1965 Topps Berra PSA 10 ???

Basilone · July 2, 2004 2:57PM

Not sure about this one......

Auction Link

mudflap02 · July 2, 2004 3:20PM

I'm going to buy it just so I can crack and resubmit and get it the grade it deserve, a 9 or 9 (OC).

This is probably going to be another one of those "eye appeal" judgment calls. The rest of the card is probably "so perfect" that it makes up for 75/25 centering. I feel that this argument completely negates the purpose of the Gem Mint grade. Booo

psa8myaz · July 2, 2004 3:30PM

Where is JP getting these sliders? He recently sold a low pop 53 Bowman Lockman PSA 8 that was centered 85/15.

jrdolan · July 3, 2004 12:32AM

How on earth?? I have many 60s cards with centering like that graded PSA 9 (oc) or straight 7-8 when I requested NQ. Is this the rumored favoritism that everyone has talked about?

Not only that, it looks like it may have some minor print marks to the right of Yogi's name and to the left of his face. They don't bother me at all, except it's graded Gem Mint 10 and should be perfect.

At least one person will pay $2000; it's got a bid.

uniship · July 3, 2004 2:22AM

9

NickM · July 3, 2004 3:15AM

I think those are scanner issues or on the slab rather than print marks on the card, but that's not PSA 9 centering.

Nick

highend · July 3, 2004 3:24AM

another "old grade"......under the current PSA regime an 8 or a 9 if they gave you a little leeway on the centering.

brumbach · July 3, 2004 3:33AM

Not really related to the grade, but has anyone else ever noticed the uncorrected error on the back of the '65 Berra? 1956 was printed as 1056. No big deal, just something I noticed at some point.

jrdolan · July 3, 2004 3:46AM

Seems like I really missed the boat moneywise by being out of the hobby during the old regime. This is the finest example of "Buy the card, not the grade."

<< another "old grade"......under the current PSA regime an 8 or a 9 if they gave you a little leeway on the centering. >>

jrdolan · July 3, 2004 3:48AM

If you ask Yogi what kind of year he had in 1056, he'd say: "I wasn't born yet, so I wouldn't know."

<< Not really related to the grade, but has anyone else ever noticed the uncorrected error on the back of the '65 Berra? 1956 was printed as 1056. No big deal, just something I noticed at some point.

packCollector · July 3, 2004 4:02AM

ok , the card should not be a 10 and it is in an holder where 10's were easier. the reality is the cards should be a 9 and I think when most highend collectors look at these that is how they look at these cards. if it's a 10 in an old holder there is a good chance the card is a 9 although well centered versions are probably worthy.

ok the centering, the card is 55/45 side to side , 63/37 top to bottom. not sure where 75/25 came from but it is well within the standards for a 9 and would most likely be a 9 in a new submission. and if anyone got a 9 o/c on that card , they would be screaming holy hell that they got screwed and the grader of death got their order.

srs1a · July 3, 2004 4:19AM

PackCollector, I don't think it is "well within" the guidlines for a 9 -- a 9 is supposed to be 60/40 or better with a 5% allowance, if warranted. To my eye, it looks about 2:1 top to bottom...which is about where you measured it. Definately a slider for a straight 9.

goodriddance189 · July 3, 2004 4:23AM

wiwag? even discounting the poor centering, the corners look soft. how is that in a 10 holder?

packCollector · July 3, 2004 5:05AM

top to bottom gets discounted less than side to side and 63/37 top to bottom is most likely going to qualify for a 9. maybe I should not have said "well within" but the fact that there are comments that this card is 75/25 , may grade 9 o/c is frustrating. we are trying evaluate the card , it seems that when someone thinks a card is overgraded, they overstate the argument the other way which completely defeats the purpose of discussion. It's not my card but I am looking at it with an open mind. If I submitted that card and it came back a 9 o/c , I would be pi**ed as well as anyone else on this board.

srs1a · July 3, 2004 5:36AM

pC, no arguments here. Very nice card, but doesn't deserve a double digit grade.

I'm kind of suprised that no one has commented on the PSA-9 '52 Mantle that the same seller has up. To my eye, it looks to be tight to 65/35 T/B (left side) and the UL corner looks soft..maybe the corner is just a scanner issue. I was about to jump all over the zit on the Mick's face, but the seller says that is just on the scan. You'd think for well over $100K, they might do another scan.

52 Mantle, PSA-9

iamthegreatcornholio · July 3, 2004 5:47AM

<< doesn't deserve a double digit grade. >>

Nor a quadruple digit price tag

<< I'm kind of suprised that no one has commented on the PSA-9 '52 Mantle that the same seller has up. >>

It has been on the vintage board - first as a stolen scan, but then the real auction Link

Considering the tilt, it's a weak 9 IMO.

Brian

jrdolan · July 3, 2004 7:49AM

<< I was about to jump all over the zit on the Mick's face, but the seller says that is just on the scan. You'd think for well over $100K, they might do another scan.

Heck, I do a rescan on a $50 card if a piece of dust or whatever makes it look like there's a print defect.

Basilone · July 3, 2004 12:15PM

This card was graded some time ago when there were VERY LITTLE PSA 10s in the 1965 set ( they still are very rare). Anyways, if a person just graded one of the first PSA 10s of a HOF'er from a mainstream Topps set....you would think he/she would want a second set of eyes to at least look it over again for confirmation.....right?

helionaut · July 5, 2004 3:59AM

Just look at Yogi, though. Eat your heart out, Brad Pitt.

1965 Topps Berra PSA 10 ???

Comments