My claim to fame and 1961 Topps Houk

Spahnfan

I just thought I would share a couple of cards I submitted that I am very pleased with. I don't think they are the ones that are worth the most, but they are certainly the lowest population cards I have. The 1961 topps #98 checklist in red is 1 of 2 graded an 8 with none higher. I submitted that card last fall. The 1954 Topps #101 Gene Woodling has a population of 15 in a grade of 8 with only one 9. I just received the Woodling card back from PSA.

I also submitted the Houk card at the same time as the Woodling card. I thought it had a legitimate shot at at 8. I compared it to the ones on a thread a couple of weeks ago and it seems to measure up to the two that were pictured. This card seems to be as clean on the front, if not more so. My card has 33/67 centering from top to bottom. The back is clean and better centered than the front. The corners seem to be good enough for an 8. Any ideas why the card got a 7 instead of an 8?







The scans sure turned out much more fuzzy than the original. The cards really do look better in person than in the scans.

peterredshoes

I'll take a couple of guesses at the Houk, based on the scan and best recollection of other cards seen online:

1. The bottom two corners look just a tiny bit soft. Might that be enough when coupled with the vertical centering to drop to a 7?

2. Vertical centering might actually be worse than 33/67 by a bit. Just thinking off the top of my head, the centering looks more like better 7s I've encountered than off-center 8s.

Hard to be convinced on either from just a scan, of course, but that's my take.

Peter G.

MorrellMan

Re.: Houk - hard to tell from a scan, but I think you're better off with a straight 7 than an 8 o/c - just my opinion....

WinPitcher

Top to bottom centering made that a 7 as for the corners from a scan i can't tell. nice card non the less just not an 8 (on that day anyway) This of course is my very humble opinion as my Houk is prolly no better then a 4 on its best day . hehe

WinPitcher

NICE JOB on that red checklist. beauty!

Buckwheat

That Houk is certainly close to an 8. I agree taht the cedntering is the biggest problem, although it is difficult to see from the scan.

As far as the 98 Red Letter. That is the rarest of the 3 varieties of the card, although, it is not really a pop 2. Until recently, most of the 98's were just labeled as checklist and not further subcategorized. Thus there are red letter varieties that are listed under the pop report category--usual varieties. I sold the oone that is pictured here (sorry about the quality of the scan), and I still have one that is listed as red letter. I suppose mine and yours are the only ones that are so labeled.

The other two variations are yellow letters white 98 and yellow letters black 98, but I have seen them mislabled. I have a yellow letters with white 98 that is labeled as black 98.

In any case, I don't think that this is considered a significant variation, and I have never seen it affect the selling price much. Perhaps that is because the set registry only requires one variation, and any will do.



red lettered variation not labeled

highend

IMHO that houk is nothing to be ashamed of. it may have just missed an unqualified 8, but as morrell mark said i'd take the 7 over the 8 with the offensive OC next to it.

Spahnfan

Thanks for the feedback. My scan is not very clear and looking at the scan, the bottom two corners do look a little soft, but look much nicer in person.

Be that as it may, I have another question about centering. PSA guidelines state that a card needs to be 65/35 to 70/30 for a grade of 8. Explain excatly what this means? Does 70/30 make the grade or not?

Rob, I had heard somewhere that many of the checklists in various years were not separated by variety earlier in the grading process, so I understand. But at this point in time I can show my wife and friends what a rare card I have because I can show them the pop report with a 2. I think it adds a little credibility to the money I am spending on cards and on grading them.

purelyPSA

From what I understand, the more the card enters into that last 5%, the nicer it has to be to get the grade. My experience has been, if the card is nice enough for a 9 but it's 67/33, then they'll give it an 8 instead of a 9OC. If it has NM/MT 8 qualities but is outside the 65/35, then you're looking at a 7.

I've gotten some 67/33 8s before, but not on anything that had anything less than Mint 9 corners. All the other aspects have to be high end before you start getting the breaks on the centering. I think what you have has been fairly graded, though I'm sure that's disappointing based on the 800 bucks or so difference in the two grades. Sorry.

COSTANZA

wolfbear

Actually, I come up with 26.7 - 73.3 top to bottom on the Houk,
which doesn't look anywhere near as bad as 26.7 - 73.3 left to right would look.

So, consider it a technical 7, with the eye appeal of an 8 ...

Buckwheat

<< <i>

Rob, I had heard somewhere that many of the checklists in various years were not separated by variety earlier in the grading process, so I understand. But at this point in time I can show my wife and friends what a rare card I have because I can show them the pop report with a 2. I think it adds a little credibility to the money I am spending on cards and on grading them. >>



Amen, Brother.