Home PSA Set Registry Forum

71T Questions

I'm sort of new to 71s so I could use some advice. I'm building the set raw in NM or better - but buying graded cards when it makes sense.

I'd like some feedback so I can get a better feel for what "NM" really is with regard to 71T.

I understand to focus on the card and not the holder, but looking at these three cards confuse me -

Frank Robinson
Rich Allen
Steve Garvey

Two of these cards I'm really comfortable, and the other looks like a train wreck to me. Is there really this much disparity among PSA7/NM cards from 71T?

Mike
So full of action, my name should be a verb.

Comments

  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    mike i have heard stories about certs staring with zero 01 02 etc, and the garvey card you show bares it out.

    a 71 card should not be given any benifit of the doubt just cuz it has a black border.

    furthermore it seems that many times whenever i come across 01, 02 etc certs the card seems over graded.


    good luck in building your set, it is a fine set.
    Good for you.
  • Mike,

    1971 Topps PSA 7, can be and will be all over the map as far as quality goes. If you like centering then the corners are bad, if the corners are good the centering is bad, or the centering is good the corners are good and the edges suck.

    Price wise you should be able to get graded PSA 7 commons for around $3-6 and the PSA 7 stars $10-40. That's been the going rate for most of the 71 cards that I have sold over the last 6 months.

    Hope this is usefull,

    Scott J.

  • mcastaldimcastaldi Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭
    Steve> Let me start by saying that I know several people believe that any cert number starting with 0 must be overgraded. Every time I do, I feel great. That means less competition for those cards. Seriously, of all the PSA-graded cards I've seen in the last 4 years there have been just as many super-nice cards with the 0 cert numbers as any other run. You have to judge the card rather than the holder/cert. Same as it ever was. . .

    Scott> Did you make it out to the show this past weekend??? The reason I'm confused about the three cards I posted is because I wonder why each of them is in a 7 holder. For the Robinson and Allen, I wonder why those aren't 8s. For the Garvey, I wonder why it's not a 6. On the Garvey, the corner isn't just touched - it's rounded. The reason I ask now is because if I'm going to run into PSA7s like the Garvey on a semi-regular basis, then I'm going to have to be very particular about what I buy that's already slabbed.

    Mike
    So full of action, my name should be a verb.
  • The "0" cert thing is just obnoxious. There are so many overgraded cards of late that is seems ludicrous to assert that a "0" cert is typically an overgrade. Some of the best cards I own are "0"'s. I've also seen some dogs. That's the nature of the beast regardless of the cert.
    Mike,
    You should've whacked the Sutton as well. Seriously, the Allen is a pretty tough card. Good luck with those FIFTEEN sets!!!image


    dgf
  • mcastaldimcastaldi Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭
    Actually Phil. . .it's 24 sets. You forgot the Fleer and Donruss stuff image

    Mike
    So full of action, my name should be a verb.
  • aconteaconte Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭
    It's sad to see some of you guys with the highest attention to quality and detail go raw!

    aconte
  • mcastaldimcastaldi Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭
    Tony> Don't be sad for me. Since I don't have to add $5/card for grading fees, I can afford better quality cards - and more of them.

    Having built three large graded sets (72T twice & 75T), I've just become increasingly disenchanted with graded cards due to PSA's inconsistency - especially over the past year. PSA is still among the best, but still doesn't grade consistently enough over the long term for me. And even in the best case, for the sets I'm building (69-84) PSA doesn't add a great deal of value. Certainly not enough to compensate for the effects of inconsistency (i.e. upgrading a card 2-3 times before finding one to meet their published standards, cracking and resubmitting cards 2-3 times to get the grade it deserved the first time, etc). I just don't submit anywhere near enough cards to let the numbers and quantities mitigate these issues.

    But I'm keeping an open mind. If PSA (or anyone else) is able to apply their standards with consistency over the long term, I can always have my stuff graded at that time. Until then, most of my stuff will stay raw. And honestly, a lot of the cards I'm accumulating present themselves better in a pristine CS1 than they do an any company's holder.

    Mike
    So full of action, my name should be a verb.
  • Mike,

    I didn't get to the show unfortunately, I ended up having to spend more time then I was expecting on my
    Web design class project.

    As for the cards this is what I can think of:

    Frank Robinson
    Centering appears to be borderline PSA 8, Surface appears good for a PSA 8, I will have to bet that there are
    at least two or more corners that are fuzzy, this is impossible to detect from a scan you have to hold the card up to a bright light to see this.

    Richie Allen
    Centering appears to be good enough for PSA 9, Surface appears good for a PSA 8+, I will wager that the lower left corner is dinged and at least two others are fuzzy for this to have gotten a PSA 7. If the corners are not in that condition then this is more than likely a PSA 8 mascarading as a PSA 7.

    Steve Garvey
    Centering appears to be good enough for PSA 8+, Surface appears good enough for a PSA 8, the upper right
    corner appears to have a touch of white and the lower right corner is dinged. This will get this card a PSA 7 most of the time and a PSA 6 from a tough grader.


    Mike, if your looking for some 1971 Topps NM quality raw, you should just drive by some day, I have a decent selection that will never end up at PSA do to financial reasons.

    Scott J.

  • MeferMefer Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭
    One of my favorite topics! I am building a PSA 7 or better 1971 Topps set and ever so inching close to 50 percent complete. Having both 7s and 8s in my set, and having submitted a number of 71s for grading myself, I might be able to chime in a few thoughts.

    First, in order to get an 8, you pretty much need almost four perfect corners to the naked eye. If white can be seen on just one corner, you are probably looking at no better than a 7. With that said, however, PSA does seem to tolerate a very, very minimal amount of white on one corner so long as the corner remains square. I would call this something along the lines of a "touch of white." If two corners present in this fasion (i.e., a touch of white), you are probably dropping down again into 7 land.

    As far as borders, PSA seems to be a bit more tolerant. A bit more white can show on the borders than on the corners and still qualify for an 8 especially if the cut is of the rough cut variety. I would not go so far as to say just ignore the borders, but I would pay more attention to corners.

    With respect to the surface, my experience has found the black border printing to be rather consistent which is somewhat surprising for a Topps 70s issue. You will, from time to time, find some examples that exhibit borders that appear to be more of a shadow color when compared to the rest of the black on the card (in other words, lighter in color) which can present some eye appeal issues. I have not, however, seen enough of an impact that this detrimentally hurts the grade. You may nonetheless want to pass on examples like this if the eye appeal does not do it for you.

    I have also seen a few examples that have small green blotches in the black border. I have one in graded form, my Aparacio (spelling?) which is a PSA 8 pd. The card from an eye appeal perspective looks good to me that is why I have kept it. The small green blotches may nonetheless present an eye sore to some people. I am tempted to resubmit this card to see if it would get the pd qualifier again because in my view, it does not have a printing defect that detracts from its eye appeal.

    Looking at your scans, and doing my best with what I can see, here are my comments on each card. First, with the Robinson, I think it got a 7 due to the bottom right corner. It looks to be a slight push to the corner. If the corner is in fact square, the grader may have felt it shows too much white. I have many cards graded 7 that look similar to the Robinson (i.e., fabulous looking cards) that upon resubmission, could be bumped up to an 8. This is a high end 7 in my opinion (no, I do not vote for half grades, I still like the simplicity of a ten point scale!).

    The Rich Allen is a fabulous card. I have never seen one as centered as nicely as this example. This card, as many collectors know, is notoriously difficult to find with decent centering. Due to its wonderful centering, this card in my mind would still garner a premium. With that said, why is it a 7? I look to the lower left corner which appears to be pushed with some white showing (remember the "square rule above?"). It also appears the lower right corner, though black, may be slightly pushed as well. Tough, tough, tough. A very nice card still and I would be more than happy to own this card in my set.

    I agree that the Garvey could be a 6 but still appears to be, in my experience, within a tolerance for a 7. Excluding the lower right corner, the other three corners show some where but retain a fair amount of black. While these three corners are not square, they do not go so far as to be rounded. I think due to the strength of these corners within the guidelines of a 7, the lower right corner can be deemed acceptable. The just about dead on centering helps this card and gives it, in my mind, good eye appeal. I cannot knock PSA for grading this card a 7.

    In my view, PSA has made the standards very tough for an 8 in this issue. In short, you need a card that, compared to other years, has to be more "minty" in appearance than you might expect. Due to these high expectations, the 7 range for this year is wider than other years. As such, you do have somewhat extreme examples (like the ones shown here) that fall into the 7 grade. The 8s seem, in general, to be grouped all close together and from the 9s I have seen and owned, too tend to be in general close in presentation.

    The market recognizes this and commands a premium for 8 graded examples. Many 8 examples command prices that are comparable to 9s in other years. I think if you are collecting this issue, you have to treat 9s and 10s as unheard of and 8s as fantastic. This leaves the 7 which I feel still, right now, are some of the most undervalued cards in the hobby. Given how tough it is to even get an 8, many 7s are out there right now that can be had for a decent price that present wonderfully (i.e., the Robinson and Allen are two good examples). I myself have 7s that look as good as many of my 8s. For these reasons, and perhaps from my biased view, I think a NM or PSA 7 set from 71 is a beauty.

    Great topic. Would like to hear from others!
  • Mike,

    Since this set has been my baby for the last three years, I feel like I should chime in. I am down to 7 cards and looking forward to my completion of the set. If you want to get an idea about grading you might want to check out my set as it includes scans of all the cards except the 7 that I am missing. It has a couple of PSA 9s, about 30% PSA 8s and the remainder PSA 7s.

    IMO, the grading in 1971 Topps tends to vary to a greater extent than in other years I have collected (i.e., 1957 Topps, 1970 Topps). I feel that this has to do with the sensitivity of the borders more than anything else. Some graders I believe may tend to cut the cards some slack due to the border sensitivity. On the other hand, I believe other graders hit them harder because they don't want to leave the impression that they are cutting them any slack. Because of this grading inconsistency, I have decided to complete the set first and then try to upgrade the cards that I feel are overgraded. In general, I haven't seen many cards that are grossly overgraded or undergraded.

    Although I have tended to see a few more PSA 7s in the "0x" series that are overgraded, I have also seen a bunch of cards in the "0x" series that are undergraded. Some of the PSA 8s I have from the "0x" series are the best PSA 8s I have. Personally, I don't shy away from purchasing these cards because most are consistent with the inconsistent grading of the present.

    I feel that the Robinson should be a PSA 7 mainly due to top-to-bottom centering. Otherwise, I think it would have received an PSA 8. The Allen is a strong candidate for resubmission in my opinion. It is definitely a high end PSA 7 and has all the qualities of a PSA 8 even with a questionable lower left corner. The Garvey is one of those overgraded cards that I am talking about. IMO, it should be a PSA 6; however, it probably falls within the PSA 7 grading standards. Definitely a low end PSA 7 at best.

    Also, I might be able to help you with some NM or better raw cards especially as you get closer to completing your set. I have a complete raw set that I am going to be selling once I complete my graded set. Many of the cards in my raw set are solid NM and some are solid NM-MT. Overall, I would say that my raw set is about EX+ with about 30% being NM or better. The high number are generally better than the low numbers in my raw set. I will let you know when I get ready to sell it.

    Mike
  • mcastaldimcastaldi Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭
    fishnut> "Some graders I believe may tend to cut the cards some slack due to the border sensitivity. On the other hand, I believe other graders hit them harder because they don't want to leave the impression that they are cutting them any slack. Because of this grading inconsistency, I have decided to complete the set first and then try to upgrade the cards that I feel are overgraded."

    I've found this to be true in most of the other sets I've been serious about - 72T, 75T, & 78T. It's exactly why I feel that it's in my best interests to keep my stuff raw. Again, if PSA or another company comes along who can prove consistency over the long term I'll be glad to put my stuff in their holders.

    Thanks for the insights, certainly helpful.

    Mike
    So full of action, my name should be a verb.
  • Mike,
    I sat next to you at the show and looked at some of the 71s you pulled out. With the exception of the first couple of cards you pulled(I think it was a tiant and another card) you were right on. In fact I would bet a handful of your stack would grade 8s for sure.
    I mentioned it that day and Ill say it again....be real careful with the black marker touch ups.Seems like these cards have been the target of recoloring since way back when.
    My opinions of the 3 scans are as follows. Robinson 7 Top to bottom centering and possibly some wear.
    Richie Allen looks like a candidate for a resubmission.Just great centering on that really tough card.It looks like a nice one.
    I agree with you on the Garvey.Ugly card
    With the grading its the same old story that you know better than anyone.I have submitted blazers with great centering and a small speck of white showing and it 7s. But then again you will see nasty centering with the same white showing in 8 holders. But the one positive is that you will rarely see a slider in a 9 holder. They are just really tough on 71s. You should be able to build a real nice set for a great bargain.Good luck and it was nice talking to you at the show.
  • good thread, with alot of good points. i agree PSA is VERY tough on the 71 topps bb. i feel alot has to do with this issues notorious "condition sensitive" reputation. i've seen a ton of well centered, crisp,glossy, sharply focused 71's end up in psa 7 holders by virtue of under 10x they have 2 touched corners or "slightest fraying" on two corners, with most issues thats usually "a lock " for an eight...not for 71's. having said that, it's a fact that 71 psa 7's have a market, unlike anything other major issue from the 70's.
    for 71's,it is such a fine line between 7 and 8 that i've decided to go raw with this issue as well, i sold a bunch of my 8's along with a ton of 7's. i cracked ALL of my remaining slabs (7's and 8's), picked the best cards from my raw hoard placed them all in CS 2's. i plan to pick up nice sevens of the stars (and crack em) and quality raw..alot can be said for a TRULY nm and better set of 71's.
    being inspired by DGF's masterpiece, i am also working on the "world's best" raw set of 77's.......
  • frankhardyfrankhardy Posts: 8,096 ✭✭✭✭✭
    mcastaldi,

    I have a few 1971 Topps in PSA 7 and 8 on Ebay right now. I have posted a link if you are interested in any. I know it is hard to tell with a scan, but if I was to have sent in the Garvey, it most likely would have gotten a 6. However, the Robinson and Allen look like 8's. Good luck on the sets. I to am trying to build a raw set, but mine
    is just VG to NM, and that is hard enough. I still need a Boog Powell and Luis Aparicio.


    My Ebay Auctions with 1971 Topps PSA 7 and 8

    Shane

  • frankhardyfrankhardy Posts: 8,096 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I just remembered that I forgot to supersize some of those pictures on Ebay. If you need any of those, I can send you a larger scan.

    Shane

  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    Good for you.
Sign In or Register to comment.