/70). I am pretty sure that the Chisholm would grade as at least a PSA 8, based on looking at it from different angles and scanning it, so I will at some point send it off to PSA. I'm wondering about the Judge card, though. The left-right centering on the front is just slightly a bit off, so I suspect that from the front it would be a PSA 9, but the back, in addition to being more off-center, has a minor imperfection that can only be seen if one zooms in and looks for a horizontal line both below Judge's waist and then in a more smudge-like form just above the MLB logo and word "Topps." PSA's own description of PSA 9's allows for a "minor printing imperfection," so do you think this has a shot? Or does the line/smudge knock it down to PSA 7 or lower? I'd welcome your thoughts on either card, but especially the Judge. Thanks!
So no opinions on either card? Okay, then let me throw in a sweetner. In return for your opinion, I will share with you my opinion of your choice of:
Both 10s. (Hard to tell inside their sleeves.)
Opine away…
Andy
Well, if there's one thing I've learned from this forum it's that one can never assume a 10, but I appreciate your optimism.
Yeah, I know scanning outside of a sleeve is better, but there's greater risk to the card.
As for Greek tragedy, I've long thought it's Sophocles's "Antigone," since it sets up two strong-willed characters who are both correct in their diametrically opposed positions (human law vs. divine law), leading to catastrophe and multiple deaths. An argument can certainly be made for Euripides's "Medea" or "Bacchae," more because their stories are so compelling and entertaining than because they involve great tragic downfalls. (Please feel free to let me know if you agree or disagree.)
I've still got four opinions left, for anyone else who wishes to opine on the Judge or Chisholm cards...
I primarily collect vintage, so my opinion may not be worth much here.
It looks like a raw Judge card like yours sold for $100.00 on eBay. If there are problems with it, that might be the best way to go.
I don't think the Chisholm card is worth a lot, it seems that on the newer cards you need the "black diamond gold sapphire rainbow refractor autograph card limited to 10" to be worth much. I think one like yours in a PSA 10 sold for $30.00. Not worth grading?
With Judge in the news right now Judge/Yankee fans might really "NEED" this one right now.
I forgot to add "Ultimate Prism Masterpiece" to the above rookie card description.
JoeBanzai,
I appreciate your thoughts on this. My thinking on Chisholm is that since he has the potential to be a star I would want to hold on to the card for a few years, regardless of whether I grade it now or later, so I'm gambling on its being worth more than $30 down the road. (I doubt it will ever go below $10-$15, should he turn into just an ordinary player, given its relative rarity.)
I, too, prefer vintage cards, and have been working on a 1962 set, but I've also gotten into newer Topps, putting together sets while trying to recoup some of my expenses when I hit a rare card that I don't really want. The Judge card could buy me quite a few 1962 commons I still need (or pay for another new unopened Topps box I need for the Chrome set).
Should I get this numbered Rc graded ?
Heed these gentlemen's advice, lest you suffer the consequences as I have recently:
I know it's modern and a reprint but would it be worth grading. 1/7 2021 Topps. I know it's not that special but my lowest numbered card ever pulled. So I might just to slab my find for myself. Thanks for looking or responding in advance
I have been looking around and some other cards in the set also #/7 parallel have sold for $200-300 range. And some ebay sellers asking $1000+. Mostly all ungraded. Not expecting much but to learn more