Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Guess the grade - 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson

This is not my card but it is up for auction right now with a solid, reputable auction house. As many on the board have pointed out (and I agree), PSA has been absolutely hammering vintage submissions for the past couple of years be it due to shifting standards, new graders, etc., (COVID era?). I only provide the Jackie example b/c I honestly believe that If I had this card graded today, I would be very lucky to get a 6. Is it even worth it to submit older cards to PSA anymore? I just don't think it is. Thoughts?

Scroll down for the grade
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
It is graded PSA 8.

Comments

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,468 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 12, 2023 12:26PM

    🤐

  • CWCW Posts: 1,198 ✭✭✭

    It's a very solid card for 1949 Leaf, but I agree with the OP that the upper left corner would probably land it in a PSA 7 holder these days. It is in an older holder with a 08022.... serial number (currently in REA Summer 2023 auction).

    I don't like that PSA has seemingly changed their grading standards over the years, but the only thing I can really do about it is focus on quality when buying cards. You can still find cards in older holders that were hammered by the grader and look really nice for the grade.

    Here is a larger scan of the Robinson:

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 795 ✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:
    🤐

    And that's the problem. Nobody wants to talk about PSAs grading of late.
    If you think being critical of PSA will affect the grades you receive, then you are saying that PSA is not objective.

    If you think grading has not changed over the years, compare these Schmidt rookies.
    A recently graded PSA4 vs an early PSA6 (and before the Captain Obvious responses of, "you can't grade from a pic", and "but the surface"...yes, I'm quite aware).
    In this example, you don't even need a loupe to see the surface wrinkles and scuffs on the PSA6.


    If they are using Artificial Intelligence to grade cards to catch microscopic surface wrinkles and using various light spectrum ranges to catch things that can't even be seen with the naked eye, they are being overly critical.
    PSA Grading Standards has well defined parameters for each grade. They just need to be followed.
    Makes no sense to grade based on something as subjective as "eye appeal," and at the same time grade based on flaws that can't even be seen with the naked eye.

  • I would personally prefer the above PSA 4 over that 6 any day of the week. The color and registration isn't even close. It just sucks when most of the value with graded cards is obviously based upon the final grade rendered. Changing the grading process, standards, or whatever has cost a lot of people a lot of money when it comes to older cards.

  • bombdropperbombdropper Posts: 28
    edited August 12, 2023 2:00PM

    BTW - Whatever happened to poor old Jack Hilton? :p I mean John. LOL

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,468 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:
    🤐

    And that's the problem. Nobody wants to talk about PSAs grading of late.
    If you think being critical of PSA will affect the grades you receive, then you are saying that PSA is not objective.

    If you think grading has not changed over the years, compare these Schmidt rookies.
    A recently graded PSA4 vs an early PSA6 (and before the Captain Obvious responses of, "you can't grade from a pic", and "but the surface"...yes, I'm quite aware).
    In this example, you don't even need a loupe to see the surface wrinkles and scuffs on the PSA6.


    If they are using Artificial Intelligence to grade cards to catch microscopic surface wrinkles and using various light spectrum ranges to catch things that can't even be seen with the naked eye, they are being overly critical.
    PSA Grading Standards has well defined parameters for each grade. They just need to be followed.
    Makes no sense to grade based on something as subjective as "eye appeal," and at the same time grade based on flaws that can't even be seen with the naked eye.

    You have no idea what I was going to say. I don't submit cards at all nor do I believe that a 74+ year old card doesn't have soft corners.

    I got out of the grading game awhile ago, I buy the card not the grade.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 795 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 12, 2023 2:58PM

    @perkdog said:

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:
    🤐

    And that's the problem. Nobody wants to talk about PSAs grading of late.
    If you think being critical of PSA will affect the grades you receive, then you are saying that PSA is not objective.

    If you think grading has not changed over the years, compare these Schmidt rookies.
    A recently graded PSA4 vs an early PSA6 (and before the Captain Obvious responses of, "you can't grade from a pic", and "but the surface"...yes, I'm quite aware).
    In this example, you don't even need a loupe to see the surface wrinkles and scuffs on the PSA6.


    If they are using Artificial Intelligence to grade cards to catch microscopic surface wrinkles and using various light spectrum ranges to catch things that can't even be seen with the naked eye, they are being overly critical.
    PSA Grading Standards has well defined parameters for each grade. They just need to be followed.
    Makes no sense to grade based on something as subjective as "eye appeal," and at the same time grade based on flaws that can't even be seen with the naked eye.

    You have no idea what I was going to say. I don't submit cards at all nor do I believe that a 74+ year old card doesn't have soft corners.

    I got out of the grading game awhile ago, I buy the card not the grade.

    LOL. You're right, I don't know what you're saying when all you post is a zipper mouth emoji.
    Can be interpreted in several ways. Doesn't exactly add to the conversation.
    Thank you now for at least commenting.

    Oh and BTW, I was using "you" in the general sense, not you specifically.

  • 82FootballWaxMemorys82FootballWaxMemorys Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 12, 2023 3:08PM

    ^ yes it was clear at least to this reader you were referring the royal "you" !

    _Royal you

    The use of the word "you," in reference to the general populace, rather than one specific person.
    A: You won't get anywhere in life if you're lazy.
    B: Are you saying I'm lazy?
    A: I meant you as in the royal you._

    Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,468 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:
    🤐

    And that's the problem. Nobody wants to talk about PSAs grading of late.
    If you think being critical of PSA will affect the grades you receive, then you are saying that PSA is not objective.

    If you think grading has not changed over the years, compare these Schmidt rookies.
    A recently graded PSA4 vs an early PSA6 (and before the Captain Obvious responses of, "you can't grade from a pic", and "but the surface"...yes, I'm quite aware).
    In this example, you don't even need a loupe to see the surface wrinkles and scuffs on the PSA6.


    If they are using Artificial Intelligence to grade cards to catch microscopic surface wrinkles and using various light spectrum ranges to catch things that can't even be seen with the naked eye, they are being overly critical.
    PSA Grading Standards has well defined parameters for each grade. They just need to be followed.
    Makes no sense to grade based on something as subjective as "eye appeal," and at the same time grade based on flaws that can't even be seen with the naked eye.

    You have no idea what I was going to say. I don't submit cards at all nor do I believe that a 74+ year old card doesn't have soft corners.

    I got out of the grading game awhile ago, I buy the card not the grade.

    LOL. You're right, I don't know what you're saying when all you post is a zipper mouth emoji.
    Can be interpreted in several ways. Doesn't exactly add to the conversation.
    Thank you now for at least commenting.

    Oh and BTW, I was using "you" in the general sense, not you specifically.

    Fair point but you chose to quote my zipper mouth emoji and make assumptions that I thought was directed at me.

    It's all good, If you noticed, I edited my post because I didn't want to over step my boundaries and offend anyone who collects high grade leafs.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 795 ✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:
    🤐

    And that's the problem. Nobody wants to talk about PSAs grading of late.
    If you think being critical of PSA will affect the grades you receive, then you are saying that PSA is not objective.

    If you think grading has not changed over the years, compare these Schmidt rookies.
    A recently graded PSA4 vs an early PSA6 (and before the Captain Obvious responses of, "you can't grade from a pic", and "but the surface"...yes, I'm quite aware).
    In this example, you don't even need a loupe to see the surface wrinkles and scuffs on the PSA6.


    If they are using Artificial Intelligence to grade cards to catch microscopic surface wrinkles and using various light spectrum ranges to catch things that can't even be seen with the naked eye, they are being overly critical.
    PSA Grading Standards has well defined parameters for each grade. They just need to be followed.
    Makes no sense to grade based on something as subjective as "eye appeal," and at the same time grade based on flaws that can't even be seen with the naked eye.

    You have no idea what I was going to say. I don't submit cards at all nor do I believe that a 74+ year old card doesn't have soft corners.

    I got out of the grading game awhile ago, I buy the card not the grade.

    LOL. You're right, I don't know what you're saying when all you post is a zipper mouth emoji.
    Can be interpreted in several ways. Doesn't exactly add to the conversation.
    Thank you now for at least commenting.

    Oh and BTW, I was using "you" in the general sense, not you specifically.

    Fair point but you chose to quote my zipper mouth emoji and make assumptions that I thought was directed at me.

    It's all good, If you noticed, I edited my post because I didn't want to over step my boundaries and offend anyone who collects high grade leafs.

    I did notice you edited your post, but don't know what you had said. I was offended by your zipper mouth emoji. LOL
    Unless you said something like "People that collect high grade leafs are morons", I don't understand the offense. What "boundaries?" If you have an opinion on grades or grading, just say it. I'm sick and tired of having to walk on eggshells around people getting offended by a differing of opinion.
    If I had just bought that PSA8 Jackie, and you or anyone said, no way that's an 8, I wouldn't get offended. I would agree, or ask you why you think that, or not care what you think because I like it.
    If I had taken it personally and got offended, that would be my problem, not the person giving their opinion.

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,468 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:

    @RonSportscards said:

    @perkdog said:
    🤐

    And that's the problem. Nobody wants to talk about PSAs grading of late.
    If you think being critical of PSA will affect the grades you receive, then you are saying that PSA is not objective.

    If you think grading has not changed over the years, compare these Schmidt rookies.
    A recently graded PSA4 vs an early PSA6 (and before the Captain Obvious responses of, "you can't grade from a pic", and "but the surface"...yes, I'm quite aware).
    In this example, you don't even need a loupe to see the surface wrinkles and scuffs on the PSA6.


    If they are using Artificial Intelligence to grade cards to catch microscopic surface wrinkles and using various light spectrum ranges to catch things that can't even be seen with the naked eye, they are being overly critical.
    PSA Grading Standards has well defined parameters for each grade. They just need to be followed.
    Makes no sense to grade based on something as subjective as "eye appeal," and at the same time grade based on flaws that can't even be seen with the naked eye.

    You have no idea what I was going to say. I don't submit cards at all nor do I believe that a 74+ year old card doesn't have soft corners.

    I got out of the grading game awhile ago, I buy the card not the grade.

    LOL. You're right, I don't know what you're saying when all you post is a zipper mouth emoji.
    Can be interpreted in several ways. Doesn't exactly add to the conversation.
    Thank you now for at least commenting.

    Oh and BTW, I was using "you" in the general sense, not you specifically.

    Fair point but you chose to quote my zipper mouth emoji and make assumptions that I thought was directed at me.

    It's all good, If you noticed, I edited my post because I didn't want to over step my boundaries and offend anyone who collects high grade leafs.

    I did notice you edited your post, but don't know what you had said. I was offended by your zipper mouth emoji. LOL
    Unless you said something like "People that collect high grade leafs are morons", I don't understand the offense. What "boundaries?" If you have an opinion on grades or grading, just say it. I'm sick and tired of having to walk on eggshells around people getting offended by a differing of opinion.
    If I had just bought that PSA8 Jackie, and you or anyone said, no way that's an 8, I wouldn't get offended. I would agree, or ask you why you think that, or not care what you think because I like it.
    If I had taken it personally and got offended, that would be my problem, not the person giving their opinion.

    LOL you clearly don't know me at all, I'm the last person that worries about what people think of me or my opinions, put it this way the way society is today I'm the complete opposite.

    All that being said, I probably should have just let my post fly but didn't want to get banned, nothing I edited was anything directed at PSA as a company but someone could take it the wrong way, that's why I edited.

    I respect everyone's collecting goals and am happy to see the hobby thrive, PSA is the benchmark for slabs in my opinion and I only buy PSA graded cards, I got frustrated with subbing cards long ago and buy them already stabbed so I don't concern myself with how they are grading cards because if I see a slab I like I will buy it, if not I wait it out.

    Hope that clears up your issues with my zippered emoji

  • Take 2. :*

  • BBBrkrrBBBrkrr Posts: 947 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I"ll go by what I've gotten on 78s for the past year or so and say '7' on both.

    That's some nice centering. Usually I'll get front or back with correct centering but hardly ever both.

    Always loved that WR card.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 795 ✭✭✭✭

    Pics are not hi-res, but I'll say 7, maybe 6 on the Sutton, because of top bottom centering.
    Randolph should probably be an 8.

  • 76collector76collector Posts: 986 ✭✭✭✭✭

    WR - 8
    DS - 7

    Like mentioned above we would need a more detailed picture to really give an a good assessment. The WR looks like a nice enough card that if the corners are sharp and the front clean it could be a 9.

    I cannot hit curveball. Straightball I hit it very much. Curveball, bats are afraid.
    Collecting:
    post world war II HOF rookie
    76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars
    Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals)
    successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
  • GreenSneakersGreenSneakers Posts: 908 ✭✭✭✭

    They should both be 7s but if they were you wouldn’t have posted so I’ll go 8 and 6.

  • OK.... both cards are centered on the back at 55/45.

  • BTW - These are all my cards, so I am admittedly biased (subconsciously. at least).

  • bombdropperbombdropper Posts: 28
    edited August 16, 2023 8:45AM

    @76collector said:
    WR - 8
    DS - 7

    Like mentioned above we would need a more detailed picture to really give an a good assessment. The WR looks like a nice enough card that if the corners are sharp and the front clean it could be a 9.

    Corners are razor sharp and card looks flawless to the naked eye and under 10x loupe. No computer-based evaluation used, however. Again, please keep in mind, production capability in 1978 cannot be reasonably expected to compare to 2023. If it were, 0 cards from any era pre-2019 or so could likely grade mint. GEM MINT? LOL No chance.

  • this is such a stupid thread but I will make one comment. The PSA 6 schmidt was from the very first days of grading when they were trying to establish standards. that card would not get a 6 today and there is no one that will argue.

    arguing that the last 2 years are completely different than the prior 15 or so is a challenge. I have seen harsh and easy grades , within reason, at every point in that time window. it is probably skewed more to the harsh side currently but there were times in the past 20 years that the same thing happened. only differences were there were less cards graded , the harsh grades were cracked out as it was cheap and didn't take a lot of time to take another shot and there were not facebook and content creators shooting there mouths off to stir the pot to try to profit on clicks

  • Stupid? That's a little harsh, friend. Don't read it then. It's really that easy.

  • bombdropperbombdropper Posts: 28
    edited August 17, 2023 5:40AM

    The 78 Randolph graded a PSA 4 and the Sutton a PSA 7. I expected 9s on both, no less than 8. I submitted 5 Randolphs and 5 Suttons all of the same quality (along with others). None garnered higher than 8.I have been submitting for over 20 years with PSA and this is simply dumbfounding to me. I am not "shooting my mouth off" or trying to "stir the pot" here. Just using a discussion forum for discussion, duh. Beachbumb has me all wrong. I disagree in that I believe this has not been a common occurrence through the years, at least not in my experience of over 100 multi-card subs.

    Edited to add for Beachbum: Don't you think a card grading company should solidify their grading standards prior to charging for and accepting money for card grading services? That particular statement is ridiculous.

  • Mickey71Mickey71 Posts: 4,231 ✭✭✭✭

    That Jackie looks like a 5

  • BBBrkrrBBBrkrr Posts: 947 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bombdropper said:
    The 78 Randolph graded a PSA 4 and the Sutton a PSA 7. I expected 9s on both, no less than 8. I submitted 5 Randolphs and 5 Suttons all of the same quality (along with others). None garnered higher than 8.I have been submitting for over 20 years with PSA and this is simply dumbfounding to me. I am not "shooting my mouth off" or trying to "stir the pot" here. Just using a discussion forum for discussion, duh. Beachbumb has me all wrong. I disagree in that I believe this has not been a common occurrence through the years, at least not in my experience of over 100 multi-card subs.

    Edited to add for Beachbum: Don't you think a card grading company should solidify their grading standards prior to charging for and accepting money for card grading services? That particular statement is ridiculous.

    From my experience over the last 12 months subbing a lot of vintage (and especially 78s) your expectation has to top out at an 8, and you're more likely to see 6/7. I'm VERY surprised when I get a 9 back. That's just the vintage game these days.

    I currently base all my submission decisions on what the card will be worth as a 6/7 and go from there. Anything above that is gravy.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 795 ✭✭✭✭

    @bombdropper said:
    The 78 Randolph graded a PSA 4 and the Sutton a PSA 7. I expected 9s on both, no less than 8.

    With all your experience, you couldn't really have expected a 9 on both.
    The centering alone on the Sutton should preclude it from a 9.

  • @bombdropper said:
    The 78 Randolph graded a PSA 4 and the Sutton a PSA 7. I expected 9s on both, no less than 8. I submitted 5 Randolphs and 5 Suttons all of the same quality (along with others). None garnered higher than 8.I have been submitting for over 20 years with PSA and this is simply dumbfounding to me. I am not "shooting my mouth off" or trying to "stir the pot" here. Just using a discussion forum for discussion, duh. Beachbumb has me all wrong. I disagree in that I believe this has not been a common occurrence through the years, at least not in my experience of over 100 multi-card subs.

    Edited to add for Beachbum: Don't you think a card grading company should solidify their grading standards prior to charging for and accepting money for card grading services? That particular statement is ridiculous.

    sure they should have solidified their grading standards but it was 1990 whatever. everything was new. Microsoft should have provided us with a 'Microsoft Office" package that didn't have any bugs. It didn't happen. They have been charging us for upgrades for 3 decades. Ridiculous!

    Your 4 probably has spider wrinkles like a crapload of 78 Topps . you missed them , grading standards didn't change.

    I have submitted over 15K cards for grading over 20 years. There were times that standards were tight and others that were loose over that entire period. Subbing for 9's is not easy on cardboard stock. Even back when you think standards were loose never mind expecting them today. It has always been difficult which is what has made the higher grades valuable

  • @Mickey71 said:
    That Jackie looks like a 5

    please elaborate? thanks

Sign In or Register to comment.