1978 OPC Murray at what point is the card miscut

packCollector

Hi I was just trolling ebay and came across this card:



at what point is the card considered miscut? I have 2 with the exact same centering and cut that I pulled from a partial box last month. I didn't even consider sending them in as I thought they would be returned miscut. then I saw this card. do they normally let this go by?

calleocho

i see a tilt...where would the miscut be?

packCollector

if you look at the cut from 3/4 down , the card appears to have moved in cutting and the card is not a rectangle, itbasically has an arched edge . it's more defined and easier to see on the left as the card curves in

WinPitcher

pack i was under the impression a card got the MC qualifier when a border was missing or a card went into another. The diamond cut u see could possibly get an OC qualifier. IMHO


plus OPC cards are notorious for having ruff cuts diamond cuts bat ears etc etc etc

packCollector

sorry, this is why a miscut qualifier is stupid although I support an o/c qualifier. I was talking about when they return the card ungraded and refund the grading fees . that is why I didn't bother as I thought I was just going to get the cards back with vouchers

N-8 Miscut - This term is used when the factory cut is an abnormal cut. The grading fees are returned. You will be given a voucher good for another submission for the same type of service.

CON40

Duncan;
No question that card is a dog and should be designated a miscut... it has so many flaws in its trimming I don't know how it avoided the qualifier... reminds me though, I have to send you a scan of my OPC Murray... oooooops!

calleocho

i thought the MC qualifier was given when the card was so far off-center that its missing the border and in some extreme cases it might even show a part of the card next to it on the sheet.

this card is Tilted...diamond cut, but not miscut as i understand it.


something like this

calleocho

on the opc murray...

they measure centering if it stills meets the 65-35 from the worst part of the tilt...it it within the guidelines for a straight 8

so technically its graded correctly...it just lacks eye appeal, and it should sell to a discount of an PSA 8 that has better centering but maybe with a touched corner.

packCollector

ok I am losing this discussion. this is why psa should not have a "mc" qualifier and an "mc" ungradable. this card should not have been graded IMO because you can clearly see where the card moved in the cuting process causing the sway at the bottom 1/2 of the card. the left side curves in and the right side curves out. I was not criticizing psa for the grade ,just wondering if this is something that they grade becasue I thought they didn't. diamond cuts are fine and centering is just measured from the worst point. here is an example of a diamond cut that is gradable :



I was just trying to get some other opinions and experiences. cards that are so far o/c that are cut to the edge can be graded and will get the qualifier, why that is not just qualified o/c is beyond me. it would avoid alot of confusion which this thread has clearly proved that there is still confusion regarding mc qualifiers and mc ungradable

rbeaton

Robert

mikeschmidt

Packcollector:

I guess one general question/observation I have is this: At what point to you judge by today's standards, and when or should you always judge by contemporaneous standards?

Most vintage OPC cards should have a rough cut, for example.

Many caramel cards, and 19th century tobacco cards are literally parallelograms and do not resemble rectangles. It was the way it was done at the time - and I would rather see one of those than some encapsulated version that has been trimmed down to look like a rectange angle (and I've seen those - they're just ugly). I also have known some people to take a nail file to the edges of OPC cards to smooth out the rough cuts in hopes for a better grade, despite the fact that PSA overtly indicates that rough cuts are not something that will keep a card from a high grade.

Tilts suck - but they are one of the most apparent thing that an eye can see in evaluating a card. Since many here buy the card and not the holder - this shouldn't be too much of an ongoing issue.

packCollector

so what everyone is telling me is that these 2 cards are gradable? I won't be sending them in regardless unless it is to fill a bulk order but would like to know what the masses think if they will come back "N-8 Miscut , grading fees returned " or if they will come back in holders.

maybe if there are enough neople that chime in , I will send them to test the survey

CON40

Duncan;

To me, those appear to be miscut as the sides are not perpendicular... so much so that they probably won't fit into a holder... but it'd be an interesting test to see if PSA would try to slab them.

sjeanblanc

Duncan,

What do the backs look like?

Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay UserId: sjeanblanc
-----------------------------------------
Collecting improvements to my Nolan Ryan Basic set

sjeanblanc

Duncan,

This is why I'm asking about the back of the cards:

1980 OPC Ryan PSA 9




1980 OPC Ryan PSA 9 MC




The difference between the two is a millimeter of blue on the back of the card and I think the PSA 9 MC is
the nicer looking of the two.

Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay UserId: sjeanblanc
---------------------------------------------
Collecting improvements to my Nolan Ryan Basic set

packCollector

hi scott, the backs look fine and are centered aligned with the front. the card WILL NOT get a qualifier but I am qestioning if they will grade it. bummer on the "mc" ryan. I have a 73 opc carlton/tiant leader that is the same. dead centered on the front but the back is cut to the edge.

WinPitcher

I have a 1965 topps card with a similar back graded psa 8 nq

sjeanblanc

Duncan,

I have a couple of 74 OPC KLdrs that came back miscut "MC" but were not holdered. Let me dig around here and see if I can find them. If I do find them I'll post them here, I think that they weren't holdered because they were too wide for the normal card holder. I also had an OPC come back "Min Size Req" in my last submission, I think that one was a 77 OPC Ryan RB.

Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay UserId: sjeanblanc
---------------------------------------------
Collecting improvements to my Nolan Ryan Basic set

purelyPSA

Scott - it looks as though your PSA 9 MC has the same problem at the bottom of the card, where the card curves slightly at the edges. Maybe it's just the scan, but that could be part of the problem.

Wabittwax

packcollector, based on the graded Murray, I would say that your 2 Murray's are gradable. They look the same. I generally send in anything that is worth grading and once in a while I get a few back ungraded and I collect the little slips they send me. If those were my 2 Murray's, I'd definately submit them.

sjeanblanc

Duncan,

I could only find one of them, but they are basically the same problem. I think yours will be OK for grading they don't have the apendages that this card does.




Scott Jeanblanc
jeanblanc@iconnect.net
Ebay UserId: sjeanblanc
-----------------------------------------------
Collecting improvements to my Nolan Ryan Basic set

theplasticman

thats odd on the Murray. Im the registry guy on him by the way

That PSA 9 that was listed up above looks nice. Cant wait until I track one down when I can afford.