GAI Unopened Pack Grading Question

mcastaldi

I know GAI is grading unopened packs. Does anyone know if they have released the grading criteria? i.e. what specifically constitutes a 9 or an 8, etc. I looked at Global's site and couldn't find it for anything other than cards.

The reason I ask is. . .eBay# 1863572035

All of these packs "graded a 9", but look at the pack in the top right with Lockwood showing. I've also posted a pic here.

Now, the pack with the Lockwood shows an obvious gouge on the card. Because of that, I'm left to wonder how in the world this pack could have been graded a "Mint 9". If a big friggin gouge in the top card doesn't drop the pack from a 9 what will, exactly? He calls it a "factory nick", but it sure looks more like a fingernail to me. From his item description, it sounds like they only care about how tightly the pack is wrapped, corner damage (presumably of the wrapper only), and the seal of the wrapper.

Mike

rbeaton

It looks like they graded as if they couldn't see through the cello (as they would on a wax pack). I guess I have mixed feelings about this.

I am considering sending in some of my 70's packs to be graded (more so to keep them protected than anything else). Anyone here ever send in any packs??

Robert

mcastaldi

Robert> I too thought they graded as though they couldn't see through the pack. However, I also thought about the role of the wrapper/packaging. In my mind, the job of the wrapper is to provide sufficient and reasonable protection for the cards it contains. In my mind, the pack in question did not do that. Either because of the wrapper itself or because an outside influence abused it.

I think it comes down to whether it is indeed a "factory nick" or if the damage to the top card was inflicted after leaving topps. After looking through more than a few thousand 1975T, I've only seen a few cards (much less than 1%) with this "factory nick" and in nearly every case, the card was from a rack pack (or cello) where someone tried to move the top card to the side and see what was under it.

Another issue with encapsulating packs, is what is the language of the authentication statement. I think the two options are "this is an authentic pack" or "this pack does not show evidence of tampering". These may sound similar, but I feel are very different in meaning.

Mike

RedHeart54

Do you think GAI will get into the rack pack/wax tray grading biz soon?

rbeaton

<< <i>Do you think GAI will get into the rack pack/wax tray grading biz soon? >>

I believe I read somewhere that they already grade rack packs.

Robert

nnpopp

I agree 100% with you Mike; to me, a factory nick such as the one on the Lockwood is de facto evidence of tampering, and if I were grading packs, would be a reason for rejection. Whether it is or not, such a nick could be evidence that someone tried to move the top card to see underneath.

And I know that Mark Murphy doesn't need my business advice, but I find it interesting that he sells both graded and ungraded packs (for example, see these raw 1972-73 basketball packs 1972-73s, which he sells alongside graded 1972-73 packs). I suppose he's trying to test the graded pack market, but one could conclude that his ungraded packs simply didn't make the cut (i.e., didn't conclusively not show evidence of tampering . . . how's that for a double negative?).

But in the interest of full disclosure, I've bought from Mark Murphy before, and I will again (I may even bid on some of the graded packs currently for sale on eBay). Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite . . . but when you've got a vintage graded pack jones, you've got to do whatever you can to satisfy it. He and the Baseball Card Exchange are two of my favorite dealers out there right now for unopened product.

mcastaldi

nnpopp> I won't go so far as to say that the Lockwood pack has been tampered with. I think it's just been inspected more aggressively than I would prefer. I'm also confident that this was done prior Mark's ownership of the pack. I'm just at a loss as to how such an obvious problem could not affect the grade of the pack.

At National there was a dealer from California who had roughly 10-15 75T rack packs. Most of these had stars on the top or bottom and were priced accordingly. However, nearly all of the stars had these "marks of inspection". Considering that his pricing was based on having stars on top, to have those star cards damaged totally undermined his pricing. If the intent of grading unopened packs is to make them more liquid (in the same way graded cards are liquid), flaws such as this absolutely must be reflected in the grading.

Like you, I wouldn't hesitate to buy packs from Mark. Even with his obvious conflict of interest with GAI, his reputation has been one of a very honest dealer.

Mike

rbeaton

<< <i>to me, a factory nick such as the one on the Lockwood is de facto evidence of tampering >>



I disagree. I have seen a lot of this type of nick (although always on rack packs) and have been under the impression that this was caused by the factory machines loading the cards.

On a related topic, suppose you bought one of the GAI graded/authenticated packs. Then, sometime down the road you open it and it turns out to be a fake. What would you do? If you complained to GAI, all you would have as evidence is a broken open holder and a fake pack. Not sure how you could prove anything...

Robert

nnpopp

Mike, I think we are in agreement. The Lockwood pack has been "tampered with" (or "handled") for purposes of grading. I ascribe no responsibility to Mark for the notching on the Lockwood, but I think that it should be graded accordingly. Perhaps the pack came from Topps in that condition in April 1975; but short of building a time machine, we will never know, and therefore I think that the pack is not mint.

The grading of unopened packs is a difficult concept. If a pack has severe water damage, but the seal is intact and does not show evidence of tampering, is the pack mint? Arguably, yes. Are the cards inside mint? Certainly not. But pack grading is, essentially, the grading of the likelihood of tampering, and so a water-damaged pack theoretically could grade mint.

How about 1 cent packs that clearly show the card contained within? Is pressing down on the wrapper to see the name of the player "tampering"?

Lots of questions, few answers . . . but I agree that if anyone can make pack grading a success, it is Mark Murphy and other similar dealers with good reputations.

-Noah

mcastaldi

popp> "The grading of unopened packs is a difficult concept. If a pack has severe water damage, but the seal is intact and does not show evidence of tampering, is the pack mint? Arguably, yes."

This is exactly what I mean when I ask "what is the criteria for each given grade?"
With cards, I know a card must be centered no worse than 60/40 for a 9. . .must be no worse than 70/30 for an 8. . .etc.

I couldn't find this info on gapack.net or on gacard.net

Mike

69topps8

I agree with rbeaton. That looks like a nick from the factory indexing machines.

aro13

I think if you look up past threads there were some posts on how they will grade. I do remember the grades being partially based on whether the cards came from a sealed box, a sealed case etc..

BobS

Aro-

You are correct. The grade has NOTHING to do with the condition of the pack, the cards within, or the seal. The grade is only representative of the "origin" of the pack. I believe, and I may be wrong, that a 9 is given to packs from a sealed box, and a 10 for a pack from a sealed case. The incentive being that if you only submit a box to Mark, the highest grade you will get is a 9, where as if you give him a whole case, you will get 10's.

By the way - Mike, what do you think of the new Hip album? I've caught two shows within the last month, amazing. That makes 14 total. I met the band and "hung out" with Gordie for about a half hour following one of the Cleveland shows. He is truly a gifted poet.

mcastaldi

BobS> Then I wonder what would cause a pack to receive an 8 that I've seen on some packs.

As for the Hip, maybe better to discuss in e-mail

Mike

zardoz51

if you give him a whole case, you will get 10's.

ah, so the more you spend, you'll get higher grades...yeah, sounds ethical to me

69topps8

I believe the grading is determine as follows:

10 Must come from a factory sealed case or box (for newer product) to have a chance of receiving a 10
9 and below - depends on the condition of the pack and seal. The grade is not based on the condition or centering of the cards, only the condition of the wax, cello, corners and seal. A "Gem" pack that did not come directly from a sealed box or case would receive a 9 as the highest possible grade.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

mrc32

People that buy wax packs, should just open them. Who wants to save that stuff-- and lock it away in graded plastic? Yuck- not for me.

Its fun to open packs. I just bought a couple of 79 T, 10 85 Fleer and and 84 Topps rack. As soon as they arrive, I'm ripping them all open- maybe I'll send in any good cards in hopes of getting lucky.

But then again, I didn't pay more than 22 bucks for all of it....

onegaucho

i agree with mrc32.
open the packs. i just bought a 59t rack pack with a mantle #461, colavito #462, and a sievers #465 on the front. if not for the condition of the cards, i wouldve opened it. i ended up just returning the pack.


still working on a 1950 bowman baseball set EX/PSA 5

theBobs

Was it a holiday rack pack?

gemint

<< <i>Was it a holiday rack pack? >>



Almost certainly. The cards in those packs are usually EX-MT to NM at the very best. And a factory rack from '59 with a Mantle showing would probably go for $10k.

AlanAllen

I submitted 8 packs for GAI authentication (I don't care at all about the grade they are given). They range from the mid-50's to the mid-80's, and they come from various sources: 2 from Murphy, 3 from other reputable dealers, and 3 from no-name dealers at shows. They are due back any day, and I'll post my thoughts here if people care .

And hey, some of us LIKE unopened stuff! But please, keep busting those packs, it makes mine more valuable every time you break one of those seals .

Joe

NickM

I've seen that sort of split on the side frequently on unopened Topps rack packs from the early '80s, including many that I can guarantee had never been searched, because I saw the case opened that they came from.
Even though it's not a clear indicator of tampering, there's no way that a pack where a card has that sort of damage (even though likely before the card was packed) should get a 9. Will GAI also give packs a 9if the top card is miscut?

Nick

HockeyCardGuru

AlanAllen...Do you mind if I ask what the results of your unopened submission to GAI were? Does anyone else have any feedback on this over the past couple weeks? Does GAI have any onsite grading for packs or is it just for singles? Any feedback would be most appreciated...Thanks...Michael

AlanAllen

Michael,
Happy to oblige . I posted the results here.

I talked to Murphy after posting that. GAI has not posted grading criteria yet, but they will within the next couple of months. He also suggested submitting packs in 6x9 toploaders. I submitted mine just in team set bags, and apparently they were damaged in shipment just enough to knock my 9's to 8's and 8's to 7's. Live and learn.

Joe

mcastaldi

AlanAllen> "I talked to Murphy after posting that. GAI has not posted grading criteria yet, but they will within the next couple of months."

MONTHS!?!?!? MONTHS??????

Am I alone in thinking this should have been posted BEFORE accepting items for submission?
In my book, rule number one in grading and authentication is that the criteria for each grade should not be a mystery.

This is downright silly. Good thing I don't have any unopened packs I'd like authenticated.

Mike

AlanAllen

I couldn't agree more, Mike. For me, the main purpose is the authenication, not the grading (like PSA used to be ). But for obvious reasons, I'd rather have a high grade than a low grade.

Joe

mcastaldi

Joe> Even for just authentication, I think it should cover the high points of what constitutes an authentic pack.

Mike

theBobs

<< <i>This is downright silly. >>

Agreed.