Where is the corner??

1954

Regardless of what vintage year you collect, I am sure you have run into this with PSA. You find a gorgeous pre-war card that you think should grade a PSA 6/7. You get it graded and it comes back a PSA 2. After looking at the card you realize that the card was downgraded because a tiny piece of paper is gone from the back of the card. It takes you eight minutes to locate the paper loss, but the overall appearance of the card is a strong exmt.
Now here is my problem. Link please 5129768739.
I have been collecting the 1954 Wilson Weiners set for 4 years and I have seen some grading issues with PSA from this set, but this takes the cake. Any thought on this?

1954

mudflap02

Is that your phone number?

fsjeter

1954 Wilson Franks Feller

Yeah, that is a pretty bad looking PSA 5. Could it be because TJ Schwartz is the owner (course that doesn't mean he was the one that submitted it for grading).

I got a PSA 5 on a 1982 Topps Traded Cal Ripken that looks like a PSA 9 compared to that one.

Scott

theBobs

amazing

fsjeter

Woo Hoo! This is post number 400!!!

jmpkcp

The corner is still there, it is just stained so it looks like it is missing. good joke mudflap. Here is the auction he was talking about. Click on the back image supersize and it is even easier to see it is still there.

jmpkcp

1954

Okay the corner is there, but the paper on the corner is not. This should not be in a PSA 5 holder. I have had many conversations with Joe O. on this set and how PSA misgrades some of these cards. What bothers me the most is when I see a straight PSA 8 for sale and it is centered the same as my PSA 8oc's. Hmmmm. I guess it is just me.

1954

Cubfan

I wonder if that is one of those that might have been damaged between receiving the grade and being encapsulated.

Otherwise, that just doesnt seem right.

Griffins

I bought a card (sight unseen, never again) with the corner completely missing that was graded PSA 4. Sent it in for review and was told it was graded accurately. At least this one has a layer of the missing corner.

helionaut

I believe the corner's there. I've got it blown up on a good monitor and you can make out the tiniest sliver of orange along with the white border, but it's under a dark grey stain. The corner itself is pretty strongly blunted like the lower left. I don't know how it escaped a MK or ST, though.

murcerfan

What can we conclude from all these recent examples ?

ranger63

i agree...if it is a 5 there should be qualifier.

murcerfan

seriously, what is the big deal ??

everybody knows by now that:
1. Baseball card collectors are way too picky.
2. PSA grading standards are subjective (based on who submits any given card perhaps).
3. Everybody makes mistakes


I mean....C'mon,

....they are only baseball cards for crying out load.

BigKidAtHeart

<< <i>i agree...if it is a 5 there should be qualifier. >>

yes.
the card is completely out of focus,
and OC,
and has the stained corner.
so IF it gets a 5, it should be qualified for at least one of these....

interchanges

Shane, what're you fishing for a 5 for? Your 8 o/c outranks that!

I agree, that is paper loss, and should be a 3, maybe a 4.

1954

Interchange-
Not that I am looking for an upgrade, but I do like to see what is available on Ebay from this set. I love seeing a straight 8 Feller with the same centering as my two PSA 8oc's and then being told that it is not the same centering by PSA. Oh well, live and learn.
1954

Buccaneer

This reminds me of a similar issue. Why would a card with a very hard to see wrinkle or missing paper on the reverse be graded down more severely than something that is much more obvious on the obverse (like centering, stains, snows, etc.)? I know it is subjective but I would much rather have a minute wrinkle on the back than a PSA 8 that comes in at 69.5/30.5 centering on the front. Or in this case, a PSA 2 with missing paper layer on the back than a PSA 5 with an obvious stained corner than makes it look like it's missing. I have a perception that in the guise of speed grading, subjectivity is being used as a fall-back in place of common sense.

dstudeba

1954 -

It took me 3 looks at that card since it has been up to see the corner. It is just ugly. What is annoying to me is that my Feller (which you remember) has awesome corners, acceptable centering, and looks like a strong 7. I haven't sent it in yet, but due to a small half centimeter wrinkle, I know it will get a 5. That it will get the same grade as this will keep it raw for a while.

Funny this is that I have a Stahl Meyer PSA 4 that after almost a year of ownership I have found out why it got a 4 instead of an 8. Yes I said 8. 1.5 cm wrinkle on the back that it took me a year to find! Wish I could find more of those in a PSA 4.

"Nothing could be more enjoyable than making 55,000 New Yorkers shut up." - Curt Schilling (paraphrased)

downgoesfrazier

The issue is that the published standard gives way to common sense and reasoning. A stain like that could easily be on an EX/MT 6. The centering probably whacked this copy. Meanwhile a microscopic amount of missing reverse paper or virtually invisible surface wrinkle warrants a "5".
I have a larger issue with 10's. How can a PSA 8 be more desireable by every collector with a collecting IQ above that of a chimp than a PSA 10. Baseball cards are art to many and are actually "picture cards". Still we have graders that grade strictly on technical merit and others who employ the desirablility factor to arrive at their grade without regard to the technical standard--hence, no consistency. There is no system that will please everybody--even within ONE grading team or company with published standards. Keep 'em raw guys. Here's a little secret 1954...

If you've been collecting these things for four years actively, at best you're vastly more knowledgeable than the guys grading your cards and at worst you know what you have when you find it. You don't need PSA or anybody else validating your findings. For a novice who wants to throw some money after "ball cards"--fine. For the astute collector, not so much. If you need to sell your cards great--grade 'em and move 'em, but more and more guys are going back to raw. Until then we should quit bichin' and moanin' about this stuff and understand that who submits the card and how many cards are on the invoice matters and the standards are impossible for different humans with different interpretations of them to be consistently applied.

Now, can someone dig up a picture of a chimp collecting cards?

dgf

mcastaldi

Phil> There are a few people who are disillusioned with the maddening inconsistency of all grading companies and are going back to raw.

Mike

Buccaneer

<< <i>Phil> There are a few people who are disillusioned with the maddening inconsistency of all grading companies and are going back to raw.

Mike >>



And I imagine that there are those smart enough (or as dgz said, IQ above a chimp) not to even start playing the graded/registry set game. But one cannot be critical of those who choose to play that game, however. It's the mentality that you HAVE to in order to be a serious collector or what gets me, that a nice raw set is not viewed on par with a set that happened to have each card encased in a $8 plastic slab.

downgoesfrazier: Well said, except for this sentence - "How can a PSA 8 be more desireable by every collector with a collecting IQ above that of a chimp than a PSA 10." Can you rephrase or clarify?

wolfbear

Good luck putting together high grade pre-1970's sets without buying graded cards.
I cherish my raw 1960's sets, but I don't kid myself into believing that they're in anything more than EXMT condition.

To disparage those of us with the means and competitive spirit to excell in the registry smacks of sour grapes.

Graded cards and the registry aren't for everyone.
Not everyone can afford graded cards, and not everyone can afford to compete.



downgoesfrazier asked for a pic of a chimp collecting cards.

After reading the posts in this thread,
the following picture may be a little more appropriate :

downgoesfrazier

Clarification: A PSA NM/MT 8 should never be a superior card aesthetically to a PSA 10. It should never be sharper, cleaner, better focused, etc. The amount of 8's and 9's I keep in my set behind my 10 (for competitive purposes and ego fulfillment, of course) is staggering. A card that is OF or bleached out or chipped, etc. that meets the published technical criteria--sometimes they don't even do that--should not be awarded 10 status. The PSA 10 has always been, and continues to be the single most erratically assigned grade and it is also the most expensive. That's a real problem. A fair amount of 10's are worthy, but an even greater amount seem to be randomly assigned. In completing my '77 set I cracked 6 8's and re-subb'd them to 10's. That should be impossible.

Wolfbear,
I assume you were not talking to me about participating the registry. Check out 1977 topps. I will not do it again, however, as the grading is just too random. I will be more likely to purchase cards in person already holdered or on eBay with large scans from reputable dealers. When I can, I will choose the raw copy. I will continue to submit cards to PSA to enjoy the random sport of it from time to time as well or to holder a key card to sell a set, etc. But to compete at a "sport" where the rules change from hour to hour is just nonsense.


dgf

1954

Frazier-
You have some great points. Thanks for the "quality" info. I get frusterated when I see incorrect grades especially on those sets that I try to collect. Maybe collect raw is the right thing to do???

Dan-
I do remember your Feller and it was a very nice card. You need to send that one in. I would love to know the grade.

1954

Buccaneer

<< <i>But to compete at a "sport" where the rules change from hour to hour is just nonsense.


dgf >>



...and o compete in a sport where cards become nothing more than a commodity with a cert number and a grade.

wolf: I was talking about a full set of graded cards - including the commons. My sets that I am putting together have all of the stars graded but nearly all of the commons raw. After months and months of debating this, it is my perception that there is little common sense in doing it all graded - unless you can afford to do so and you like the competition, as you said. So to be disparging, I really try not to but I do sometimes react to the elitism and snobbery that tends to come with being on the registry.

dstudeba

1954 -

I have that Feller, a nice Kuenn and a 1954 Stahl Meyer Hodges to send in. I am waiting to get a few more gradeable cards so I can use my free gradings. The only cards I have bought this year (with the exception of a spurt of Wilsons) have been Hunters, Briggs, and Esskays which as interchanges would say "look like they came from the inside of someone's shoe".


To hell with Pedro's Daddy

DaBigHurt

downgoesfrazier = my favorite poster

Thanks for telling it like it is. There are times when I have things graded by PSA that come back with grades I swear must have been assigned by a random number generator.

Griffins

Nice Wilson Feller in the new Mile High auction.

aconte

Thread hijack!

Griffins,

The Wilson Frank might be nice but two of the three red mans are real dogs to me. How can the Joe
Black get a grade of Psa 8? This is terrible!

1953 Horrible Psa 8 Joe Black

aconte

downgoesfrazier

Tony,
I'm sorry. I used the tab to flatten some soil when potting last spring just before the card was submitted...my bad! I know how you like those tabs...CLEAN! I like the left edge...niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicccccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


dgf

dude

Actually, in my opinion, it's harder to consistently grade F-EX (1-5), than say NM-Mint to Gem Mint (8-10) since so much more damage is usually present and therefore much more is left for subjective interpretation. The card in question has an odd flaw (surface paper loss on the front and back corner - but the pasteboard seems to be intact), and the grading standards don't specifically address this type of flaw to my knowledge.

As for collecting raw or graded, I guess it's to each his own. I agree with Wolfbear, building a high grade, raw vintage set (1967 or older) is pretty tough to do since many NM-Mint or higher cards have been slabbed. You don't see high grade vintage raw cards at shows anymore - especially stars or the tougher commons. I've also never had great luck buying raw on eBay either. Then there's the whole issue of buying raw doctored cards. I guess I was fortunate in that I built raw sets in the '90's and slabbed most of the cards for my sets from 2000 to 2002. If I had to start from scratch, I don't know what I'd do. Buying one graded card at a time to build a 600 card set doesn't sound fun to me.

RepublicaninMass

I agree the Pre-70's raw card market in disappearing. I collected my 1955 set in 1990-1991 and I remember how "Mint" the stars looked. When they came back for psa 4's, 5's and 6's I realized my cards weren't really that nice. We have a show coming up here in Mass in November I hope to see some nice raw stuff, I will be bringing my ruler, and a pocket full of $$$!

ZodiacMindwarp

<< <i>If I had to start from scratch, I don't know what I'd do. Buying one graded card at a time to build a 600 card set doesn't sound fun to me. >>



Dan,

While I can understand and appreciate your position, building my 1969 set one card at a time is what has provided me with some of the fun that I used to experience when I collected as a child. I think, for many, the thrill of the chase outweighs the contentment of completion. Some collectors have to sell their sets when they reach 100% in order to finance the next project.

Michael

1954

Now that is a gorgeous Wilson Feller in Mile highs' auction. All of the Fellers that I have seen in high grade have the same cut where the bottom of the card slopes down........unless it was hand cut from a set. If someone has any pull with PSA that would be a great card to move to a PSA 8. My luck is that there is no way that it would be bumped.

1954

Wabittwax

1954, I've had PSA take off a qualifier before. I had a Rickey Henderson RC that got a 9oc. I took it to the National a couple years ago along with a Henderson straight 9. I picked a straight 9 that was equal to or worse than the 9oc. It was easy because they all looked relatively similiar coming from the same case. I showed both cards to them and they sent them back for review (free of charge). The 9oc came back a straight 9. It should have been a straight 9 to begin with (it wasn't far enough oc to warrant a 9oc), I just used both cards to prove my point. That put about an extra $150 in my pocket when I sold it. Good example of buy the card, not the holder. The same exact card was in 2 different holders but 1 holder was worth 4 times the price of the other one.

pc

feller looks to me like the "enzyte" guy
and are those braces on his teeth?!?

BugOnTheRug

Well said Phil......


<< <i>The PSA 10 has always been, and continues to be the single most erratically assigned grade and it is also the most expensive. That's a real problem. A fair amount of 10's are worthy, but an even greater amount seem to be randomly assigned. >>


I'm not sure how this statement applies to older (50's-60's material), but in 70's and 80's (don't know squat about cards newer than 1990), this can be very true. This is one of the main reasons I'm basically sticking to 9's in my registry set: the cost/value for a 9 in 84D. At what can be much less than a $6 grading fee, I can and have obtained many, many cards with beautiful color, focus, and exceptional centering. I think 9's as of late have been the 'forgotten' card in 80's issues, with the scrambling going to the 10's. But that's ok by me, I'll just drive in the slow lane..........

BOTR