No qualifier???

KansasJayhawk

How does this PSA 4 looking Ruth not get an ST or MK qualifier? If I submitted that card I would get 2 qualifiers lol.

How???

detroitfan2

I couldn't agree more. And there's no way that card is closer to a "5" per the seller's description. I still can't believe it's a 4. I own a lot of 4's, and none of them have corners that bad.

yawie99

I guess PSA's logic is that the color and clarity of the card are much better than what one typically sees on vg-ex Goudeys, but that gunk on the left is pretty distracting. I don't think I'm as critical of the technical grade of the card as you guys are, but if I were in the market for a PSA 4 '33 Ruth, I'd probably keep looking.

detroitfan2

In any case, the Babe was one ugly dude. I think I'd prefer a card of him batting or something.

acowa

The same way this Clemente does

N162Collector

<< <i>The same way this Clemente does

>>



The Clemente was an obvious error on PSA's part, and was talked about in length several months ago. Nice try.

KansasJayhawk

But back on topic, if there is an obvious mark or stain it should be reflected in the grade. I know you can say NQ on your submission form, but I do not believe that is the case here as the card would be a 4 without the stain/mark at best, I guess I question the inconsistency.