Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

I really need some help . . .

Mac53Mac53 Posts: 805 ✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
. . . in learning how to grade cards. I sent a bunch of cards in. I frankly thought that every one of them had a chance at a 9 or even a 10. Boy, was I wrong. Some cards came back higher than I thought they would, but way, way more came back lower, sometimes a lot lower. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I don't have a lupe, and even if I did, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to look for. I did look at my cards under magnification (less than a lupe), and I couldn't see anything wrong with them at all. I wouldn't have wasted the time or the money to get a bunch of 6s back. So, I'm asking you guys with sharp eyes and seasoned brains to look at some examples and school me. Each of the following cards received a different grade, but I don't know why. Please give me five minutes and tell me, how you would rank them in order, what grade you would give them, and (most importantly) why. I know it might be hard to judge from a scan, but I ask you guys to give it a try. I thought that by hiding their grades, I wouldn't have to worry about prejudgment. I've got a lot of respect for your judgment, and hope this approach is OK. I appreciate any guidance you can give me.


Card A: imageimage

Card B: imageimage


Card C: imageimage

Many thanks, guys.
"Charlie, here comes the deuce. And when you speak of me, speak well."image

Comments

  • MorrellManMorrellMan Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭
    All you can really tell from a scan is centering. I had no idea what the difference between a 6,7,8 & 9 was until I got a 10X loupe. Loupe the corners and edges and surfaces of 7s 8s and 9s (that are already holdered and graded) and you'll see the minute differences. You then must apply that knowledge, unemotionally and objectively, to your own louped raw cards.
    Mark (amerbbcards)


    "All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,407 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hi Mac
    You're correct that scans are hard to judge for sure. Did you carefully look at the surface of the cards along with the corners and centering. It's amazing how many times someone misses a slight "wrinkle" in the card - especially on the back.

    On the Schmidt, the upper left corner looks weak - the others look pretty good.
    Otherwise, I can't say for sure - on the back of the Johnson - what is that on the upper border in the middle?

    mike
    Mike
  • BuccaneerBuccaneer Posts: 1,794 ✭✭
    Mac, it is truly hard to tell from the scans. On the Johnson, the T/B centering maybe in the 7/8 range. I haven't looked an UD card in a long to see what's normal. The back centering is within spec. On the Brett, look at the bottom left from the back (I forget how that flips to the front). A 7 card (esp. modern) cannot have any touched or frayed corners under magnification. The Schmidt may have print spots but most likely soft corners. Also on any of the cards, look for a surface wrinkle - esp. on the backs. When holding the card sideways under a bright light, these would appear as a small "ridge" on the surface. Again, 7 corners would seem perfect with a naked eye. 8 corners cannot have any cardboard showing, even as the result of a rough cut. 9 needs perfect corners as well as great centering. These are moderns so they do have a higher standard than vintage.
  • CoolidgeCoolidge Posts: 96 ✭
    image
  • Mac53Mac53 Posts: 805 ✭
    Thanks, guys. Mike, I see what you're talking about, but I'm sure that's not on the card. Am I right in understanding that with a lupe, the imperfections will be obvious? Bucc, I am surprised by this:


    << <i>These are moderns so they do have a higher standard than vintage. >>



    That actually makes sense to me, but everything I've read on the forum says that is not supposed to happen. Any other comments are welcomed. I am anxious to learn.
    "Charlie, here comes the deuce. And when you speak of me, speak well."image
  • notowellintnotowellint Posts: 83
    I believe the graders take into account the fact that technology wasn't as good back in the vintage days and therefore a card never could have been cut quite as cleanly as they can be today.
  • goudeygoldgoudeygold Posts: 701 ✭
    Scans are tough, but i'm going to take a stab.

    A. 4 (scuff on reverse?)
    B. 9
    C. 6

    As said before, you can't evaluate the edges with a scanner.

    GG
  • DS1991TOPPSCardsDS1991TOPPSCards Posts: 127
    Mac53,

    What size of a magnifier do you use when checking your cards? I have been using one for years to check my Desert Shield cards. I was at a card show a couple weeks ago and a PSA Grader recommended to get a card that has been graded a 10 and check it... Then check the card you are sending in to get graded. I was surprise what I was missing when reviewing my cards without the 10X magnifier.

    Just my two cents...
  • mudflap02mudflap02 Posts: 2,060 ✭✭
    My guesses:

    8
    8
    8
  • phreakydancinphreakydancin Posts: 1,691 ✭✭
    I would agree with goudeygold in that the Brett seems to be the nicest of the three. The Johnson has something funky going on top center on the reverse, and the Schmidt seems to have some serious print spots on the front.
  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭
    guys, I know you all might think i'm crazy but I have never used anything else besides my eyes and good lighting. Anyone else not use loupes, center measuring devices, etc?

    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

  • goudeygoldgoudeygold Posts: 701 ✭
    I use my eyes and a bright light. Just about getting everything right on my goudeys within one grade. But i'm limited over the 7 level since these really don't exist raw over 7.

    GG
  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mac53, is that a scuff on the Johnson like goudey alluded to? Sure looks like it is on the card and not the holder. THAT would be a reason for a really low grade.

    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

  • Mac53Mac53 Posts: 805 ✭
    Soft, I'm certain that mark on the Johnson is not on the card itself since I would've noticed it before sending it in, and the grade it got was too high for a card with that mark, I think.
    DS1991, I used a 2x and a 4x magnifier. But, as I said before, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be looking for. From the other posts, it sounds like with a loupe, the defects will be obvious.
    "Charlie, here comes the deuce. And when you speak of me, speak well."image
  • easttexascardsandgameseasttexascardsandgames Posts: 550
    A rule of thumb for me especially on modern is if you can see anything that looks out of place do not send it. A 10X loupe will make incredible differences in what you see especially on the border and corners. It will bring out many very small paper tears from the cutting process.

    I agree it looks like that mark on the back of the Johnson is on the card. If not there appears to be some noise on the top edge of the card. I say 7

    The Brett looks to have some cutting tears on the bottom I can see some of them on the left side. I say 8

    I am not sure what it is, but the 6chmidt card is just ugly, maybe it is the register of the printing on the card photo seems to be out of focus a little. Guess 7
    image
  • DS1991TOPPSCardsDS1991TOPPSCards Posts: 127
    Mac53,

    When I first started checking for counterfeit DS cards I do remember a grader told us to use a 10X and nothing smaller. I have noticed when using my 10X the bottom of some cards is chipped from going in and out sleeves. I also can get a better view of the corners. Now, these chips are really small, but when I don’t use the 10X... the cards look perfect. I have been told that this can make a difference from a 9, 8 to a 7.

    When I use the 10X on my PSA 10s and 9s I don’t find any of these small chips. I am not sure if chips are the correct wording I should be using when it comes to grading. A 2X and 4X don’t help us (Desert Shield Collectors) at all when checking for the stars on the flag.

    PSA use to have a video clip on how they grade cards. I am not sure they still have it on their web site.
Sign In or Register to comment.