Nasty Looking 1975 Topps PSA 9 Stargell

Vargha · October 20, 2003 10:00AM

I think I'll pass.

1975 TOPPS #100 WILLIE STARGELL PSA 9

RobE · October 20, 2003 10:05AM

besides the fish eyes it looks crooked

mcastaldi · October 20, 2003 10:18AM

Falls under the header of - "Meets the standards for a 9, but not at all an attractive card".

Mike

jackstraw · October 20, 2003 10:23AM

not if john doe is submitting

sorry i couldn't resist

Virtualizard · October 20, 2003 10:24AM

I'm glad that I already have a "sweet" PSA 9:

JEB.

rw2win · October 20, 2003 10:25AM

OK, how many fish eyes are allowed for a 9. At what number does it get a PD. I agree with Vargha, that is a horrible looking 9.

Vargha · October 20, 2003 10:30AM

Apparently from what I've seen, a PSA 9 in this set can have many fisheyes. The additional diamond cut on this card just made it a real eyesore IMO. As Mike said, this is one time where a scan is most useful.

Boopotts · October 20, 2003 11:30AM

Someone should buy this and try to get PSA to give them full SMR for it. With those fish eyes AND the diamond cut there's just no way this is a mint card-- it's not as bad as the '78 Carew Mike Wentz was parading around on the SGC board, but it's in the same ballpark.

Since there's a human element in grading I understand that it can't be a flawless process. But for God's sake, how hard can it really be? There are no fewer than 100 guys on this board alone who, were they in the grading room, wouldn't for a second considering slabbing this card in a 9 holder. If WE can figure that out, why can't the guys PSA hire?

In any event, I think PSA should have to eat this. It's an abomination, and the point needs to be made. Graders, IMO, don't have an enviable job, but let's face it-- once you've established whether a card has been doctored, the job isn't rocket science. Mistakes this gross should be considered inexcusable.

Wayne8348 · October 20, 2003 12:19PM

I have a 1974 psa 10 with a couple of fish eyes. If I knew how to post it here I would. I'm thinking about upgrading to a 9.

Wayne

jackstraw · October 20, 2003 12:27PM

wayne,
go to your set and right click on the picture itself go to properties. copy url. reply to message. click on the little green box that looks like a window and paste

mcastaldi · October 20, 2003 9:37PM

Boopotts> Sorry, PSA will not buy it back - nor should they. The card meets their published standards for a PSA 9 NQ.

PSA 9: Mint
A PSA Mint 9 is a superb condition card that exhibits only one of the following minor flaws: a very slight wax stain on reverse, a minor printing imperfection or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

At the worst point, the centering on the Stargell is no worse than 60/40. The corners appear to be very sharp. And I would say any fish eyes would qualify to be no more than a "minor printing imperfection".

Is this a card I would want to own? Nope. Does it meet PSA's published standard for PSA 9 NQ? All day long it does.

Mike

Drew1122 · October 21, 2003 12:58AM

Amazing......If i submitted it, i personally would have gotten a 7 back !! anyone else tired of the favor shown to larger submitters/dealers......I've sent in some real beauties and gotten suspect grades......when and will this ever be fixed, after all whether you submit 2 cards or 2000, there should be no change in grading policy.....just one NJ guys opinion.....Andrew

p.s. Virtual your card is Superb !!

dbj77 · October 21, 2003 1:07AM

I can live with the fish eyes, the diamond cut I can not live with.

Drew, in some ways I agree with you, and if there is no preferential treatment, then I must be the unluckiest submitter on the planet.

aconte · October 21, 2003 1:17AM

On this card it looks like it should be a nine based on Psa standards. I know you can't believe
this coming from me. But Mike is right. The card has strong corners and edges and the centering
is within tolerance. I'd rather have the other Stargell. If you are a cert collector (and you know
that there are plenty of those) both will get you the same points. If not take a pass.

Just another NJ guy's opinion.

aconte

Vargha · October 21, 2003 1:29AM

Sorry, but only one opinion from New Jersey is allowed per thread.

NickM · October 21, 2003 3:43AM

mcastaldi - did you measure the Stargell? I used the ROS(ruler on screen) approach, and it came out about 38-62 L-R for me. At that number, I agree that it's within tolerance for a 9,although I'm not sure I could say it fully meets the criteria. Nor would I wish to assert that multiple small fish eyes constitute only a minor printing imperfection. Nevertheless, I predict that within 2 weeks(if it meets the reserve),this card will be in a Registry set.

Nick

Drew1122 · October 21, 2003 7:09AM

OK, if the Stargell in question is a 9 ?? Give me your opinions please, on my Luzinski and Phillies Team cards, thanks ..... Andrew.

Drew1122

Virtualizard · October 21, 2003 7:27AM

Drew,

Thanks for the compliment on my Stargell.

As for your Phillies card, that is a sweet 8 from the scan - do you know what kept it from getting a 9, or was that the point of your post?

The Luzinski, in my opinion, has a nicer overall presentation than the PSA 9 Stargell in question, but there are 3 unsightly fish eyes that I counted - a decent PSA 8, though.

JEB.

mcastaldi · October 21, 2003 8:37AM

Nick> I essentially have two points -

1) A card doesn't have to be attractive to merit a PSA9 - it only needs to meet the published standards for the grade.
2) Just because a card is in a PSA9 holder, that on its own absolutely does not make it a card that I would want to own.

There are plenty of "cert buyers" on the Registry - and even here on the forum - who wouldn't have much problem with this card. I mean it does meet the standard so we can't really say it's overgraded. But. . .myself, I collect baseball cards - not cert numbers. And in a selfish way, I love the "cert buyer". If they fill a spot in their set with what I consider to be a marginal example, then that means there's one less competitor when a screamer comes along.

Mike

Virtualizard · October 21, 2003 8:54AM

<< <i>...And in a selfish way, I love the "cert buyer". If they fill a spot in their set with what I consider to be a marginal example, then that means there's one less competitor when a screamer comes along.

Mike >>

Mike, that's a great point. Well said.

JEB.

schr1st · October 21, 2003 10:42AM

It's a bit more modern card, but I'm not sure how this got a 9 with this centering and what appears to be a mark on the front (near the hat).

helionaut · October 21, 2003 11:17PM

That looks like one of those pinhole-size pits that chromes are prone to. AFAIK, they don't knock down too much for that. The centering is pretty off, though.

NickM · October 23, 2003 3:22AM

mcastaldi - I agree with you about the second point. As to the first point, I think a reasonable argument can be made that a card with sub-60-40 centering and 2 print imperfections does not meet the standards for PSA 9. {I could be wrong about the centering. ROS isn't the most accurate, but I'm not going to spend the time to break it down on photoshop.} IMO, the leeway on front centering has less applicability when the surface has to be downgraded.

Nick

Nasty Looking 1975 Topps PSA 9 Stargell

Comments