NM 7 with NQ vs. NMMT 8 OC ???

Kurtman9

Several NMMT+ cards submitted in the last few months have come back graded NM 7. The best example of this is a razor sharp 55 J Robinson (pulled from a wax pack in 1997). Condition-wise, it's a lock 8 on the upper end. I figured it would come back 8 OC or 9 OC, instead it's a 7.

Other cards that I measured centering at between 65/35 and 70/30 (which meets the published requirement for an 8), have also come back 7s. See the 60 Mantle/Boyer card below that I personally pulled from a wax pack 4 months ago. It also is a lock 8 as far as corners, etc., just slightly OC.

A couple questions: Is this a recent change in PSA grading habits? Is 8 OC even used anymore? Which is the more desirable grade, 7 with no qualifiers, or 8 OC?

sagard

PSA defines a qualifier as two grade deductions in their Set Registry. The Market seems to treat straight sevens much better than 8OC in my opinion as well.

Those cards are beautys and I would expect them to sell better without the qualifier.

bobsbbcards

They'll definitely still give a card an 8 OC, but only if it doesn't meet the centering requirements of a 7 (IMO). I've seen a bunch of 8 OCs recently graded, and the centering was far worse than either of the cards you show.

Wabittwax

I agree, take the straight 7 vs. the 8oc anyday.

MorrellMan

Agree with all of the above.
IMO, both of those cards would close well over SMR in an auction - they are blazers for the grade. An 8 o/c would get much less respect. My suggestion, if you chose to auction, is to avoid any hyperbole about how you was robbed or how it should have been an 8 or 9. Any discerning buyer can see that, and any non-discerning buyer would be skeptical of the whole deal.

mariner

Kurt, no question I would take the 7 over 8OC any day.

Kurtman9

Thanks for the helpful and informative replies!

jayhawke

Sounds like most people would take the lower grade. Here is something to consider. You are trying to build the highest GPA set. If you are building a completely graded set and a card has a weighted avg of 1 in the set, do you go for the 9OC or 8? The 8 will bring your average. What do you do? Any thoughts?

mariner

jayhawke....

The 9OC is equal to a 7 in the registry, so the 8 would be the way to go.

blacklab

7's are unquestionably better than 8 o/c's. In general, I even think 6's are better than 8 o/c's. It also depends on the card. Some cards are so sharp looking and may get an o/c designation due to a slight slant cut (just enough to make it o/c near one corner) that you may want to leave it in an 8 o/c holder. Presently, I think the grader goes ahead and gives you the straight grade rather than the next one up with a qualifier even if you don't ask for the straight grade. Five-six years ago, you were more likely to get the actual grade, i.e. 8 o/c, 7 o/c. I have even had some cards come back 6 o/c. I just recently sent in some '53 Bowman Color 8 o/c cards for reholdering. I don't think they will get 7's, but I would rather have them in 6 holders rather than 8 o/c. Another consideration is what you're going to do with the cards. If you're keeping them for your own collection and are happy with the cards, you may be content in keeping them in o/c holders. For marketability purposes, however, the cards are much better in staright grade holders. Also, don't put a lot of stock in the 5% centering spread. This is not used a lot. For example, it is rarely used with '52 Topps. When one of those cards is o/c with those large white borders, it really jumps out at you. You have a better chance for a little leeway with, for example, '55 Topps because of the type of border on the card. Good luck with your grades.
Doug

jayhawke

Mariner,

I didn't know that. Thanks.

phreakydancin

Blacklab, I beg to differ.

I wish the graders would use a little more common sense with the application of the OC qualifier. I recently got a card back that was 9OC, and it was only borderline OC ( actually thought it would be a straight 9). I would have preferred a straight 8 to a 9OC, as would probably 95% of PSA's clientele.

I know you can put "no qualifiers" on your submission form, but in a case like this, why should I have to?

MorrellMan

phreaky - thats phucked up. If the centering was within the parameters of an 8 (front & back), are you sure there wasn't some other issue that would have precluded an 8?

ABBAdad

Here is a card I got back from PSA 2 weeks ago. It is Dr. J's rookie card that I pulled out of a pack in 1972 and have kept ever since. My mother, God bless her, never threw out my cards, so I still have all of them. Anyway, the CONDITION of this card, amazingly after all these years is NM. But the terrible centering knocked it to a 6. I have to admit, though, that I thought it would only get a 5. The back of the card is nearly miscut. It's about 95/5 on the back.