Options
Do you prefer PSA 9 (OC) or PSA 8 NQ
balco757
Posts: 124
As I was returning to hobby this summer, I made some of the common mistakes that I now understand many of us have made. Namely, I bought a handful of (OC) cards, believing from the way the SMR guide is listed left to right, that a 9 (OC) is somewhere in between a 9 and a 10. (I told PSA that they should consider a different way of displaying qualifyers, since it can leave one to a misunderstansing.....But, I digress.
Among my early purchases were a 73 Schmidt PSA 9 OC, 75 Yount PSA 9 OC and a 70 Bench PSA 8 OC. I have little interest in selling what I buy, but curious for opinions on sending them back for a review. I know that a 8 NQ is far from a gurarantee, but is the OC such a bad blemish over time......
Happy New Year to all.
Steve
Among my early purchases were a 73 Schmidt PSA 9 OC, 75 Yount PSA 9 OC and a 70 Bench PSA 8 OC. I have little interest in selling what I buy, but curious for opinions on sending them back for a review. I know that a 8 NQ is far from a gurarantee, but is the OC such a bad blemish over time......
Happy New Year to all.
Steve
steve
0
Comments
now depending on the eye appeal it would depend
I did send my Mantle 9 OC back in for grading "without a qualifier," it came back a six. But, it still wasn't a good looking card being that it was off center.
The trend now with almost all collectors is to take a card (even in lesser grade) well centered. I'm sure most of the responses on this will be the same, "Give me a lesser grade as long as it is centered."
I think PSA should get rid of the OC qualification and others as well and grade the card 1 through 10. If it is off center, give it a lower grade.
<< <i>I think PSA should get rid of the OC qualification and others as well and grade the card 1 through 10. If it is off center, give it a lower grade. >>
I agree and I think they should give cards that have rough cuts a lesser grade as well however I think it's too late to do this since a lot of people would have cards with crappy edges graded as 9's.
<< <i>."
I think PSA should get rid of the OC qualification and others as well and grade the card 1 through 10. If it is off center, give it a lower grade. >>
This makes sense to me too. In fact, this is the way that SGC does it; they don't give ANY qualifiers; hence the off-centeredness (or other flaw) is IMPLIED in the grade.
I got this Mantle for a few hundred bucks and am very happy with it.
Happy New Year
your friend
Mike
<< <i>I think PSA should get rid of the OC qualification and others as well and grade the card 1 through 10. If it is off center, give it a lower grade. >>
I agree, too. PSA should drop the qualifiers and just down grade (mark down the grade) the card. Why put a qualifier such as 9(OC) if the grade w/out a qualifier is a 7 or 6. So this means the card with qualifier such as OC is just partly graded. They only graded the corners edges and surface --> no grade for centering. Just doesn't make sense to me.
I got confuse too with the qualifier. I thought 9 (OC) is just half point down like an 8.5 since they don't give half grades. Is there such a thing as 10 (OC)?? What if everything is 10 (edges, surface, corners) and centering is OC? How would PSA grade that? I think they really should drop the qualifiers (OC, MK, ST, etc) and give the TRUE 4 point grading of the card.
I don't care for the qualifiers either, but I have seen some really sharp 9 (OC) cards I wouldn't mind owning...
Under PSA's unqualified grading standards, a card that's worse than 90/10 one direction would get no better than a PSA 1. The market has never valued a card of this nature as a Poor or Fair card, so I think that PSA's grading standards are better for reflecting the special treatment that the market gives off-centered cards.
Miscut cards would also automatically be Poor or Fair if qualifiers were eliminated. While a front miscut is heavily downgraded, there are back miscuts on certain sets that don't significantly impair the presentation of the card (I have a '55 Bowman SGC 84 common with a L-R miscut of the back that doesn't affect any text or the special elements of the design - PSA would give this card a 7 (MC) if the grader noticed the back miscut, but no one would seriously consider this card to be Poor or Fair.).
(PD) cards are the most subjective as to whether the qualifier is applied (especially in the case of light print snow or fish eyes). Here, the absence of a qualifier might wel lead to PSA easing up on their standards for what is acceptable in a certain grade.
The (MK) qualifier is hugely important IMO. Most collectors won't touch a marked card unless it would be very difficult to find one unmarked. In this case, the qualifier is more important than the technical downgrade, because it notifies collectors that this may be a card to avoid entirely.
I can recall only seeing 2 (OF) cards ever, so I can't say what effect those have, except that I have no idea what sort of grading standard you would use for the focus of a card.
As to the question whether I'd prefer 9(OC) or 8, that depends on the prices of both and the appearance of the 9(OC).
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Here's my example of a PSA 9 OC that could be 8 unqualified because the OC is not that bad. But I like the fact that its Mint qualities are recognized, especially in a very tough card like a '53. (Yeah, I trot Eddie out every time this question is asked. Forgive me!)
P.S. That Matthews card knocks your socks off!!!!!!!!!!
I know we have discussed this topic but it is interesting. The graded set that I am pursuing consistently has commons that are extremely well centered go for above SMR but the ones that are 64/40 go anywhere from 55 to 75% SMR. I'll take the poor man's PSA 8 any day. Now if money were no object, I would sit around and fight for perfectly centered 9's. And to be able to do that, I will be needing the:
"Buy the card, not the holder"
But to answer your question, I, too, would rather have a straight 8 than a 9OC.
My point is i think for resale value, i would prefer to get a NQ since a lot of people dont buy the card but the slab. For anything else, it really depends on the collector himself. If a card is not severely off centered, has 8-9 qualities (like the mays card and the others shown in this post) on edges, surface and corners, and is a card i really need....then i would definitely take it.
jr: And i have a mathews card with similar qualities but off centered the other direction. It is a PSA 6. Got it very cheap, though. Corners are not as sharp as yours, but it is 7 quality. It is probably a 8 or 7 with an OC qualifier.
We also read earlier that SGC did not reflect qualifiers on their holders, which is true. But SGC was also more lenient on centering. The market knew that and priced the cards accordingly.
I find it ironic that we have multiple threads about the sometimes inconsistencies of PSA's grading, but than argue against qualifiers, which PSA uses as a mechanism for tighter grading and consistency
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Based on the centering and the quality of the corners, that card looks like an 8 or 9 (OC) IMO. But asking for the NQ is not always a savior. If that card were put on ebay, IMO, the card would not sell well as a 7 due to the centering. May not even sell at all unless the starting bid were a buck. The trend on ebay is to look for well centered cards in the grade that one is looking for.
Just my take.
Happy New Year
your friend
Mike
<< <i>If that card were put on ebay, IMO, the card would not sell well as a 7 due to the centering. >>
Sad but true. As a straight 7, people will think it's a plain ol' 7 that barely skated by on the centering. If you claim it's a 9 in other aspects, they probably will dismiss it as the usual eBay hype. I think the 9 (oc) would do much better.
In fact, I know it would. Earlier this year I sold a 1961 Mantle PSA 9 (oc) on eBay for a price that was closer to SMR 8 than 7. It was "aloof" of these boards who bought it. If it had been slabbed a straight 7, he and others would have thought it was a "slider" due to the centering and it might have fetched only 6 value. We're talking a difference of hundreds of dollars on that card.
Anyway, I think sometimes 9 (oc) is a better idea than a straight 7, especially if the centering is not all that bad. The Mathews above is an example. Conceivably I might someday try to cross to a straight 8, but never to a 7. I wouldn't humiliate Eddie like that!
your friend
Mike
Scott
T-205 Gold PSA 4 & up
1967 Topps BB PSA 8 & up
1975 Topps BB PSA 9 & up
1959 Topps FB PSA 8 & up
1976 Topps FB PSA 9 & up
1981 Topps FB PSA 10
1976-77 Topps BK PSA 9 & up
1988-89 Fleer BK PSA 10
3,000 Hit Club RC PSA 5 & Up
My Sets
<< <i>On the subject of centering, would you give this card a qualifier? >>
Mike, I haven't done a L/R pixel count, but it looks to be within the criteria for PSA 8, although barely so. That particular card I would rather have as 8 than 9 (oc). To me it's a case-by-case thing.
Maybe we should get on Oprah: "Off-Center Cards And The Weirdos Who Like Them" ... followed by "Women Who Sleep With Their Daughters' Boyfriends"
I think I dated her sister
Good responses! You guys have taken them right out of the Stone193 playbook!!!
this 52 bowman of billy goodman/jackie jensen is just a tad OC (top to bottom)
I actually just had an auction end where I was in this situation...
1960 Carl Yastrzemski RC
Of course I got sniped in the last seconds, but I didn't want to go any higher than I already did. To me this looked like a nice example of an unqualified card. I couldn't find any closed auctions for a 9OC in the past year to compare, but this one ended up going for approximately $50 more than SMR for a 7. The T/B centering didn't look to far off from some PSA 8's out there, but it's a crapshoot.
If that slab was a PSA 8 instead of PSA9 OC I obviously would have bid higher, but it's hard to drop the hammer with the qualifier staring back at you.
Chris
I think the fact that for Registry purposes, PSA downgrades a card 2 grades shouldn't be a factor as to a cards worth. This is a classic example of "Buy the card, not the holder"
I recall a PSA rep telling me at a show one time that if you the OC side can go inside the opposite side twice then PSA would give it an OC qualifier. Your Oliver looks close but probably a PSA 8 that would sell for less then a better centered example. I would pay more for a better centered PSA 7 though.
<< <i>Stone,
I recall a PSA rep telling me at a show one time that if you the OC side can go inside the opposite side twice then PSA would give it an OC qualifier. Your Oliver looks close but probably a PSA 8 that would sell for less then a better centered example. I would pay more for a better centered PSA 7 though. >>
If I understand you correctly, that can mean a 67/33 centering which could almost be a straight 9 but definitely a straight 8. My assumption is that PSA eyeballs these things anyway and it can't tell if it's 65/35 (9 NQ) or 67/33 (8 NQ).
Scott
T-205 Gold PSA 4 & up
1967 Topps BB PSA 8 & up
1975 Topps BB PSA 9 & up
1959 Topps FB PSA 8 & up
1976 Topps FB PSA 9 & up
1981 Topps FB PSA 10
1976-77 Topps BK PSA 9 & up
1988-89 Fleer BK PSA 10
3,000 Hit Club RC PSA 5 & Up
My Sets
<< <i>Stone,
I recall a PSA rep telling me at a show one time that if you the OC side can go inside the opposite side twice then PSA would give it an OC qualifier. Your Oliver looks close but probably a PSA 8 that would sell for less then a better centered example. I would pay more for a better centered PSA 7 though. >>
Jay
I pulled this card off ebay...I will not purchase an 8 this far from center...that was my point - these don't sell as quick as nicely centered ones. And as you stated which is what most would say: give me a centered 7 over a borderline poorly centered 8 NQ.
thanx for the input guys
your friend
Mike