ACOWA's 1952 SGC84 Walt Dropo Scan

gemint · March 17, 2004 1:45PM

For the non believer, plus those interested in seeing the card, here is the 1952 Walt Dropo that was formerly entombed in an SGC 84 holder which Alan Cowart was kind enough to give to me. I cracked it out and resubmitted it to PSA who graded it NM-MT 8. Thanks again to Alan for handing out these cards.

duner · March 17, 2004 2:08PM

Just out of curiosity, is that the same Walt Dropo that played at the U. of Connecticut? does it even say on the back?

motocrosser · March 17, 2004 2:24PM

WOW...an 84 into an 8 holder! That's about a 1%'er.

Good job gemint...Alan you're the man!

mx'er

Basilone · March 17, 2004 2:33PM

So what does that tell us about PSA's and/or SGC's grading accuracy?

murcerfan · March 17, 2004 2:55PM

Vargha · March 17, 2004 8:26PM

Yikes!

toppsgun · March 17, 2004 10:12PM

"So what does that tell us about PSA's and/or SGC's grading accuracy?"

It tells us on this particular Walt Dropo card, at this particular time, the PSA grader was more lenient than his counterpart over at SGC.

He'd have to be cross-eyed to miss that diamond cut. I'm no centering freak, but THAT would bother me. Sure, sure, technically it's an 8, but how about that eye-appeal factor?

helionaut · March 17, 2004 10:45PM

Dropo was known as the Big Moose from Moosup, which is in CT, so it's likely him.

gemint · March 17, 2004 10:52PM

As Toppsgun pointed out, the centering at the worst point is 65-35, so technically it meets the NM-MT criteria. Corners are sharp and there are no significant print flaws. Unless there is a criteria for maximum allowable rotation or for eye appeal for the NM-MT grade, the card is technically properly graded.

packCollector · March 17, 2004 10:52PM

ok the diamond cut is pretty ugly but I have seen worse diamond cuts . it's funny because I just posted my 2 cents in another thread" crossovers suck" and it relates right to this. From the scan the card appears to have a rough cut, I think sgc is really tough on rough cuts and psa is much more accepting of them. that might account for the differnece in grade. was this card graded leniently , probably, but was it graded harshly at sgc maybe? I still wouldn't mind that card but would not pay top dollar 8 for it.

each company has their own standards, the card "may" be accurately graded by both based on their standards

Hubcap · March 17, 2004 11:22PM

Technically, the card is miscut, even though the card may be square. The Topps cutters miscut the whole sheet. I can see giving this card a PSA 8 grade but with a qualifier. Sorry, but I would not own this card or even give it to Mr. Dropo (the Big Serb) as a gift.

Doies any body know what Mr. Dropo is famous for??????

packCollector · March 17, 2004 11:32PM

hubcap , what qualifier are you going to put on the card? the card is diamond cut, are you recommending putting a "mc" qualifier on ever card that is not struck perfectly even even though the card is square? how many cards are there from the 60's topps and opc that are diamond cut that are psa 8's? isnt the centering measured from the worst point and then calculated?

edited to add

out of curiosity what should the standards be? there are published standards that it appears taht you want thrown out. I am trying not to be argumentative but most of the posts lately have been how horrible psa is at grading but as far as centering you are upset about cards that all fall within the limits

NickM · March 18, 2004 12:02AM

That card still does not look like a rectangle to me.

Nick

WinPitcher · March 18, 2004 12:03AM

ouch

toppsgun · March 18, 2004 12:31AM

"That card still does not look like a rectangle to me."

It's like one of those IQ tests to throw you off. The mind plays tricks. Such as this: Which line is longer?

<------->
>-------<

gemint · March 18, 2004 12:35AM

<< <i>That card still does not look like a rectangle to me.

Nick >>

I wondered about that too which is why I laid it over other (non diamond cut) 1952s to measure it prior to submitting it. The card lined up perfectly. The diamond cut creates an optical illusion that makes your eyes think the card is not square. If it were a blank piece of cardboard, it would appear square.

I also disagree with labeling the card as miscut. Miscut is reserved for cards that are not square or where there is no border. Unless the grading companies want to create a maximum rotation spec, there is no qualifier. I think it would be difficult to measure rotation on a high volume basis.

Hubcap · March 18, 2004 12:36AM

"Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse. " for PSA 8 grade.

Packcollector:

You posted this on another thread. So you tell us all how you are going to measure it???? I think the other Board comments speak for themselves. This card is not a high quality card. It should have been culled years ago by Topps QC and put in the infamous Xmas racks sold at the department stores.

highend · March 18, 2004 12:37AM

low-end 8? yes

miscut? i can't agree with that.

however, i will say that if you submitted the same card to PSA 5X's the grades would vary.

packCollector · March 18, 2004 1:03AM

hub, the card is 65-35 at it's worst point which is top to bottom on the right side. I just blew the card up to 200% and measured the pixels to be exact , 14 pixels on top and 26 on the bottom.

for the record, i never said the card was a great 8. . i just made a point that diamond cut cards are allowed and this does fall within the limits of the grading criteria therefore I am not going to jump on the psa bashing sky is falling bandwagon in this example. there are other examples where the grades do not look like they fit but based on the diamond cut , this card could have gone either way. a 7 for awful eye appeal or an 8 for strict grading guidelines. it seems a card crosses from an sgc 7 to a psa 8 and it's the end of the world.

Basilone · March 18, 2004 1:31AM

Question for ACOWA -

Where did you think this card would grade in a PSA holder when you began your contest?

Hubcap · March 18, 2004 1:45AM

PC:

This is the rest of the quote from the other thread....."A PSA NM-MT 8 is a super high-end card that appears Mint 9 at first glance, but upon closer inspection, the card can exhibit the following: a very slight wax stain on reverse, slightest fraying at one or two corners, a minor printing imperfection, and/or slightly off-white borders.

This is not a super high end card. It is a beautiful card with fantastic color, great whiteness, etc, but not a card that looks like a PSA 9 at first glance. I agree that if submitted a multiple number of times, it would come back different several times.

I have a 1959 Maz hi # All Star that was submiited 4x...1) Evidence of trimming 2) MC 3) MC 4) PSA 8......The card was taken out of a cello pack in front of me by Steve Timmons of Chicago Card Company in 1993 at East Coast National (when it was a great show). Every other card in the run of about 3 cellos got an 8 and the Webster got a 9. I'm not bashing anybody. Believe me I am not that kind of person. I would just like to see a little more consistency. And I will speak to Joe tomorrow.

packCollector · March 18, 2004 1:58AM

hub , that is not my statement , I just copied the guidelines from the psa website and that is what it says. I agree, it is not a high end card . outside of the diamond cut what does the rest of the card look like. centering is a key between grades. a card can be mint with 70-30 centering and it is a 7. at 1st glance without considering centering then the card would appear mint. my only point is that the card is within the guidelines, if you take centering out of the equation and look at the card it may look mint at 1st glance. no way to tell with a scan then you apply the centering and other mumble jumble that is stated and it fits the description.

as far as your 59 maz, is the card a perfect rectangle? if not, that's why it could come back "trimmed" and miscut? the rest of the cards in the pack have no bearing on the cut of that card.

and 1 more reference , as far as this card being "miscut", it's not and gemint already confirmed that the card is a rectangle. it would have been a shame if the card was destroyed years ago. man it's only thursday, 1 more day to go, I need a break

edited to add ; I see your frustration with the miscut. It is probably a mistake by psa to have a miscut qualifier for cards that are rectangle but with no border and then label cards miscut that are not a rectangle

BugOnTheRug · March 18, 2004 3:45AM

Gee,

Don't know what all the fuss is about. The card follows the guidelines for a PSA 8. Is it a 'pretty' eight? No. And it doesn't matter what holder it was in before.

If you put this card in a 7 holder, then you'd have the same amount of posts and arguments as to why in a 7 holder. So, the grader can't win on this one.

Yep, it's not the prettiest, so if it ever becomes available in the marketplace, I would think the final price would be determined accordingly.

Next card, please............

BOTR

acowa · March 18, 2004 5:09AM

<Question for ACOWA -

Where did you think this card would grade in a PSA holder when you began your contest?>

I was expecting a 10...gemint got shafted!!! Seriously, this is a case of "sell the holder". What's strange is that the SGC crossovers were all over the place. One of the cards given away was an SGC 88 that came back a PSA 7...so it evens out.

I am truly happy that gemint was able to get a card for his set. Realize, I sold off all of my 1952's with the exception of Jackie Robinson and Eddie Matthews and I had these SGC cards laying around collecting dust.

BTW - It really wasn't a contest. I was just giving away some SGC cards that PSA set registrants could cross over for their sets. I still have a few 1952's, 1967's, and 1968's left...I will post another free card when I have more time.

Regards,

Alan

gemint · March 18, 2004 5:53AM

Thanks again for the card Alan. Hopefully we'll meet up at the National this summer.

John

RayBShotz · March 18, 2004 6:10AM

gemint - Regardless of any banter to the contrary you have to be pleased with the result. 1952 Topps were always subject to abysmal cutting processes. It is always a thrill to get a card of overall quality such as this example and have it reside in a PSA 8 holder to boot.
You have found a "diamond in the rough" all things considered. Congrats.
ACOWA did you a solid. Very nice.
RayBShotz.

motocrosser · March 18, 2004 6:11AM

Alan, you're a class act!

mx'er

Who is that mx'er?
_______________
1961 topps 100%
Cy's & MVP's 100%

gemint · March 18, 2004 6:15AM

<< <i>gemint - Regardless of any banter to the contrary you have to be pleased with the result. 1952 Topps were always subject to abysmal cutting processes. It is always a thrill to get a card of overall quality such as this example and have it reside in a PSA 8 holder to boot.
You have found a "diamond in the rough" all things considered. Congrats.
ACOWA did you a solid. Very nice.
RayBShotz. >>

Indeed, a large percentage of the NM-MT 1952 cards out there have at least a slight diamond cut. I'm not embarassed at all to include this in my fledgeling 1952 set.

NickM · March 18, 2004 8:45AM

I'm very happy that my eyes deceived me. Congrats to gemint and 3 cheers to Alan.

Nick

Lothar52 · March 18, 2004 9:11AM

what is dropo famous for??

loth

duner · March 18, 2004 12:55PM

he was a three sport star at uconn. he was elected to the uconn basketball 100th anniversary squad a couple years ago. average 20.7 ppg in three seasons and still ranks no. 2 on uconn's all time list. was given opportunities to play professional baseball, basketball, and football. chose baseball and was the a.l. rookie of the year in 1950 when he hit .322, 34 hr's, and 144 r.b.i.'s. i'm sure he did more...but my specialty's uconn athletics. GO HUSKIES!!!!

ACOWA's 1952 SGC84 Walt Dropo Scan

Comments