o/c : why is this even a q

thejam

if a card is off-center why is it just not a lower grade BECAUSE its off-center; and if your doing qualifiers (except MK), why not have a qualifier W for worned or U for used or L for laminate or B for bleached or R for rubberbanded or D for ding OR F for frayed or S for scratch or BB for bb hole or RD for raindrop etc etc ... thoughts?

packCollector

personnally I like the qualifier as it helps distinguish the other aspects of the card post factory. o/c is something that is factor produced which none of your other proposed qualifiers are , except maybe W(wormed) if the factory did not take proper care of their gum

duner

i think the whole oc thing blows. especially figuring they downgrade a qualifier two whole grades for the registry. there's no way an 8oc should be valued less than a psa 6 or 7 unqualified. i have a '51 bowman psa 9oc, and it is by far the nicest looking card i have in my entire set. ironically the oc pretty much makes the card worthless. i also have a 8oc waterfield which is much nicer than my unqualified 7....but i'm forced to use the 7 in my set or i lose points. and it the 7 cost significantly more than the 8oc.....it's a strange game.

goodriddance189

i agree with thejam

kalch23

In defense of qualifiers.....

If a card is perfectly mint but is 80/20 centered this can be either a PSA 6 or PSA 9 (oc). PSA 9 (oc) describes the card better than psa 6 you would get if requesting only straight grades.

mikeschmidt

<< <i>if a card is off-center why is it just not a lower grade BECAUSE its off-center; and if your doing qualifiers (except MK), why not have a qualifier W for worned or U for used or L for laminate or B for bleached or R for rubberbanded or D for ding OR F for frayed or S for scratch or BB for bb hole or RD for raindrop etc etc ... thoughts? >>



Thejam:

I think the general though is that cenetering can negatively affect a card's value by too great a degree in extreme circumstances. For example -- if you have a card that is pack-fresh, no dots, straight from a pack, razor corners, but happens to be 95/5 in one direction -- what is the true grade of the card? It would be silly to call it a PSA 2 simply because of its centering -- so the point of the qualifier is to keep it at the higher grade disclosing the reason why it was downgraded.

Another good example is the 1954 Wilson Franks set. Centering is often a non-issue in the set. Cards have too thin of borders to begin with, and if you are able to find a high grade example (no hot-dog juice stains, corner wear, etc.), it seems silly to downgrade the card to a really low grade because of the centering alone. As it is -- a large percentage of cards from that set are and always will be "qualified". So I think there are often set-specific or other characteristics that may dictate the "value" of the card. Centering is a very important criteria in some sets and cards -- whereas others it is a minor issue overall.

packCollector

to go along with mike schmidts point, my carebare is a 9o/c straight out of a cello pack. i would take that card every day of the week over the psa 6 that it would represent without the qualifier.

boggs301012

PACKCOLLECTOR

carebare

Is the a naked CARBEAR WITH AN O/C?

thejam

i agree with goodriddence ... i've obtained a pack fresh card with razor corners perfect centering BUT approximately 1/3 of the card was white ... a huge print defect (lack of ink) ... it seems silly to grade it as a 9 PD ....................... it's just a worthless card that i threw away

goodriddance189

a PSA 9 card is a mint card. a PSA 9 card isnt a mint card with lousy centering.

maybe there should be a new CO qualifier, for those perfectly centered cards with pesky corner dings.

packCollector

I guess this arguement is why gai and sgc were created. sgc will grade your card as if centering doesn't matter and gai will grade your card with centering as the main factor and neither use a qualifier. but all you guys hate sgc and gai, all you guys love psa, all you guys agree psa should not change this late in the game(1/2 grades) so why is this being discussed as something that might be changed

thejam

dear packer -- what do your generalizations mean? are you just accusing some members of being hypocritical ... and that's it?

Fuzz

NO doubt, the o/c is a kiss of death in the price column.
But look at this as a plus at the current point. I bought numerous 66 T BB 9 o/c for less than $5 at a time when a 7 was going for twice that price some of them for $1. Now eventually that will catch up to a more reasonable level and I will have some inventory to sell at good margin then. Besides, if you can live with the o/c and are interested more in the "9" parts, the amount of money you can save is huge.
Think of o/c as "a current market opportunity"
Fuzz

packCollector

thejam, based on views from this board and my limited exsperience with the other companies, sgc is more leinient on centering and gai really focuses on that. also, from reading many of the posts recently, and looking at the sgc board for some strange reason due to davillio, it seems there are a significant amout of posters that have a gripe and complaint about why their company is better based on cutting down the other companies. psa proposed a change to the grading scale late in the game and everyone shot it down, o/c is a similar case, it's late in the game. I like the knowledge, opinions, advise and so forth that comes from these boards, but as far as why each company sucks gets old quick. I like psa , mw likes sgc and grillo likes gai. good for us. It would be much better for the hobby if people went with the company they liked for the reasons they like that company and left it at that. instead, there is this constant slander of why the other companies suck. IT DOESN'T DO THE HOBBY ANY GOOD. If MW likes sgc , leave itat that instead of liking sgc and convincing himseld he likes sgc by complaining about psa. you choose your company based on the services they provide , if you don't like the services then you can go to another company . I am not accusing you but there are a lot of hipocrits on these boards, probably because of the annonymous id's. I got a little off track but i like the hobby and would rather enjoy the cards in my slab of choice with out having to listen why my slab sucks or someone elses slab sucks

helionaut

Tthe numerical grade generally represents how well a card was handled once it came off the press (including during the packing and shipping process). All the qualifiers have to do with how a card is made, except for MK. While everyone hates qualifiers, the fact is that a card that has razor edges, diamond-sharp corners, HDTV focus, deep gloss, and is 90/10 oc both ways means different things to people who value the factors differently. Would such a card be mint? I'd say yes, but for the centering. That's what a qualifier is, it's an equivocated, "except for" grade. If you had a card like that that would be 9oc, would you rather see it graded a straight 7? Personally, I wouldn't. A card can have an accumulation of little things, like a fuzzy corner or two, diamond cutting, dull appearance and chipped edges, and still be a 7. Because grading is a subtractive process, at least in my view, I'd think the comparison between these two hypothetical cards shows the limitations in a strictly numerical grading system.

Basically, I prefer the use of qualifiers rather than simply reducing the grade. If a card has only one notable flaw and is otherwise perfect, I'd rather see the qualified higher grade because it's a better indicator of what you've got. And this really only enters when talking about cards graded 8 or 9. I can't remember seeing an OC qualifier on a 7 or less, though I suppose they are out there.

GoSoxBoSox

I like the PSA system using qualifiers. What I think IS wrong is the fact that a PSA 8 OC is worth less then a PSA 6. However, if these are to going rates then the market has spoken. That's certainly not PSAs fault regardless of the fact PSA publishes that qualifiers usually devalue a card by two grades. As we all know, the market value of a card depends very little on what PSA publishes.

RobE

This is from an old post where the examples confuse me when it comes to O/C cards.



Nice card




Tilted though pretty much same amount of bottom border

GoSoxBoSox

Rob E.....that's just flat-out wrong. These types of examples need to be sent back and corrected by PSA.

RobE

GBS - I think it's safe to say that if this was a 33 goudey we were talking about.
One of these days that O/C card may wind up in the right holder.

rbeaton

<< <i>Rob E.....that's just flat-out wrong. These types of examples need to be sent back and corrected by PSA. >>

What's wrong with these examples? The 9 got the OC qualifier it deserved, and perhaps the 8 was graded with a request for no qualifiers and it was/is 9 quality, but got bumped down to an 8 based on centering.

Robert

RobE

<< <i>

<< <i>Rob E.....that's just flat-out wrong. These types of examples need to be sent back and corrected by PSA. >>

What's wrong with these examples? The 9 got the OC qualifier it deserved, and perhaps the 8 was graded with a request for no qualifiers and it was/is 9 quality, but got bumped down to an 8 based on centering.

Robert >>



Your probably correct about the 9 O/C.I think it has a shot at an 8 but not a straight 9.Then again I can probably find identical 9 NQs with equal t/b centering.

Regardless,the 9 O/C is one of the nicest qualified cards I've seen from that set.

thejam

agreed... but it should would be best to have the best 8 you've ever seen, than the best 9oc youve ever seen ( since most agree the card is either an 8 or 9oc) .... can 9s be oc 98/2? if offcenter 110/-10 what is the qualifier?

RobE

<< <i>agreed... but it should would be best to have the best 8 you've ever seen, than the best 9oc youve ever seen ( since most agree the card is either an 8 or 9oc) .... can 9s be oc 98/2? if offcenter 110/-10 what is the qualifier? >>



Excatly.The centering is the only thing that holds the card back from a solid 9.Therefore,it should cross into an 8 holder but at this point it's not really worth it to bother.I'm sure there is another nicely centered raw example out there but every single one I've seen has that horrible tilt with the exception of the graded O/C example above.