@UFFDAH said:
Absolutely love the Yount!! Grew up with the Brew Crew. If you want to sell it PM me.
I did a registry set a few years back and had the #1 All time. I got pissed when several PSA 10's hit ebay that clearly looked sheet cut from a certain Canadian seller that is known for that and sold everything off.
After hitting these cards, I got the itch to start another. I will be trying to out do my other set which at 1 point had over 100 PSA 10's.
Unreal the Garvey got a 10. I wouldn't even have considered sending that one in myself.
There are some beauties in this lot, but I for one don't want to see stray ink spots in the white borders on cards in a PSA 10 holder...like the top edge of the PSA 10 Yount, the right border of the PSA 10 Garvey (almost seems like that is a stray piece of material caught when the card was encapsulated, as it is much too big to be in a PSA 10 holder?) and the left border of the PSA 10 Schmidt...I would want to see PSA 9 as the highest possible grade on cards like those, but it's always a crap shoot, especially with the older cards and even more so with the OPCs
There are some beauties in this lot, but I for one don't want to see stray ink spots in the white borders on cards in a PSA 10 holder...like the top edge of the PSA 10 Yount, the right border of the PSA 10 Garvey (almost seems like that is a stray piece of material caught when the card was encapsulated, as it is much too big to be in a PSA 10 holder?) and the left border of the PSA 10 Schmidt...I would want to see PSA 9 as the highest possible grade on cards like those, but it's always a crap shoot, especially with the older cards and even more so with the OPCs
This goes to knowing the 1977 O-pee-Chee cards.....
Every Schmidt card has the print dot on the left edge
Every Fidrych has the red spot on bottom edge
There are many cards in this set that have spots/marks that are on every card produced.
The Yount and Garvey are scans that came from PSA. those spots are not on the cards. I noticed the right edge on the Garvey as well and couldn't wait to check it out. First thing I looked for the package came back and it's not on the card.
The other thing I think it’s important to remember is a PSA10 shouldn’t be indicative of a ‘perfect’ card. It should be more reflective of how good an example of the card can be. As @tsalems1 mentions, where in some cases a ‘blemish’ is simply how all examples of a card are. The same goes for rough cuts - which, by and large, are simply part & parcel of OPC issues.
I think this is PSA’s biggest failing. Once upon a time, graders knew each issue well enough to account for what was endemic to the issue vs what was a problem with the particular card. Somewhere along the way, PSA stopped caring and clearly started grading vintage as if they should have been printed with modern technology - laser-cut edges & corners. . .perfect registration. . .no stray print dots or blemishes of any kind, etc.
And somewhere along the way, many/most collectors/buyers just accepted this - despite it being completely detached from PSA’s published criteria.
In my mind, this is what makes this box so remarkable.
Comments
I did a registry set a few years back and had the #1 All time. I got pissed when several PSA 10's hit ebay that clearly looked sheet cut from a certain Canadian seller that is known for that and sold everything off.
After hitting these cards, I got the itch to start another. I will be trying to out do my other set which at 1 point had over 100 PSA 10's.
Also, just for the record, in my eyes, the PSA 9 card I got on Yount is better than the 10. I likely will try that card again
Unreal the Garvey got a 10. I wouldn't even have considered sending that one in myself.
Love and want the Bird!
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
There are some beauties in this lot, but I for one don't want to see stray ink spots in the white borders on cards in a PSA 10 holder...like the top edge of the PSA 10 Yount, the right border of the PSA 10 Garvey (almost seems like that is a stray piece of material caught when the card was encapsulated, as it is much too big to be in a PSA 10 holder?) and the left border of the PSA 10 Schmidt...I would want to see PSA 9 as the highest possible grade on cards like those, but it's always a crap shoot, especially with the older cards and even more so with the OPCs
This goes to knowing the 1977 O-pee-Chee cards.....
Every Schmidt card has the print dot on the left edge
Every Fidrych has the red spot on bottom edge
There are many cards in this set that have spots/marks that are on every card produced.
The Yount and Garvey are scans that came from PSA. those spots are not on the cards. I noticed the right edge on the Garvey as well and couldn't wait to check it out. First thing I looked for the package came back and it's not on the card.
The other thing I think it’s important to remember is a PSA10 shouldn’t be indicative of a ‘perfect’ card. It should be more reflective of how good an example of the card can be. As @tsalems1 mentions, where in some cases a ‘blemish’ is simply how all examples of a card are. The same goes for rough cuts - which, by and large, are simply part & parcel of OPC issues.
I think this is PSA’s biggest failing. Once upon a time, graders knew each issue well enough to account for what was endemic to the issue vs what was a problem with the particular card. Somewhere along the way, PSA stopped caring and clearly started grading vintage as if they should have been printed with modern technology - laser-cut edges & corners. . .perfect registration. . .no stray print dots or blemishes of any kind, etc.
And somewhere along the way, many/most collectors/buyers just accepted this - despite it being completely detached from PSA’s published criteria.
In my mind, this is what makes this box so remarkable.
nice post mcnasty.
You can call me Filthy.