Pros and Cons of the Dreaded OC Qualifier
reelinintheyears
Posts: 241 ✭✭✭
Qualifiers are considered the kiss of death by many collectors of PSA graded cards. I'd like to hear opinions pro and con regarding the merits of one qualifier in particular, the dreaded off center (OC) qualifier. Below is a '76 OPC Seaver PSA 9OC that is currently listed on eBay. '70s OPC HOF'ers in mint condition are quite rare. This card is in mint condition but is also considerably off center; it would likely earn a 5 if graded without qualifiers. However, being graded 9OC tells a prospective online buyer so much more about the condition of the card than if it were graded 5. For example, a 5 could potentially have one or more significant flaws in addition to being off center which may not be detectable by viewing a scan/photo on a computer screen (especially given the poor quality scans/photos many sellers post), whereas it's pretty clear without the need to even see the card that the only flaw of a 9OC is that it's off center. Based upon PSA's website, graders may assign the OC qualifier at their discretion but my sense is that they rarely do anymore as qualifiers are considered passe to most collectors these days. I prefer the former approach of allowing the customer to elect whether or not to have their cards graded with or without qualifiers rather than leaving it up to the discretion of the graders. Your thoughts?
Comments
Everything you've said is correct. I actually think o/c is a bigger kiss of death today, as centering has taken on more importance than years past.
I had a '60 Topps McCovey RC that was virtually perfect except the centering. I had it graded over 25 years ago and it had come back a 9o/c. Weeks later, PSA contacted members about an offer to remove the o/c. I went ahead and did it. The card came back a 7. I was pissed. I had figured an 8 was coming. Yes it was o/c, but it was o/c left/right 70/30, but it was a horizontal card so the o/c didn't look that unpleasing. I realized I had made a mistake getting the o/c removed because that card was way better than some 'ordinary' 7 with all their other flaws.
Weeks later I went to a card shop and saw a '58 Topps Eddie Matthews PSA 8 that had to be o/c 80/20 left/right, and it was a vertical card, so not very appealing. I got mad all over again about my McCovey and PSA giving it a 7.
I'm in the minority of folks that actually like qualifiers. If a card is OC, then you know it, I know it, the grader knows it. The American People know it. So let's just acknowledge it and then grade the card on its other merits. I have plenty of self submitted 8OC and 9OCs in my collection that I ripped as a kid. It was OC when I opened it ("pack fresh" if they were for sale). The 8 and 9 grade represents the care and attention the card received by being in my collection from Day 1. If it was instead a 5, it's not distinguished from the card once had a rubber band around it.
If the Seaver was a straight 9, I'd happily pay ~$500 for it. As a 9 (OC), I don't really want the card and prob would not pay $100 for it. I've grown to really appreciate a nicely centered card.
9(OC) equates to a 7, not a 5.
I agree that off centered cards should be labeled as such.
Seaver card deserves the OC, but eye appeal isn't horrible.
I look at each card individually and decide for myself.
I have never bought a card with a qualifier and never will.
My 2 cents, but I never understood the need for qualifiers. Each grade description has a list of "qualifiers" on why it received a particular grade. For example, if the Seaver card was in a 7 holder, I could read that centering was a factor ("Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25...etc").
A 9 OC says to me "hey, this card could of been a 9 if it wasn't for the darn centering". Not sure I want that in my collection. Things like centering and stains are usually obvious to the naked eye.
I don't mind the OC designation but i hate it when a seller omits it in the listing and then attempts to sell the card as a PSA 9 instead of a PSA 9 OC.
When I collected Nolan Ryan cards I never liked OC cards raw or graded. Unfortunately for the 1976 OPC baseball cards, most look like this. My Nolan Ryan was slightly better centered, but it had a similar tilt. It was one of my least favorite cards.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
Mostly, this is how I am too, though I do have several in my collection. I'd rather the card just be graded with a number only though and let the grades fall where they may.
Practically, I've noted that many 9OC's have other minor defects that equate them to a 7. The largest is the centering issue though. Best to avoid IMO.
If grading companies had a care in the world about their customers, they would give out subgrades. In the case of this Seaver, it would be Edges 9, Surface 9, Corners 9, Centering 7, Final Grade 7. Which is much different than another card that has Edges 7, Surface 7, Corners 7, Centering 7, Final Grade 7.
9(OC) equates to a 7 in the registry. Depending on the actual centering the card may get a different grade NQ.
Any thoughts on PSA's elimination of the option customers used to have for their cards to be graded with or without certain qualifiers, in particular the OC qualifier which for many years was the most commonly assigned qualifier?
Some OC cards are nicer than others. I bought this 9 OC Steve Carlton many years ago. I could not afford a straight 9 but have always enjoyed this one:
No one says "This is a 9 except for the corners, so we'll grade this a PSA 9(CR)." Or "This is a 9 except for the edges, so it's a PSA 9(ED)." So why do they do it with centering, stains, etc.?
Just bake it all into one grade. No qualifiers.
You know the cliche "by the card not the holder"? Well this is a perfect way to truly test that.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
this is the exact case why the OC qualifier can be valuable. wtihout the qualifier this Carlton would be a 6. The 9 OC is going to sell for much more than a 6
Question: What if you re-grade (with no qualifiers) a card that's a PSA 2? Like a PSA 2(MK). Would that just drop to a PSA 1?
I believe MK and MC are still automatic qualifiers
I wouldn't hesitate to have an OC in my collection. I'd love a perfectly centered card but would much prefer a Mantle rookie with an OC than not being able to afford one at all (assuming I could afford the OC to begin with). You get the idea.
If you're the one paying to get it graded, and they state on the website it is a possibility, why not allow the option to all?
Do you have to have an elite status to get this option or how does it work? Mods...or anyone else...when is this still being applied, if at all?
I thought they weren't doing any qualifiers anymore except when there were exceptional circumstances.
From PSA's website:
"In addition to a numerical grade, some PSA graded cards also carry a Qualifier to identify specific characteristics of the card.
Following is a description of the six PSA qualifiers, 2 of which are required, and 4 that are optional."
MK and MC are required to be assigned by the grader and OC, PD, OF and ST are optional for the grader depending upon the circumstances. As I understand it, in the case of centering the logic is that a card that would be assigned a 9 with the exception of centering that is off center enough to warrant a 4, 5 or 6 could be assigned a 9OC, but if the centering is good enough for a 7 or 8 those grades could be assigned since it would be a lesser downgrade due to poor centering compared to a 4, 5 or 6. My understanding is that customers no longer have any say with respect to the assignment of qualifiers.