Check Out this PSA 10
ABBAdad
Posts: 118
ABBAdad
Posts: 118
ABBAdad
Posts: 118
Comments
My Auctions
I wouldn't pay $1.50 for that card raw and putting some plastic around it doesn't change that.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
1955 Bowman Raw complete with 90% Ex-NR or better
Now seeking 1949 Eureka Sportstamps...NM condition
Working on '78 Autographed set now 99.9% complete -
Working on '89 Topps autoed set now complete
That said, $149 for a 74T PSA10 is crazy. They've been going for a lot less. Expect to see this one relisted for less money.
*shrug* I like my SGC96 example of this card better.
Mike
Stingray
Mike
http://www.clark22murray33.com
Even to the "untrained" eye!
Loves me some shiny!
Plasticman> Remember, if the standards are applied correctly a card can be awarded the highest unqualified grade for which it fully meets the standards. Just because a card meets the semi-arbitrary standards of a grading company (any grading company) doesn't make it a card you'd be proud to own.
Right now, I'm building aa graded 1974 set - with SGC. Right now I'm about 21% with an average grade of 93.85. In my opinion, I don't think this Billingham should be in a 10 holder, but it looks like a decent 9. I like my 96 as much or better, but this one's not that bad. I can assue you, I've seen much worse in a 10 holder.
Mike
<< <i>
Right now, I'm building aa graded 1974 set - with SGC. Right now I'm about 21% with an average grade of 93.85. In my opinion, I don't think this Billingham should be in a 10 holder, but it looks like a decent 9. I like my 96 as much or better, but this one's not that bad. I can assue you, I've seen much worse in a 10 holder.
Mike >>
Mike, I have seen much worse in a 10 holder as well. I just retired from pointing them out
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
Not just because i am a Carew fan--but i am siding on this with Carew4me. That is one sick looking card. Which means i have passed up on many 10's CAREW cards on ebay.
<< <i>A 10 should be a perfect card.
>>
You may think that, I may think that. But that is not how PSA's grading criteria defines a 10. Unfortunately.
Mike
He's not asking $150.00. He is just asking $149.99! Get your facts straight!
mcastaldi,
No card is perfect, BUT a 10 should be PERFECT TO THE NAKED EYE! This in no way should be a 10. If I had that card, I would have never sent it in even if they had a $1.00 special.
Shane
1 - I completely agree that this example doesn't really belong in a 10 holder.
2 - I do feel that it's probably a pretty solid 9.
Perhaps Dakota has a different view, but my experience with 74s is that if that much of a diamond cut/tilt bothers you on 9s or 96s, then you're going to have hard time finding worthy 1974T 9s. 1974s tend to be like 1980T in that both issues tend to be prone to diamond cuts - and - the layout of the card shows diamond cuts moreso than other issues do.
Mike
The Billingham isn't close to the worst 10 I have seen, I have seen "faded" looking 10's, heavy rough cuts (not opc either) and 10's riddled with "boogers". For my money I will take a sharp PSA 9 that's graded according to PSA's published standards.
Here's a link for a free tool that's great for anyone interested in measuring centering.
Anyway, I measure the centering at 48 / 52 left to right at the top,
and 60 / 40 left to right at the bottom, both of which are within the guidelines for a 10.
A mathematical formula could be developed to compare the centering at the top of the card
with the centering at the bottom of the card and if the difference is big enough then it gets downgraded.
Still, when PSA's grading standards were originally set up, tilts were not taken into consideration,
so now with over 9 million cards already graded, it's a little late in the game to change the rules.
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
<< <i>
Still, when PSA's grading standards were originally set up, tilts were not taken into consideration,
so now with over 9 million cards already graded by TRAINED and CERTIFIED professionals, it's a little late in the game to change the rules. >>
Fixed it for ya.
<< <i>1974s tend to be like 1980T in that both issues tend to be prone to diamond cuts - and - the layout of the card shows diamond cuts moreso than other issues do.
>>
Yes indeed. I don't know how familiar most of you are to 74s, but centering is tough for this issue, especially diamond cuts and top/bottom centering. I bought 4 vending boxes of 74s in the early 90s before grading became really in vogue, trying to put together a sharp 74 raw set. Then 2 years ago I purchased a complete mint unopened factory set of 74s. With all those mint cards, you would be amazed how many are off center. I am guessing that only about 2/3 of the 660 card set will grade PSA 8 or better. I have 4 or 5 mint Felix Millan cards ( the toughest card in the set), and every last one of them is off center.
As for this PSA 10 Billingham, I imagine it is within the criteria of a PSA 10 card, but we all have the pre-conceived notion that a PSA 10 should not be tilted. In my mind, a 10 should be very nearly if not exactly 50/50 LR TB, sharp edges, pinpoint corners, high gloss and snow white borders. That is MY notion of a 10, and this card doesn't fit it. If I had submitted this card, assuming there are no defects, I would have hoped for a 9, but expected an 8, just based on overall eye appeal.
David
1974 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
Knowledge speaks, wisdom listens
While every Topps issue seem to have centering issues,my opinion and experience is that they are not particually tough to find centered ones. The biggest obstacle I find with them are those dreaded fish eyes and snow and extra clouds that shouldnt be in the pic.(PD).
It seems that the vending are very crisp and razor sharp but more prone to the PD. The many Factory sets that I have been through all have tremendous color but I have noticed that they have the O/C top to bottom that you mentioned. Most packs that I have opened have nice color and usually rough cuts.Maybe others can share their experiences.
The slight tilts Castaldi mentioned are also common but I can think of more perfectly centered cards with the dreaded PD.
Just like everyone elses favorite years,when the color and photos are right, there is nothing better!!!
How about the Fisk card? One of my favorites. I also will disagree with the Felix Millan card being the toughest although it is difficult.
I havent checked the POP report since the last time I built the set but if anyone has any lying around , try and find a perfectly centered #111 Clay Carroll with no PD whatsoever with snow white borders.
I have seen some of what Mike C. is submitting and I do have to admit that I have seen some sharp SGC 96s.Good luck Mike.
The paticular card in question on this post(Billingham) was never a tough card but it is one that will freqently have fish eyes and and that cloudy streak across his pants(where his depends are). DSLs card looks to have a flawless photo and great color but I would have never submitted that card in fear of wasting my grading fee on an 8. Im not gonna argue the grade of the card.It is what it is.
74s ROCK
...the vast majority of grading is applied with a basic, objective standard but no one can ignore the small (yet sometimes significant) subjective element. This issue will usually arise when centering and/or eye-appeal are in question. For example, while most cards fall clearly within the centering guidelines for a particular grade, some cards fall either just within or just outside the printed centering standards. The key point to remember is that the graders reserve the right, based on the strength or weakness of the eye-appeal, to make a judgment call on the grade of a particular card.
Based on this, there is NO WAY that card should be a 10. It falls "just within" the printed centering standards, yet is has extremely poor eye appeal. Ergo, it should be a 9.
Something is askew here, more than the card.
Stingray
Stingray
<< <i>Mine goes to 11. >>
Hello Cleveland!
<< <i>I gotta disagree with you a little bit Abbadad. I have been through a few 74s(In fact ....some might say I have a sickness with them).
While every Topps issue seem to have centering issues,my opinion and experience is that they are not particually tough to find centered ones. The biggest obstacle I find with them are those dreaded fish eyes and snow and extra clouds that shouldnt be in the pic.(PD).
It seems that the vending are very crisp and razor sharp but more prone to the PD. The many Factory sets that I have been through all have tremendous color but I have noticed that they have the O/C top to bottom that you mentioned. Most packs that I have opened have nice color and usually rough cuts.Maybe others can share their experiences.
The slight tilts Castaldi mentioned are also common but I can think of more perfectly centered cards with the dreaded PD.
Just like everyone elses favorite years,when the color and photos are right, there is nothing better!!!
How about the Fisk card? One of my favorites. I also will disagree with the Felix Millan card being the toughest although it is difficult.
I havent checked the POP report since the last time I built the set but if anyone has any lying around , try and find a perfectly centered #111 Clay Carroll with no PD whatsoever with snow white borders.
I have seen some of what Mike C. is submitting and I do have to admit that I have seen some sharp SGC 96s.Good luck Mike.
The paticular card in question on this post(Billingham) was never a tough card but it is one that will freqently have fish eyes and and that cloudy streak across his pants(where his depends are). DSLs card looks to have a flawless photo and great color but I would have never submitted that card in fear of wasting my grading fee on an 8. Im not gonna argue the grade of the card.It is what it is.
74s ROCK >>
Dakota,
I will defer to your expertise about the '74s. What I wrote earlier in the thread was MY own experience with the set, but it sounds like you have spent more time with the set than I have. When I said that the Millan card was the toughest, that was based on a pop report spreadsheet I did on August 8th. At that time, the Millan card was at the top of the list for LEAST number of PSA 8, 9 and 10 combined.
That Clay Carroll card is a booger. I have one in 8, and it is tilted to about 63/37, just enough to keep the 8. Thanks for your input Dakota. Any extra scoop I can get on this set is always greatly appreciated.
David
1974 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
Knowledge speaks, wisdom listens
<< <i>A 10 should be a perfect card.
Even to the "untrained" eye! >>
This is a wholly incorrect statement. This card may not be a perfect 10, but it certainly meets criteria for a PSA 10 grade. As others have said, there is absolutely no such thing as a perfect card. I've seen BGS 10's with edges that looked rougher than they should as well.
The perfect card does not exist.
Even so, $150 for a '74 Topps almost-common is ridiculous.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.