What is the deal with 1977 Topps Baseball?!

minibeers

I've been sending in cards to PSA from 1977 and it has been a sobering experience. I'm getting 4's and 5's back on stuff that I thought would be 8's at a minimum. Upon closer inspection, I found the surface of one card riddled with surface wrinkles (that you can only see in good light at an angle) and the surface of another to have what looks like it got too much offset powder on it after the gloss was put on giving it a cratered look in good light. Now, I have come to accept this as my oversight and I believe PSA did a good job grading the cards. I'm getting ready to send in a couple more '77s and one of those cards, which looks like a 9 to me, has a "blister" on the surface. It looks like a wood chip or something is under the skin of the top layer of the card.

Is this a common thing in this issue? Also, do you think PSA will dock my "blistered" card or is that looked at as a print defect. I've seen some pretty funky print defect cards get high grades. In this case, it is actually a paper defect, I guess.

1977 was my first year I collected cards, so I have fond memories of the set. I didn't think it would be so condition sensitive besides the normal off-centering and bad print quality.

Happy New Year!

Scott

jackstraw

I love 70's baseball talk

RobE

All the raw 77s I've ever seen always have what seems like no bottom border and would probably grade OC.I don't know what allowance there is on that issue since there isn't much bottom to begin with.The last 77s I found looked really nice but when I got them home I noticed some wrinkles under magnification that the naked eye couldn't see.

I suggest you chat with Dr.Phil who is the 77 GURU.He knows this set inside out.

BigKidAtHeart

<< <i>I suggest you chat with Dr.Phil who is the 77 GURU.He knows this set inside out. >>

REALLY?
THE Dr. Phil?
the one with an "oprah-like" talk show?
The one from Texas that
tells housewives to get off their
butts and "get over it" when they
are whining about something?

That Dr. Phil?

downgoesfrazier

Scott,
I could go on for seemingly ever regarding 1977 and 1978 Topps baseball but in the interest of your post...
1977 is by far the tougher of the two and may be (with deference to 1971) the toughest set of the 70's to get lookin' really clean and sharp (75 & 79 are no bargain either, though 75's tend to be centered better) PSA has overgraded quite a few 77's in my estimations but their standards are not as high as mine so it's hard to tell if they're inconsistent or just forgiving. Surface imperfections and photo-quality seem to be the most offensive flaw in production of those cards. Centering is downright scary as well, but it's the extraneous print and wrinkles/blisters that can get frustrating. Couple that with atrocious stock and slippery registration and primitive cutting process and you've got a real monster on your hands.
I hate to say it, but whether or not your surface flaw is forgiven has nothing to do with PSA, but rather the INDIVIDUAL grader on THAT day. If it's a "knot" in the stock it should cost you a grade. A "blister" probably lands you in 5's-ville.
It's one thing to do these in "MINT 9" , but to get all the cards clean and near-perfect is another. As much as any year, the cert # collector of this issue can build a very ugly high-ticket set that looks GREAT on paper but visually gross.
I could tell you more about my submission experiences if you'd like, just let me know. It would be a pleasure to share my thoughts. I just can't find anyone interested.

dgf

Ripken

I've been very lucky with '77 Topps lately, and have posted several 9's on Ebay this week. I was pleasantly surprised with the submission results as I've seen '77s get hammered in grading. The wrinkles you describe will always take you down to a 5. They're tough to spot. I'd get a good flourescent light & examine them before sending. That's a really common flaw in the '77 thru '79 issues in both baseball and football. It really does depend on the grader, but I don't know that they're treated any differently from any other set. It is tough to find really nice raw examples, mostly because of centering, print spots, etc.

minibeers

Thanks for the replies, all. I'm going to sit on my "blistered" card (a perfectly centered and otherwise mint Steve Garvey). However, I have an Eckersley that looks like a 9 and he's going in.

I have to say, when you get a 77 card that is centered right, has good registration and most everything else, these cards look great. I think they are one of the best issues of the seventies. 1978 was such a bummer follow-up (at least that is what I thought when I was a kid).

Thanks again!
Scott

downgoesfrazier

Scott,
Check out my raw lots on ebay right now from '77...

ID is "mint70s"...the 1000-card lot is totally uncirculated. Typical factory issues, but overall real, real sharp!

dgf

miami3

Scott,

I agree that the 77 set is one of the better looking ones from the 70's.

The problem with most of the mid to late 70's Topps cards is lousy printing and cheap cardboard.

I can remember cracking open vending and rack cases from 1976 to 1981 to put together complete sets and had all kinds of problems with centering and corner dings right from the factory.

I used to sell sets and un-opened product in SCD at the time and did a bang up business busting cases and re-selling complete sets.

I only wish that I was smart enough to keep a couple of each case in the basement as an investment.

Good luck with your set collecting.

Jim

BigKidAtHeart

downgoesfrazier

BKAH,



dgf

Stump

Sent in five to try.

Got two 9's two 8's and a 7.

Dave

minibeers

I take it back, folks. I'm going to send in my "blistered" '77 Garvey and let you all know how it comes out. What's $10, eh?
Scott

downgoesfrazier

$10? There has to be a more economical way that THAT! That card has raw value of a couple bucks!
Remember...All graders and blisters are not created equal. May your blister and grader find each other. Best wishes,

dgf