Can this possibly meet PSA standards for a PSA 10???

vgfc · April 13, 2003 12:39AM

I am going out on a limb here to say this card can't possibly meet the requirements for a PSA 10. The centering both ways is terrible! These types of over grades really hurts PSA credibility in my opinion. If this were a case of "buy the card and not the holder" I would pay very little for this card. This should have been an 8 or a 9oc at best.

Thoughts?

1976 Topps Terry Bradshaw PSA 10

thefootballcardstore · April 13, 2003 12:45AM

Thoughts, you bet - saw this one this morning too. Wow, that gap at the right is so large I could write "PSA 8 OC" in the right margin.

What do you think the grader was thinking?
Maybe they ran out of NMMT OC labels and just grabbed the first label they saw.

I still think PSA is #1, but this one should go back to PSA . . .pronto!

Jeremy

pc · April 13, 2003 12:47AM

"go back to psa"...
why?
they wont buy it back.
they'll still claim it's PERFECT

JeffVN · April 13, 2003 12:47AM

No question, this is NOT a GEM MINT card. Joe should fire the butt of the person that gave that 8OC a PSA 10. Too much of this stuff hurts the true GEM MINT cards that are out there.

Browntoni · April 13, 2003 12:48AM

That is one brutal PSA 10.....why would anyone bid on it?

Mantlefan · April 13, 2003 12:53AM

Agree..side to side measures 64-36 which is over the 60-40 guidelines for a "10". This diminishes the "eye appeal" which is so important for a true "10".

thefootballcardstore · April 13, 2003 12:58AM

PC - I agree that sometimes PSA has a good case for not taking a card in buy-back, but this time . . .
All someone would have to prove is centering, which shouldn't be tough . . .
Jeremy

Kurt · April 13, 2003 1:03AM

I am curious, where did the 76 Grogan 10 end up? PM me with details if you have records of the sale.

rw2win · April 13, 2003 1:03AM

I have to agree with the majority...THAT is no 10!
I assume PSA reads these boards once in a while. What do they think or do when they see an obvious error like this?
I too wonder, why bid?

jackstraw · April 13, 2003 1:23AM

<< I still think PSA is #1 >>

only because garbage like that sells for close to 400 bucs!not their grading skills!!!!if that card was in a pro holder it wouldn't get 25 bucs and would be deemed trimmed!

thefootballcardstore · April 13, 2003 1:30AM

I'll just say that, even if they did screw up on this one card (and we all know that the big three do often) this Bradshaw 10 will still go for a lot more than $400. This auction is just starting.

This alone says a lot about how much people trust PSA.

Jeremy

gaspipe26 · April 13, 2003 1:31AM

Wow, Thats one ugly card.

aconte · April 13, 2003 1:33AM

<< PC - I agree that sometimes PSA has a good case for not taking a card in buy-back >>

It doesn't matter. PC is correct. It would be a waste of time to send this item back. It would
come back a 10. The only way this would not happen is if it was cracked out prior to submission.

This auction shows two things:

1) The Psa brand is very strong at times.

2) Most people buy the holder not the card. No way that card should go for more than $10-$25.

aconte

aconte · April 13, 2003 1:35AM

<< This alone says a lot about how much people trust PSA >>

Trust has nothing to do with it.

aconte

jackstraw · April 13, 2003 1:41AM

or close to 800 for a 9MC 76 rose

thefootballcardstore · April 13, 2003 1:49AM

<Trust has nothing to do with it.>

OK, I'll bite today, what do you think it has to do with?
If cards like this sell for more than they should, even though most of us here today agree this one doesn't deserve this grade, why do you think this card will still go for the price it will?

If it isn't because people trust PSA more than other companies, than what is it?

Jeremy

aconte · April 13, 2003 1:55AM

<< OK, I'll bite today, what do you think it has to do with? >>

Set Registry or

Brand Recognition or

Brand Loyalty or

Just plain Stupidity!

aconte

thejam · April 13, 2003 1:56AM

..........wiwag

thefootballcardstore · April 13, 2003 2:23AM

So you are trusting that PSA cards have resale value,
you are trusting that people will want to put their PSA cards in the PSA Set Registry . . .
you might not be trusting that PSA grades 100% accurate everytime, but you are trusting PSA for other reasons.

I trust PSA because they screw up less than other grading companies. I trust that PSA grades better than most of the other brands.
I trust that PSA returns most altered cards.

So on the front end - why do people pay PSA to grade their cards?
For a piece of plastic and a 2 cent lable? Just like any other type of service business, to be number #1, you have to be trustworthy.

Jeremy

Virtualizard · April 13, 2003 2:40AM

First, that card is horrible.

The high bidder on it is also the high bidder on this card. Looks like he is a Steelers/Bradshaw fan with money to spend. If you look at the stuff he's bid on over the past month, it doesn't appear that he cares whether cards are graded or raw. I don't think this card will ever end up on the set registry - this bidder has most likely never even heard of PSA. Set Registry, loyalty, trust, and brand recognition aren't even a factor here. Stupidity, well that may be the case but I think it's too strong of a word. Uninformed, fanatic bidding is more of an appropriate description.

JEB.

aconte · April 13, 2003 2:42AM

From a definition point of view you are correct. But trust has many definitions and I'm not interested
to debate this point.

I trust that whoever buys this card is buying the holder only.

I trust that long term when more ten's are graded that this card will lose value.

<< So you are trusting that PSA cards have resale value >>

All graded cards have resale value.

I didn't bid on this card.

aconte

thefootballcardstore · April 13, 2003 2:50AM

Fair enough, and with that said, I trust that PSA will take some type of action about this card.
Whether it's a buy back or a reprimand or something else.

Jeremy

acowa · April 13, 2003 3:58AM

JLBroker · April 13, 2003 4:43AM

Hi

I'm a big Terry Bradshaw/Steelers fan and have been known to pay very good prices for a PSA 9 Bradshaw but I wouldn't pay anything for this one. I've got a PSA 9 of this card in question and would like to upgrade it too but not with that PSA 10. I'm always looking to upgrade or add to my Bradshaw sets, which are #1 for both Basic and Master sets.

I've lost some auctions to the high bidder. It seems sometimes that the individual has no ceiling on his bids.

Jeff

Basilone · April 13, 2003 4:52AM

Wow..that has to be the worst looking PSA 10 I have ever seen...(the Bradshaw).

John

Wabittwax · April 13, 2003 6:09AM

I think the wiwag suspicion is a valid one. If it is proved to go through wiwag's hands at some point, it would be a win-win for everybody. Wiwag would be forced to pay them for it and PSA would be able to take it out of circulation. Somebody should notify PSA about it for investigation.

KING KELLOGG · April 13, 2003 9:35AM

No way is that card a 10!!!!

Send it back with a pair of "umpire" eyeglasses....

Larry

vgfc · April 13, 2003 10:04AM

Thanks for all the replies...It is at least reassuring that no one so far really believes that this was a valid candidate for a PSA 10. Mistakes happen but PSA should have better quality control especially on the GEM MINTS! I have a couple of PSA 10's from 1976 Topps and they dont look anything like that scary looking Bradshaw!

On a separate note, I am looking to buy or trade for a 1973 Topps Ken Stabler (R) PSA 9 NQ or PSA 10 if anyone has one to sell or trade.

My site:

www.VintageGradedFootballCards.com

Virtualizard · April 13, 2003 10:51AM

vgfc,

I just checked out your site. You've got some great looking cards there! Have all of these cards been from your own submissions? I think it took some balls to submit the two 1976 Topps Joe Greene cards on the same order (I noticed the consecutive cert #s). I'd be afraid that a PSA grader would try to find any reason not to grade two consecutive cards GEM MINT 10's, but somehow they did. I'll have to look through my boxes of raw football cards and see what I have. My focus for graded cards has been only on baseball cards 1975 and earlier, but I love looking at some of those football cards that I collected while growing up in the 1970s and 80's. I just wish I had pulled them from the packs and safely stored them for all of these years.

Again, nice cards. Thanks for sharing.

JEB.

Camel22 · April 13, 2003 10:55AM

First off, if that card were taken out of its case & sent in to PSA today, it would not grade a "10". Period. Its obvious from the serial number that this is a card that was graded years ago prior to the implementation of strict standards relative to qualifiers such as off center cards, stained cards, etc.

Several cards that I had graded when PSA first came out with its grading had stains on the back---however, PSA never qualified these cards with an "ST" back then. Likewise, I have several "9's" that are easily 80-20 OC but no qualifiers were given then. Now, if I popped open these cards from the case & resubmitted them, they'd easily have a qualifier attached given today's grading standards.

This is not a knock on PSA as I for one am pleased with the heightened awareness of PSA's grading standards relative to OC & ST cards. And from what I see on e-bay, a "9" or "10" that has OC characteristics will sell for substantially less than a "9" or "10" that is centered perfectly. Serious collectors definitely take into account the appearance of a card regardless of the PSA grade. There has been some speculation in the market that newer graded PSA cards might sell for a higher premium than older graded PSA cards even though PSA assigned the same grade. I would tend to agree with that but only in situations where the card is truly off-center or stained and PSA didn't address it.

Bottom line is that I would never pay premium dollars for a card like the one referenced in this e-mail. I collect the tall boys and have seen hundreds of '65 T FB & '69 T BSKT sold on e-bay during the past few years. An "8" that is centered will fetch premium dollars often double or triple the value quoted in SMR. However, the same card that is an "8" but is terribly off-center will hardly get any nibbles even if there is no qualifiers accompanying the "8".

Virtualizard · April 13, 2003 10:58AM

Oh boy, here we go again.

JEB.

vgfc · April 13, 2003 11:06AM

Jeb,

Some cards I submit, others bought on ebay, shows, or other auction sites. I did not submit the 76 Joe Greene's but I agree, tough to get back to back 10's like that, and it may have been more as there are 4 in the pop report and for all I know they may have all come on the same submission!

Thanks for the kind words.

Rob

www.VintageGradedFootballCards.com

Alfiewt · April 13, 2003 11:09AM

That card definately should not have been graded PSA 10. I hope to hear tomorrow that the card is on its way back to PSA as a buyback. PSA needs to get this card off the market, it hurts them more to have cards like this out in the market then the cost of buying it back does.

BOTN · April 13, 2003 11:54AM

<< think the wiwag suspicion is a valid one. If it is proved to go through wiwag's hands at some point, it would be a win-win for everybody. Wiwag would be forced to pay them for it and PSA would be able to take it out of circulation. Somebody should notify PSA about it for investigation. >>

Too late. That window shut almost a month ago. WIWAG is no longer required to write checks.

Greg

pc · April 13, 2003 12:41PM

<< 

<< think the wiwag suspicion is a valid one. If it is proved to go through wiwag's hands at some point, it would be a win-win for everybody. Wiwag would be forced to pay them for it and PSA would be able to take it out of circulation. Somebody should notify PSA about it for investigation. >>

Too late. That window shut almost a month ago. WIWAG is no longer required to write checks.

Greg >>

hi Greg,did you receive a registered letter
cause i missed mine!.
an email notification would never entitle
wiwag to no longer make restitution for fraud.
these guys may be writing checks for quite some
time.the litigational ternative would bankrupt them.

mikeschmidt · April 13, 2003 12:52PM

That is definitely not a PSA 10.

I was not aware that the WIWAG window closed already. I hope that there is still some opportunity out there, as I know quite a few individuals with cards who have not yet taken action.

I have once sent in a PSA 10 to PSA that I thought was not worthy of the grade. I actually sent it in with six accompanying PSA 9's of the same card that I all thought were stronger. The PSA 10 card kept the grade, the six PSA 9's were returned with short explanations as to why they were nines (legitimate in each case, but for one or two back corner examples...). To this day, I do not think it is a PSA 10 -- but I've tried to make amends, and will not personally lose the money on the PSA 10 to get it out of its holder. So in the holder it stays....

MS

crazysc · April 13, 2003 1:19PM

<< hi Greg,did you receive a registered letter
cause i missed mine!.
an email notification would never entitle
wiwag to no longer make restitution for fraud.
these guys may be writing checks for quite some
time.the litigational ternative would bankrupt them. >>

Besides which, I doubt an e-mail and posting on a website constitute "proper notification" to all harmed/potentially harmed parties.

However, the point could be made that you'd now have to go after WIWAG directly if PSA no longer wants to participate in the program they set up...

BOTN · April 13, 2003 1:29PM

Hi PC,

The issue of fraud does exist it is just a matter of which party is culpable. It appears that WIWAG has been indemified somewhat. It might be hard for someone, should they "realize" that they have a claim, to go after WIWAG. I suspect that we have pretty much heard the last of this.

Keep in mind that in order for anyone to stick WIWAG with a card at this point they would need PSA's assistance in determining if it was a WIWAG card. Nobody has told us how to identify a WIWAG PSA graded card. I think that you can see how messy this can get.

So does lunch on Friday sound good?

Greg

cakeman · April 13, 2003 2:28PM

Sure looks like a WIWAG card to me.

mexisar · April 14, 2003 7:27AM

did people get a notification from Wiwag? I am pretty sure i once won some auctions from this person
does anybody have his email?
did this person accepted paypal? if he did i will look at my paypal history
what name would appear in paypal?

thefootballcardstore · April 14, 2003 7:38PM

This card is no longer for sale - wonder why -

Jeremy

jimrupprecht · April 14, 2003 11:09PM

My experience with PSA in regard to misgraded cards has been extremely positive. In every case I have been involved in, the matter was resolved to my satisfaction. In more than one case, I have actually had a discussion about the card in question with a grader and been able to provide my opinion about the assigned grade and what I think the correct grade should be. Without exception, it is my experience that PSA's #1 concern is making sure that the grade on the holder is a fair representation (within the limits of the PSA grading schema) of the condition of the actual card in the holder.

In regard to the Bradshaw card that is the topic of this discussion, it is clear (at least to everyone who has posted an opinion so far) that the holder grade is not representative of the card therein. The owner of said card needs to send it back to PSA (or take it to them in person at a show) and make the case that the card is misgraded. PSA will make the situation right because it is in their best interest to do just that.

Can this possibly meet PSA standards for a PSA 10???

Comments