How did this not get an OC qualifier?

gtbeaker

I apologize in advance for not being savvy enough to get a link to this auction, but thought I would get this out there to see if I'm the only one who thinks this is outside the PSA guidelines for OC. It's a 1972 Tony Perez PSA 9 (a card I've been actively looking for these past few months). However, after finding it, I doubt I'll bid, since it appears PSA dropped the ball and missed this as being OC (or am I way off base?). The auction # is 2731539991. Thanks in advance for whoever winds up putting the link in for me. Scott

LJB17

I cannot believe that is not OC. I would even think it OC if in an 8 holder.

1972 Perez 9 (OC?)

packCollector

WOW ! wish I could have been that lucky with my butkus rookie. that would have put an extra few grand in my pocket.

gtbeaker

Thanks LJB for the link. I knew dslsports had this card when the sold the last one on eBay about 3 months ago. The last one they sold was MUCH better! Anybody out there have a REAL PSA 9 '72 Perez they'd be willing to sell me? PM or e-mail me!

rw2win

How many print imperfections does it take to get the "PD"???

same seller - DSL Aaron

toppsgun

I disagree. When the scan is enlarged, you see the card sits to the left inside the holder. The ridge inside the holder obscures part of the border. Someone who wants to go to the trouble to measure using pixels can verify, but I'd call it 35/65, which is within spec.

Granted it doesn't have great eye appeal, but PSA says it's MINT, it must be MINT.

murcerfan

I knew, before i clicked the link, that it was a DSL card in question.
this is nothing new, it's as if they have the graders hypnotized

Toppsgum:........I think it's more off-centered top to bottom than side to side.
I get 7's on cards like that.

mikeschmidt

It certainly appears that that Perez card is not sitting properly within the holder -- that is unfortunate. Perhaps the card was not sealed within the holder correctly -- I rarely see this on full-size examples with thick card stock. (e.g. I often will see this on Topps and Fleer sticker cards)

mcastaldi

Gator> That Perez isn't as bad as the 72 Carlton I picked up recently.

Toppsgun> While 65/35 is technically within tolerance for an unqualified PSA9, a 65/35 card is in no way a card I'd be happy to own in a PSA9 holder. After submitting a thousand or so 1972s in the last two years, my experience is that if it ain't at least 60/40 it comes back to me in a PSA8 holder.

rw2win> Based solely on the scan I don't think a PD qualifier is justified for the 8 holder it's sitting in. Maybe some more light snow manifests itself in real life, but without the card in-hand we can't be sure. This is a pretty tough card because of Aaron's black hair, dark skin, and the grayish-brown background. The color tones on this card also tend to be dull and lifeless. There's a reason there are only four 9NQ examples of the 75 Aaron. Not only that, the fourth PSA9 was awarded at National last year (because I submitted it). So nearly a year has elapsed with no additional 9s. On this particular card (DSL's PSA8), I'd be more concerned about T/B centering than the print.

Mike

rw2win

Mike - I have to disagree with you. Enlarge the scan and count the number of print spots. 5 in the blue "Brewers". A big one on his lower lip. A big one on his hat. 3 on his blue shirt, one above the "a" and 2 below the "a" in the Hank sig. 7- 10 small flakes in the gray background. That is about a dozen too many. IMO.

mcastaldi

rw2win> After seeing several examples of the Aaron #660. . .in holders and not. . .and seeing half of the PSA9s of this card. . .the print snow and circles present on that card on their own just isn't going to keep that card out of a 8NQ holder. It's a darned tough card to find completely free of those things. I'd probably agree that the card doesn't belong in an 8NQ holder - but not because of the snow alone or the centering alone. But the combination of being of marginal centering and marginal in terms of PD should have kicked it back to a 7 NQ.

Issues like this are what make the 75 set as tough as it is. And. . .the real challenge isn't building the set in all PSA8 - the real challenge is building the set in all PSA8 with every card an example you're proud to own.

Mike

gemint

<< <i>It certainly appears that that Perez card is not sitting properly within the holder -- that is unfortunate. Perhaps the card was not sealed within the holder correctly -- I rarely see this on full-size examples with thick card stock. (e.g. I often will see this on Topps and Fleer sticker cards) >>



That can often happen when scanning. The ridges along the sides of the holder can shadow part of the border when it's scanned. That's why I try to ensure the card is centered in the holder when I scan it. As we all know, the card has a little "play" in the holder. By tapping the holder until the card is not touching either side of the holder, you'll get a more accurate scan of the centering of the card.

ChicoBandito

Between the WIWAG scandal and cards slipping around in holders: I don't understand why PSA won't address the holder issue.

wolfbear

My calculation is approx 38 / 62 left to right on the Perez card, so it's within the limits.
The photo on the card is off center to the left so it makes the card look worse than it really is.

If the card were 62 / 38 left to right, the photo on the card would appear to be nicely centered.
It's an example of when 'eye appeal' grading should over rule objective standards.

Fuzz

Wolfbear, with all due respect I stonrgly disagree. Your measurements and mine are about the same and it is within the guideline. It deserves the NQ. This eye appeal thing is great for looking at your own collection but has zero place in third party grading. The 'eye appeal" standard is what the limits are trying to get away from. If eye appeal was considered and a grader could upgrade/downgrade cards based on his personal tastes, chaos, collapse, and general disaster would insue.
For your collection, great. More power to you. But the standard needs to be concrete and consistently adhered too. Not being able to guess why the card you sent in was graded the way it was is already the top complaint here. With "eye appeal" that complaint rate would sky rocket.
Fuzz

Wayne8348

I received a 1974 topps psa 10 last month with a fairly large print defect on the front of the card. I couldn't believe it recieved a 10.

wayne

GATOR5

Fuzz,

I agree yet how can you have it either 60-40 or 65-35. It has to be one way or the other for
like you say if you let eye appeal be a factor it would be chaos. Well it already is 60-40 one
day and 65-35 the next. Total crock for you see the 65-35 allday with the big submitters.

I have no problem if it's a yearly issue yet where it is stated. I find it hard to believe that
they wont address this problem or leave it just as a flip a coin issue. One day it is, the next
it's not with 200 card invoices this is not a joking matter yet costly.

wolfbear

What IS the point of saying that for a card to be a PSA 9 :
"Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front ..."

Why not just say :
"Centering must be approximately 65/35 or better on the front ..." ?

The cards in the middle range such as the 62/38 Perez should either exhibit the "overall appeal" of a 9, or be given an 8.
Otherwise, what's the point of stating the two different upper limits for centering ?

Or is a card with a minor flaw only allowed up to 60/40, and a card with a SUPER minor flaw allowed up to 65/35 ?
Anybody know ?

GATOR5

Wolf,

I've found nothing to back up that theory and if that was the case please psa
put it in writing. The guidelines are way to vague.

Anyone here of paper, rock, scissors for I swear that is how they decide.

mcastaldi

Fuzz> You say that "This eye appeal thing is great for looking at your own collection but has zero place in third party grading". . .I understand what you're saying, but can't agree fully. While it is true that just because a card meets PSA's standards, that doesn't mean it's a card I'd be proud to own.

But. . .PSA's grading standards, if uniformly applied, should give me a very good indicator of whether I'd like to own a card. I feel PSA still has some distance to go in terms of ensuring consistent application of their standards. My problem is when I see 1972T centered 65/35 (or slightly worse) in PSA9 NQ holders when my experience is that anything that anything that isn't at least 60/40 just won't come back to me in anything but an 8 holder. This is over the course of about 1000 submissions of 72T in two years - enough cards over enough time to minimize any variables. My experience with 75T is VERY similar (about 600 cards in 18 months). And I'm totally cool with that - so long as everyone's experience is the same - and I'm not sure that's the case. I think PSA needs to either start putting my 65/35 stuff into PSA9 holders - or - start putting everyone else's 65/35 stuff into PSA8 holders. The current situation tells me that the standard being applied is neither concrete nor consistently applied (to use your words).

Mike

GATOR5

8.5????????????

Caramels

<< <i>I knew, before i clicked the link, that it was a DSL card in question.
this is nothing new, it's as if they have the graders hypnotized

Yes,they mat get the soft grades but this is not the issue here! The card is just resting a bit too far over to the left resulting from the extra slop in the opening in the case. Look close,you can see it.I have scanned cards before that look less centered than they truly are looking at them straight down in front of me. This card is better centered than the slopping to the right and angle depict.....