Can someone explain these grades? 1971 Topps baseball
mrburns443
Posts: 203 ✭✭✭✭
I don’t want to complain about grades I received but I don’t understand these at all. Never mind there a little low in my opinion where are the stains? 
1
Comments
1971 are tough to get good grades.
Is this a stain? Also I know sometimes the black borders get colored maybe that could get cause a stain.
MULLINS5,1966CUDA,nam812,nightcrawler,OAKESY25,PowderedH2O,relaxed,RonBurgundy,samsgirl214,shagrotn77,swartz1,slantycouch,Statman,Wabittwax
On the Clemente back , it looks like a water stain just under the 630 at the top of the square near his hat. On Carew , it might be where the letters T C G. are. Left edge on Carew, and corners on Clemente keep it at 6. Plus, its two HOFers and they are graded tougher.
Clemente--Maybe on reverse in his photo square, top left? Also maybe in his bio box, especially by the word "Batting"?
Carew--Where Jimrad pointed out. Also, maybe by his bat, top of card? Or is that more a PD?
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
I think they are so tough on 71s right now. That Carew is an absolute blazer.
That could be it. I see one on eBay that has that same spot but many don’t.
The Clemente I see easily on the back - Carew I definitely would miss good eyes to spot that one. The Carew seems under graded unless you get a numerical dock for a stain. Think it is a 7 or 8 ST cannot understand the 6.
This might be some more on the Carew.
They both look to be covered in wax on the fronts?
No. That would likely get an Authentic Altered.
It does look like mega wax stains on the Clemente. You can even see where the wrapper fold was pressed down. If that is the case, they should be easily removable.
Stains aside, they are too nice for 6's.
Bosox1976
The Grader of Death strikes again. Always happy to reach into your pockets and take his $100 fee.
Agree they are way too nice for 6s. I'm dreading my returns on the 71s. Ugh. The entire back of the Clemente looks stained and the Carew looks like some browning on the back. Regardless, these are beauties in the front. The imperfections on the front would not warrant an ST qualifier IMO.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
Ever increasing evidence against subbing and for buying graded! I'm really regretting not subbing my nicer raw cards a long time ago when grading was more predictable and much, much cheaper!
I see the staining as well on both reverses.
Got these back last month - here is the amount of corner wear that merits a 5 these days….
Bosox1976
Those are criminal Mike. The Koufax looks way more like a 6, and I would have subbed that Clemente expecting a 6 minimum, but thinking that a 7 was a real possibility.
Very hard to tell from pictures.
Clemente looks like a 7.5 Koufax has a couple of dinged corners and (?) right edge issue? Still looks like at least a 6.
The Carew above also looks horribly undergraded!
I sure can't afford the new grading fees and especially with the "new" grading standards.
Thanks for all the feedback!
As you already know, those are ridiculous. Evidence is stacking up to look at other TPG's at the moment.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
It’s amazing, the grading standards have changed so much that part of the value prop around grading - consistency between grades - is gone. For vintage it is almost a guarantee you are getting lower grades then 5 years ago.
Lots of wax on front of Clemente. Still beautiful cards
OMG. Yes, those grades seem ridiculous. It is so out of hand.
But the wax shouldn't matter for the number grade. That's why it has the stain as part of the grade. When they were allowing qualifiers, putting the ST on there should have then taken all of that staining out of the grading process.
It's almost like the grader didn't understand the concept entirely and somehow put the qualifier and then downgraded it too.
And on the Clemente.....
The grading has changed so much in the last 15 years. If you cracked out any of the three mantle 10 rookies, you'd be lucky to get back an 8 and two 7s now
Crack and send to SGC for 35.00 a card. Back in 2 months. Those are not 5's. Would be 70.00 for 2nd opinion.
I’ll probably end up doing this
me too...
Bosox1976
The way you worded it, you are totally correct. Should be higher graded with the Qual.
Rear creases on the cards?
I've seen these on a few of my nice 71's. Sometimes the graders miss it, some times they hit you with it....
Creases would make the cards vg-ex, so if they are there grader missed them.
In my experience with PSA grading, I found that surface creases on the front of otherwise strong cards (NM or better) usually grade 5 maximally, and surface creases on the rear of otherwise strong cards (NM or better) usually grade 6 maximally.
Surface creases on a card take a very large hit on grading, Again, this has been my experience with PSA since about 1997.
You could have the cards reviewed by PSA. I've done this a few times with 68's and 71's as well. Usually get a yellow post back it with an arrow pointing to the creases that I missed with my own presubmission inspection.
I've seen similar missed creases, and have had similar grading experiences, on the rear of my "high end" 1985 and 1991 Topps baseball card submissions (which is also have colored backs- like the green back '71 and yellow backed '68 baseball cards).
Also, a surface stain on the front of a card can be very small and only involve a very localized loss of gloss. so hard to tell when encapsulated. Best shot to see this when viewed at an oblique off-angle with a bright light as part of your presubmission inspection.
I can only guess, but a rear surface crease and localized loss of gloss from the front of the card could reasonably explain your grades....
Wax stain for sure is the reason for ST qualifiers, not any print imperfections on the face of the card (if significant enough, that would be a PD, not ST qualifier). Good news is you can clean that wax stain right off with a nylon stocking.
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.
Wax on the front is the reason for the ST on both. Easily cleaned off. Should have been done before subbing. I agree the Carew looks better than a 6. Id probably say it looks like a 7 or 7.5 from the pics provided. I actually agree on Clemente being a 6 though. It is a nice card but there is visible wear on all 4 corners, 2 more than the other 2.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
Hall of Famers are not graded any differently than commons of the same year? Really..........
I thought this was a sure fire 7 when I subbed it… just got this back last month. The grader clearly doesn’t have experience with OPC
Most of 1971's come back recolored, at least you got a grade. I did get a George Foster, Tom Seaver, Rod Carew OPC's come back 8's and a Topps Ryan can back an 8 from my childhood.
I think most people on this forum do their due diligence before sending in cards for grading. I doubt folks here get a lot of cards back as recolored. It doesn’t take rocket science to tell if a card has been recolored.
maybe its just me then.
no way those are fives. the clemente looks like a strong six to a seven if there are no surface wrinkles. great cards!
The era of 'buy the card and not the grade/holder' is officially here.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
Ok, so I can't tell on the 62 Clemente if it is the holder or maybe scanner but on the left shoulder there appears to be, well, best I can describe them is surface scratches. I had sent a few 62's that I felt were 8's in sometime back that came back 5's. Upon closer inspection, they had what looked like surface scratches but were really in the printing. It was like there were scratches on the roller in the printing process and it wasn't actually on the card at all.
What I can say is that 71's and 62's have indeed gotten much tougher over the years and it's my opinion that most 8's from 15-20 years ago would be 6's at best now.
I could tell ya but then I'd have to kill ya....
That Carew defies the grade, and would look fantastic in a penny sleeve and top loader, as so many of us kept them back in the day. The 6 is really not in harmony with its eye appeal— at all.
In general, what is causing such confusion and frankly also pricing havoc in the hobby these days is this clear shifting of the longtime grading goalposts. Is it a misguided attempt to overcorrect for some really ugly, overgraded cards minted back in the day? Is it an attempt to keep certain pops low? Whatever the reason, we see old 9s at AH's today, that we've always known were... let's employ the euphemism of "possessed of low eye appeal." Then we see newly graded 7s and 8s that blow away old 8s and 9s, respectively. From a consistency standpoint, and a standpoint of grade remotely correlating with aesthetics, it is shambolic. The good news is, the buyer/collector's eye will always make the final assessment, and he'll pay accordingly. In other words, were that Carew or those 62s auctioned off, I'd bet the farm they sell well above average.
The problem is that there are significant flaws (e.g., wrinkles, superficial print defects and stains, micro corner touches) which are not possible to detect when viewing a scan (or worse yet a photo) on your computer monitor but which are very clearly evident to graders under a hyper degree of scrutiny. How are buyers to know when such a "hidden" flaw exists versus undergrading by a super tough modern day grader? Until recently, that has always been the beauty of buying cards graded by reputable grading companies that you are unable to inspect in person before shelling out a boatload of cash for. Today, you may purchase a 5, 6 or 7 which may appear to be incredible and undergraded on your monitor but in fact is deserving of the assigned grade due to a flaw that you have no way of knowing about until you hold the card in your hand. From my perspective, when purchasing a card graded by PSA online I have no choice but to assume that the assigned grade is deserved for reasons which may not be obvious based upon the scan or photo that I'm viewing on my monitor; for this reason, I cannot justify paying 8 money for a recently graded 6. For high end cards viewed online, the only aspect that is truly absolute and undeniable is centering; I stay clear of PSA 9's with old flips when the centering would likely yield a 7 or 8 under current standards; in my opinion, a 9 NQ should never be ugly regardless of when it was graded!