"Pack fresh"

Mantlefan

I've been told so many times that cards straight out of the pack aren't necesarily mint due to centering, print defects, etc., but this is ridiculous! I carefully opened 6 packs of 1986-87 Fleer Basketball and sent in 39 centered "pack fresh" cards for the special. I got my grades in a week which is great, but the results are awful. 23 "8"s [including the Jordan], and 16 "7"s. Not one "9"! Who do you have to kill to get a "9"? Makes you wonder if it pays to open wax stuff anymore.

brucemo

The 7's at least should have noticeable corner wear.

bruce

Vargha

Maybe your centering standards are off. Post a scan of some of the 7's so we can get a good look at them and make comments. Print defects will also knock the grade of cards down as well.

Mantlefan

Here's the Jordan [which got an "8".1986/7 Jordan

Mantlefan

Thanks David, but the only card I scanned before submitting was the Jordan. I'll post some scans of the "7"s when I get the actual cards back from PSA.

Vargha

The rough cut edges and the white showing at the top border justify no more than that.

Mantlefan

Thanks David, I was thinking of re-submitting. Technically you're right, but if I get a chance I'll post a scan of my 1958 Topps PSA 9 Mantle All-star. I got it from Superior and it has similar rough cut and corners. Maybe if Superior submitted this Jordan it would get a 9.......nah, that could never happen.

Vargha

You are comparing the proverbial "apples and oranges". As a 1951 Bowman set collector, I have some rough cut PSA 8's and maybe even a rough cut PSA 9 or two. That was standard for that issue and some of the Topps cards through the early 60's as well. It isn't for the Fleer issue that you submitted and thus the downgrade. There was a PSA 10 rough cut card from the 1949 Bowman set (probably the most notorious set for rough cut cards) that sold on eBay last year.

Mantlefan

No disrespect, but shouldn't grading standards be standard? If a rough cut downgrades a 1986 card, it should do the same for a 1950 card. By that reasoning, a set known for being uniformly off-center eg. 1961 Fleer basketball, should have more lenient centering criteria than other sets.

theBobs

<< <i>No disrespect, but shouldn't grading standards be standard? >>


There have been several threads over the last several months around some of these issues. I am not good finding older threads, but maybe BKAH or someone that is talented in this aspect could post some links.

I personally enjoy the conversations, but it might be helpful to see previous threads also.

aro13

The best that Jordan looks like is an 8. That is quite unfortunate considering it just came out of a pack. The card has too much white showing, but it is pretty shocking that you sent in 39 cards from wax and not one came back a nine. I would like to see scans of other cards when you get them back.

Kurt

Maybe I am nuts is my disclaimer here.

In my experiences rough cuts are allowed for the most part if not terribly significant on both vintage and modern cards. I have received 10's on modern cards with rough cuts. In many cases a card with a cut like that whether a 1951 or 1991 can grab a 9 in my opinion. I suspect the card is an 8 because of the corners. The top right corner on that Jordan looks to have that "extending hair" I am not sure the technical term, but a piece of fuzz growing straight out of the corner. I personally have never seen a card do better than an 8 with that "hair".

Also please scan the back. I personally, as I submit more modern than vintage, think of a card as having 8 "corners" whether that makes sense or not. 4 on the front and 4 on the back.

**spelling error **

Vargha

That has been argued and probably continues to be argued. However, in this day and age of precision laser-cutting techniques, there is no excuse for such a rough cut. While one may credibly argue that earlier cards should be downgraded as well, there is no credible argument for not downgrading modern cards that exhibit such edges.

Kurt

Fair enough for today's laser cards.....1999 Bowman Chrome and such where the card is more plastic then cardboard. However in 1986/87 they were still not laser cut yet.

gemint

It may just be the scan but the upper right corner looks like it has a light touch. The right border also looks like it may have a few chips from the cutting process. I don't grade many new cards so I'm not sure how strict they are with rough cuts. This one may not have been downgraded for that.

Regarding the 7's, look for print defects. Did you request "no qualifiers" on your submission form?

Mantlefan

Hi Gemint. No I didn't request NQ. Coincidentally, tonight I was reading Joe Orlando's wonderful book..."Top 200 Sportscards", and on page 228 Joe states "..roughcuts do not technically downgrade a card.."

gemint

How sharp were the packs? Did the corners have any wear? If you're not sure and still have the wrapper(s), take a look and see if there's any wear showing where the corners contacted the wax. I've seen some pretty ugly corners on packs. Even a blunt blow to a corner and ding the corner without causing significant wear to the card.

brucemo

The Jordan has marginal t/b centering.

I'm also worried about the top right. If you have any 9's, take a look at them. The ones I've looked at the red paper on the corner comes to a point. If it doesn't, you're dead, and if there is any chipping very near there, you seem to also be dead.

Sometimes you'll see white on a corner, but it had better be white from the edge of the card rather than the front, if that makes any sense.



That's 7-10 from left to right, at 300 dpi. I had to fiddle around to find cards that showed a progression. The 7 is that bad all around, I was insane when I sent it in, and/or I wanted to see what PSA would do with it. That's the worst corner on the 8, but the card is also marginally centered. The 9 has some significant chipping in the border, which might make you yell "overgrade" if G&T had got it on a Jordan or something.

(the 9's edge)

The 7 and the 10 both show "white" along the edge, but that's shine from the scanner, because the cut rounded the edge back. I probably sent in all of these cards myself. The 10 came from a complete set, and I don't think it was messed with. The white spot on the 8 is part of the picture.

bruce

tuneman

I agree with other on this board-I see two bad corners on this Jordan 8-The rough cut does not bother me as I have a PSA 9 MJ that is very similiar. The two corners do worry me and thats the death blow-no more than an 8-Personally i wouldnt have expected more.

Just curious. Where did you get "SIX" packs and how much per pack?? Nice getting an MJ out of 6 only 6 packs-could have been much worse.-I would have gotten a Stiponovich as my best card and the grade would have been a 8 PD if i had opened the stuff with my luck.

I was shocked to find that PSA 6 NQ MJ rcs were going for $295.00 at the National. The PSA 8 looks to be a dying card these days-Packs just cant support a $250.00 price tag any more, but dealers are just lagging on accepting this now.. Thats the main reason im buying 70-71. 72 and 80-81 wax ( id love to buy the 73 stuff but i dont have the $75K they were asking for a 3rd series box at the National )


tuneman

Mantlefan

Bruce: Thanks for the super post. I thought I knew grading, but with those hi-resolution side-by-side scans, you have it down to a science! You should consider doing a book with in-depth studies of each year's grading peculiarities.

Tuneman: I bought the packs individually on EBAY from reputable sellers.
The "Jordan" pack was $131. Did you mean a PSA 6 Jordan was going for $295 or a PSA 8?

As far as pack prices go, you're right. No one is going to spend $250 a pack, since the chance of finding that Jordan PSA 10 are so miniscule.

tuneman

I mean a PSA 6 is at $295.00 so an 8 just cannot justify the old $800-$1200 any more. NOT EVEN CLOSE ON THE LOW END

If a 6 is about 3 bills an 8 should be 5 and change.

By the way-its not about the odds of pulling a gem mint MJ-they have never been good-people always buy that as a gamble especially when some idiot paid $70K on SAH from a PSA 10 and the card sold regularly at 30K a few years back ( If people could think stocks with PE's of infinity were bargins a few years back then at the same time i guess i can see how a MJ PSA 10- not a rare card-could go for 30K-Its the same drug )

if an 8 -is under $700 ( Has to be if a 6 is now $295.00)
then $250 a pack is no longer a valid price. If the card has dropped in the PSA 8 grade-which you would expect and hope to get from an unopened pack, down by 25%-33% from the old price, then the packs must go down from $300 way past $250 to $200.00 per

I think thats $7200 a box with No discount on packs. You pulls three MJ rcs and 3 stickers and get ALL PSA 8's and you just got less than $2500.00 back. If you get 9's you make your money back-but i have not heard of an 86 fleer box yielding three PSA 9s in a long long time

If you dont count every ebay item description for unopened wax boxes that is..........................

tuneman

NickM

tuneman - $2500 is for the Jordans. Now add in how much you can sell the Thomases, Drexlers, Ewings, K. Malones, Olajuwons, Barkleys, Birds, Magic Johnsons, and Abdul-Jabbars for. Then there are the lesser stars, and the possibility of PSA 9s and maybe even 10s. It's not as bad a bet as the Jordan numbers would sound.

Nick