Grader of Death? You Make the Call!
scottsusor
Posts: 1,210
Among all the 7's, 8's and 9's that I got back on my most recent submission, there was this shocker. 1970 Topps #507 Pat Corrales that I thought was an absolute 9 and even a possible 10 with almost perfect centering front and back, mint corners, and a flawless surface both front and back. Check out the grade it got. Grader of Death or was the grader who got this smoking something that day? 
You make the call!
Scott
You make the call!
Scott
0
Comments
Five usually indicates a slight flaw in the surface somewhere? It may take time but psa is good at finding these rascal surface wrinkles.
Gator
Sorry, it happens to everyone from time to time.
JEB.
<< <i>It's a 10. (5 for the front and 5 for the back) >>
yeah,but that averages out to an sgc 7.5 right...
Just a thought from my experience with the set. I have submitted close to 500 cards from this set and never received a PSA 10, although I thought several had a legitimate shot.
JEB.
<< <i>I would break it out and resubmit it!From viewing the card on net it looks an easy 9. I did that twice with a 1952 Bowman Musial. I got PSA 7 twice than finally a 8. Crazy >>
Crazy,
That might be good advice had the card been graded PSA 8, but since it got a PSA 5, there is obviously something that Scott missed. Again, we all miss something every once in a while. It happens. But it would be a waste of the grading fee to resubmit this one, unless some unethical practices were used.
JEB.
Scott
<< <i>Agreed, there is likely a flaw that may take you days (or even months) to find, but it's there. I have had the same thing happen to me on 1970 Topps Baseball. I had a Munson rookie that I thought was a 9 for sure - it came back a PSA 5. I found the wrinkle on the front after about 2 days of looking at it every once in a while at different agles in good lighting.
Sorry, it happens to everyone from time to time.
JEB. >>
Then that is contradictory to the claim (even from PSA itself) that the high-grades all about eye-appeal. If it takes a long time under a powerful loupe that you cannot see with the naked eye, why do they call it eye-appeal?? Centering, printing defects and corners I am beginning to accept but not something microscopic that would knock it all the way down to a 5.
Wow remember what Griffey UD's used to sell for....It makes my stomach hurt....
still have the cover of scd for that one.
<< <i>Then that is contradictory to the claim (even from PSA itself) that the high-grades all about eye-appeal. If it takes a long time under a powerful loupe that you cannot see with the naked eye, why do they call it eye-appeal?? Centering, printing defects and corners I am beginning to accept but not something microscopic that would knock it all the way down to a 5. >>
Hey, I didn't say that I agree with it. I'd be happy to have that card in my collection. But, PSA seems to do a really thorough job of detecting these minor flaws. If you have read the threads here for any length of time, you will know that this is a common occurrence, and the submitter of the card will usually find what caused the card to be downgraded. Do I think it should be a 3-4 grade drop? No. But that's the way it works, unfortunately.
As far as eye appeal goes, I think PSA is very contradictory in general. I own PSA 9s (maybe even a 10 or two - I'd have to look) that are out of focus. This is a flaw that is rarely discussed, but one that I believe is almost as important as centering. I have rarely seen a PSA graded card with an "OF" qualifier. I'd like to hear thoughts on this point.
JEB.
Scott
do not beat youself up, just move on
to other cards.
~jeff
<< <i>
<< <i>Then that is contradictory to the claim (even from PSA itself) that the high-grades all about eye-appeal. If it takes a long time under a powerful loupe that you cannot see with the naked eye, why do they call it eye-appeal?? Centering, printing defects and corners I am beginning to accept but not something microscopic that would knock it all the way down to a 5. >>
Hey, I didn't say that I agree with it. I'd be happy to have that card in my collection. But, PSA seems to do a really thorough job of detecting these minor flaws. If you have read the threads here for any length of time, you will know that this is a common occurrence, and the submitter of the card will usually find what caused the card to be downgraded. Do I think it should be a 3-4 grade drop? No. But that's the way it works, unfortunately.
As far as eye appeal goes, I think PSA is very contradictory in general. I own PSA 9s (maybe even a 10 or two - I'd have to look) that are out of focus. This is a flaw that is rarely discussed, but one that I believe is almost as important as centering. I have rarely seen a PSA graded card with an "OF" qualifier. I'd like to hear thoughts on this point.
JEB. >>
I know Jeb, that's why it's frustrating to see many response saying "tiny surface wrinkle". I would much rather have PSA knock down grades for obvious eye appeal issues - like rough borders and out of focus instead of something that can't be seen except under microscope. But like everyone said, we have to deal with it.