1975 Baseball Grading Standards

PaulMaul

I was going through some of my raw sets last night and was reminded of that time in 2016 when I made the mistake of subbing some 1975 baseball. We all understand why it is a tough year (like ‘71) for getting good results, but all these years later I’m still mystified on why the below card received a PSA 7. When I look at it, then and now, I see nothing but 9. But I learned my lesson and stuck to ‘72s after that. 😂

jeffv96masters

Paper loss middle to the bottom left edge is the most obvious defect I notice. looks all scraped up.

olb31

yep bottom left has some issues.

PaulMaul

There is zero paper loss, it’s just the light reflecting off the dark edge.

PaulMaul

MantleFan23

I purchased a really nice raw set a number of years ago and I submitted about 75 cards after going through them a few times. They are super tough on 75s and ANY sign of white on the corner is going to put you at an 8 or lower. I did receive a fair amount of 9s and one 10 that was a POP1. But also received a lot of 8s and a few 7s. Maybe on a really good day you get an 8 on this card, but I believe the card was accurately graded.

jeffv96masters

And now from that angle below where it says " Nolan Ryan" I'm seeing a splatter affect of 4-6 white dots
plus more in Busby's Hat
I circled the areas in red
,
,
,

PaulMaul

I’m not gonna bother looking on eBay and finding all the 9s with these same “defects.” It is what it is. 👍

PaulMaul

Well, maybe just one 😂

UFFDAH

@PaulMaul - I get it and feel your pain.

grote15

PSA has always been especially tough on 75 Topps. No way that card should grade a 7. There is very slight PD but very minimal. Should be an 8 all day, at least, assuming back is clean and there are no surface issues we can't detect from the scanned image. Very often the reason for a lower grade on a card that looks mint on the computer screen is a surface issue. Collectors tend to focus on centering and corners and not so much on surface issues but that is often the reason a card that looks like a 9 or 10 grades lower.

PaulMaul

@grote15 said:
PSA has always been especially tough on 75 Topps. No way that card should grade a 7. There is very slight PD but very minimal. Should be an 8 all day, at least, assuming back is clean and there are no surface issues we can't detect from the scanned image. Very often the reason for a lower grade on a card that looks mint on the computer screen is a surface issue. Collectors tend to focus on centering and corners and not so much on surface issues but that is often the reason a card that looks like a 9 or 10 grades lower.

I understand Tim. I just find it frustrating when people point out every little speck of snow or fish eye, when we all know there are plenty of 9s (both recently graded and not) that have the same defects.

grote15

@PaulMaul said:

@grote15 said:
PSA has always been especially tough on 75 Topps. No way that card should grade a 7. There is very slight PD but very minimal. Should be an 8 all day, at least, assuming back is clean and there are no surface issues we can't detect from the scanned image. Very often the reason for a lower grade on a card that looks mint on the computer screen is a surface issue. Collectors tend to focus on centering and corners and not so much on surface issues but that is often the reason a card that looks like a 9 or 10 grades lower.

I understand Tim. I just find it frustrating when people point out every little speck of snow or fish eye, when we all know there are plenty of 9s (both recently graded and not) that have the same defects.

Very true, that is why I stated that no way should this card be a 7 unless there's some kind of surface issue because those issues are not detectable via a scan or screen. If that's not the case here, that card should be an 8, at least, and wouldn't look out of place in a 9 holder, either. PSA has always been tough on 1975s, in my experience, which spans several hundred submitted cards from that year.

balco758

When I started collecting in 81, I don't even recall anyone talking about condition at all. Occasionally corners, but mostly everyone just said Mint or Excellent / Mint.

Back then, I was just be excited to own such and such card, appearances be dammed. We have gone too far the other way.

1966CUDA

Wow... how is that Yaz a 9??

billwaltonsbeard

I started working on a 1975 set years ago with the intention of getting all HOFers in PSA 8. I quickly realized that I was much better off buying the graded items than subbing myself.

BaltimoreYankee

@billwaltonsbeard said:
I started working on a 1975 set years ago with the intention of getting all HOFers in PSA 8. I quickly realized that I was much better off buying the graded items than subbing myself.

This is true for all cards. It's just too much of a crapshoot to submit cards. The worst is when a card is rejected as N6, is resubmitted and suddenly the size is fine. No way did the card grow between the 2 submissions.

JoeBanzai

@BaltimoreYankee said:

@billwaltonsbeard said:
I started working on a 1975 set years ago with the intention of getting all HOFers in PSA 8. I quickly realized that I was much better off buying the graded items than subbing myself.

This is true for all cards. It's just too much of a crapshoot to submit cards. The worst is when a card is rejected as N6, is resubmitted and suddenly the size is fine. No way did the card grow between the 2 submissions.

True, but some years, 1962, 1971 and 1975 are ridiculous.

olb31

We all know who got the 9 on the yaz, come on man!!!

PaulMaul

@olb31 said:
We all know who got the 9 on the yaz, come on man!!!

Wasn’t that the era of those certs all starting with 81? 🤔

Bosox1976

The fisheye is my favorite part.

lusterlover

I think the grader wrote the grade down in pencil and forgot to draw a line under the 6 as not to confuse the finalizer....