How is this card a PSA Gem Mint 10
halfload
Posts: 4 ✭
There are cards that are in the gray area, they could be mint or gem mint. It could go either way because it's so close. This card, however, defies logic. Could someone please explain why the card would a receive a grade PSA Gem Mint 10?
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Note the logo on bottom.
"It's the singer not the song"
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
If that’s a 10 then I have some 6s I need to get regraded.
Fully agree.
It has been speculated over thousands of cards yet still some believe its just a conspiracy theory that 4sharpcorners or anyone can possibly have received special grading treatment by psa...
WAKE UP
I know you’re implying the tired conspiracy theory that 4SC gets preferential treatment with the cards they submit. But this is a consignment. 4SC didn’t submit this card to PSA.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
^ is it actually a consignment or an ad-blurb for their consignment segment of the business.
Card at absolute best is an ugly 8
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
BOOM!
The facts are it doesn't matter if it is 4SharpCorners or SubmitterABC, some submitters get preferential treatment...
If anyone takes just one minute to look at the 50+ cards before and after in certification, the clown show quickly ends... Every card is magically a PSA 10.
Next, @DBesse27 will come back and say that this submitter must request to not holder anything but PSA 10s. LOL These people...
PLEASE WAKE UP!
Easy... gorgeous smooth edges.... impeccable centering... this is a fabulous PSA 10 example.
Sarcasm? Right?
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Bigger question is why are people submitting 89 Mahorns?
Who knew you could get O-Pee-Chee cuts on Fleer basketball cards?
That cut is relatively common on the 89 Fleer that I've opened. I'm not saying that it should be ignored by the grader, but rough edged 89s are not rare.
I did look up a bunch of certs in this same sequence - all 1989 Fleer. It's true they are all PSA 10s. I can only see pictures of some of them if they had recent eBay sales. Most look like actual 10s. This one I could not give a 10 due to the centering, but it's not egregious like the one in the OP:
https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/basketball-cards/1989-fleer/c-green/auction/-6473939698736854242
Same with this:
https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/basketball-cards/1989-fleer/detlef-schrempf/auction/-2520281758169586878
It looks like this 1989 Fleer run starts with cert 66084885 and ends with 66085059. I probably checked like 50 of them, and every single one is a PSA 10 with the exception of a couple of missing certs (maybe they were like N6 and couldn't be graded). Still, I don't know how anyone could get that many consecutive PSA 10s.
I will say though that these all looks like commons. I think PSA grades different players in the same set with different standards. I really doubt they'd hand out a 10 so easily to a Jordan card.
It's the rare 1979 OPC retro cut variation!
.
.
It's the 1989 Fleer rough cut. Very common.
PSA does not deduct at all for rough cuts, which I agree with wholeheartedly as an OPC baseball collector! Whether or not the subject card warrants a 10 is another question altogether. Absolute perfect centering is not a prerequisite for a 10; therefore, there are regular 10's and extraordinary 10's. Grading had always been highly subjective, regardless of whether the grader is a professional or an amateur.
I measure approx 43/57 centering, so it's within posted PSA 10 standards. If the corners hold up under a loupe and the surface is clean I don't have an issue with it being a 10...I wouldn't buy it though