Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Aberrant Grades

I mentioned this in the 1976 Aaron thread but I thought it might go unnoticed there.

Here’s an unusual case study. We probably all remember seeing a really off center 1972 Johnny Bench graded PSA 9 making the rounds a few years ago. As it turns out from examining surrounding cert numbers, almost 50 1972 Bench cards were submitted at the same time years ago. There were over 20 PSA 9s, and several ridiculously OC Cards that got straight 9 grades. Probably more than several. Unfortunately I can only find images of a few. One of them has already been corrected to EX 5.

Comments

  • brad31brad31 Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice to see corrections. I assume whomever had them graded cracked out the 5s that should be 9s and resubmitted them.

    This is a reason the PSA scanning is such a massive improvement. Being able to see the card with the cert will allow PSA to more easily make corrections when something like this occurs.

  • DotStoreDotStore Posts: 701 ✭✭✭✭

    In these cases when a card goes from a higher grade to a lower grade, should PSA remove the historical PSA Auction Prices Realized? Or at least note that the previous Auction Prices Realized were based on the OLD higher grade?

    In the example show, the $395.99 was based on the old grade of 9, not the new grade of 5.

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Those Benches were graded many years ago. No way should they be 9s in any era, but no question PSA was more lenient on centering back then, too.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • backbidderbackbidder Posts: 232 ✭✭✭

    Interesting discovery. I own 31363397 PSA 9 that is similarly off centered.

  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 23, 2022 6:32PM

    @grote15 said:
    Those Benches were graded many years ago. No way should they be 9s in any era, but no question PSA was more lenient on centering back then, too.

    The one ending in 87 pretty much seals that there was some kind of error. Both the horizontal and vertical centering are way way off. I wonder if some of these 9s should have been 9OC but somehow the qualifier was omitted?

Sign In or Register to comment.