1981 Donruss PSA 10's: Please Explain

detroitfan2

OK, this one looks real nice:



But this one?



I don't want this to be one of those "THIS is a 10???" threads. But I do want to understand how the right edge on "The Bird" allows it to be a 10.

RCGuy

"Rough Cuts" do not lower grades on issues that are known for rough cuts.

lawnmowerman

Man, I dont know It looks like a few of the cards I have the got chewed on by roaches. I know they had different cutting methods back then, with wire and such but that is a mystery.

matt

lawnmowerman

Hey detroitfan2! Dont even say it

Matt

yawie99

<< <i>"Rough Cuts" do not lower grades on issues that are known for rough cuts. >>



Yeah, but a cut that brutal should preclude the possibility of a card getting a 10.

zef204

<< <i>

<< <i>"Rough Cuts" do not lower grades on issues that are known for rough cuts. >>



Yeah, but a cut that brutal should preclude the possibility of a card getting a 10. >>

Not to mention that 1981 Donruss is hardly known for rough cuts. I think of 1971 FB is known for rough cuts, or most OPC issues. But certainly not 1981 Donruss.

detroitfan2

<<Yeah, but a cut that brutal should preclude the possibility of a card getting a 10.>>

I think that's alls I'm saying.

<<"Rough Cuts" do not lower grades on issues that are known for rough cuts. >>

I believe that's true, but unless every Fidrych out there has a rough cut, I'm not sure I like it. I'm not sure I like it even if every Fidrych looks like that. But I'm pretty sure PSA isn't going to change their guidelines for me . . .

Hey, lawnmowerman with a photo depicting a rabid naked anim. . . oh, never mind.

stevek

I've always disagreed with PSA about rough cuts. Rough cuts, although not a "printing" flaw are technically a manufacturing flaw, and if not grading them lower at the very least there should be a qualifier.

lawnmowerman

<< <i>I've always disagreed with PSA about rough cuts. Rough cuts, although not a "printing" flaw are technically a manufacturing flaw, and if not grading them lower at the very least there should be a qualifier. >>

I agree, especially if they look as bad as that.

matt

mikeschmidt

<< <i>I've always disagreed with PSA about rough cuts. Rough cuts, although not a "printing" flaw are technically a manufacturing flaw, and if not grading them lower at the very least there should be a qualifier. >>



In my mind it depends on the issue. With 1970s OPC issues, I would much rather see a rough cut than the numerous sheet cut examples that have made their ways into various holders [most notably BGS]. That said - when an issue typically does not have rough cuts - I wouldn' give a card like that Fidrych a PSA 10....

SoFLPhillyFan

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>"Rough Cuts" do not lower grades on issues that are known for rough cuts. >>



Yeah, but a cut that brutal should preclude the possibility of a card getting a 10. >>

Not to mention that 1981 Donruss is hardly known for rough cuts. I think of 1971 FB is known for rough cuts, or most OPC issues. But certainly not 1981 Donruss. >>



I opened 2 or 3 boxes of 81D last year. About half were rough cut. They sure are known for that problem, and diamond cuts too. This is the worst issue I have seen for quality control.

I wouldn't give the Fidrych a 10, but a card with less of a rough edge might pass since so many were released with that look.

zef204

Diamond cuts I agree, but I too have opened several boxes of 81d and have never encountered a rough cut.

ctsoxfan

<< <i>

<< <i>I've always disagreed with PSA about rough cuts. Rough cuts, although not a "printing" flaw are technically a manufacturing flaw, and if not grading them lower at the very least there should be a qualifier. >>



In my mind it depends on the issue. With 1970s OPC issues, I would much rather see a rough cut than the numerous sheet cut examples that have made their ways into various holders [most notably BGS]. That said - when an issue typically does not have rough cuts - I wouldn' give a card like that Fidrych a PSA 10.... >>



I agree with Marc here. Unless you are dealing with an issue known for "rough cuts", I think they detract from eye appeal in a major way. That Fidrych card shouldn't even be a 9, IMO.

ldferg

i've opened several boxes in the last 2 years and rough cuts as well as miscuts were aplenty.

frankhardy

From what I understand, isn't a GEM MINT 10 card actually a MINT card with EXTRA APPEAL? That card certainly does not qualify.

BigRedMachine

<< <i>From what I understand, isn't a GEM MINT 10 card actually a MINT card with EXTRA APPEAL? That card certainly does not qualify. >>



From PSA::

PSA Grading Standards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GEM-MT 10: Gem Mint.

A PSA Gem Mint 10 card is a virtually perfect card. Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus, full original gloss. A PSA Gem Mint 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it does not impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse.


Maybe they should change it to "virtually, sort of, kind of perfect"?!?

Southerncards

That's some quality grading right there fellas

Stingray

Here is one that I found, looks a though it migh have rough cut:



Stingray

ldferg

ldferg

sorry for the blank post.

...if it does not impair the overall appeal of the card...

does the rough cut not affect the overall appeal of that card????? i would have a hard time even submitting that fidrych...let alone coming back a 10.

packCollector

having submitted a lot of OPC's and seeing a lot of rough cuts , i would have never sent in that fidrych if it was an opc card. my understanding of rough cuts is that if they are notching the card which this one clearly is then there should be a downgrade, if the cut is just not smooth ( sandpaper look) then it would NOT affect the grade.

Stone193

This will probably be debated forever or until DaBig gives the "final" word.

I believe that a rough cut - when severe - detracts from the card in that a 10 may not be appropriate.

I don't mind a slight rough cut or where they're all like that to some degree. But, IMO, 10s should be reserved for truly "superb" cards - rough cuts need not apply for the job.

mike

larryallen73

As I have said before I have a soft spot for '81 Donruss since they are the little weak duckling, the underdog, etc.... However, if that's a 10 I have a lot of 10's at home waiting to be graded! I have not bothered to send those in as I didn't think it was possible to get a 10 with that rough cut and a 9 is worthless in '81 Donruss. Having said that, for people that buy the card not the holder I am not sure a "10" like that is going to be worth much!?

downgoesfrazier

Here's a different viewpoint. Many times PSA's graders like to assign the grade of 10 to a card like this to PROVE something. I see boatloads of this type of thing. In PSA's view, the rough-cut means nothing as long as the card measures properly and the enamel is not worn, handled or chipped in any particular spot...especially the tips of the corners...you're good. You can send in 20 gorgeous, smooth cards and often it is the one rough cut you send that gets the 10. The feeling is "See, we grade cards and know what's what. This card is perfectly fine like this. The rest of you novices don't know better, but we --the experts at PSA--know better. Learn from us."

If you think I'm wrong you're absolutely fooling yourself. It's like the grader wants to show how much he knows and give you his personal interpretation. Some cards get a 10 BECAUSE they have a rough cut. The uncirculated look of those cards is actually appealing to a small but ardent group of collectors...me included. This card is a bit too much for me, however.

As for the submitter, Mike Castaldi, he knows PSA and recognizes what I wrote above. The object for Mike is to select cards that will grade favorably for resale. He would not, I don't believe, keep the Fidrych card in his set, but he understands that technically speaking, it is a PSA 10. I'd wager he'll chime in on this this evening if not sooner for himself.

chicago111

Its the old saying " buy the card not the holder"

I personally think its ugly as hell.

Stone193

Agree Chicago.

Personally? I wouldn't care if they gave the card an 11 - I don't like the looks of it.

mike

downgoesfrazier

<< <i>I opened 2 or 3 boxes of 81D last year. About half were rough cut. They sure are known for that problem, and diamond cuts too. This is the worst issue I have seen for quality control.

>>



You must've had interesting boxes. I haven't found that to be the case at all. I strongly disagree that 81 donruss is "known" for that problem. I may be the leading collector of that issue around here as well, having worked on the set for years. It's one of my favorite sets of all time.

This Fidrych has a rough cut. It is exceptionally clean and focused. The centering is nearly perfect and there is a razor sharp corner at both ends of the cut. The color appears pretty strong as well for the issue. PSA graded the card a 10. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
If edges are important to you try Beckett. To me, these edges are as fresh as the day they were cut. I understand the argument about print-flaws & centering being "factory defects" as well, and don't have a strong rebuttal other than those things offend me while rough cuts don't.
Again, this Fidrych is a bit rougher than I would consider desireable, but I don't think it's ugly.


dgf

larryallen73

One of the best thing about '81 Donruss was the awful mixing in the boxes. You could open one pack and get 5 of the same card... just hope for Ryan, Raines, etc....

WinPitcher

I am not sure if it is the scan but that card does not appear to have nice vibrant color. It also appears to have a slight tilt. Compared to The Ryan The Fidrych does not have the same vibrant color. Also the word Pitcher is faded.

If it is my monitor or the scan I do not know.

maybe someone that has the "eye" can chime in.


Steve

downgoesfrazier

The card never has "vibrant" color. The issue itself is washed out. That copy is actually pretty good considering the norm. There are many examples in the 81 Donruss set that are blazing and beautiful when found nice. Fidrych isn't one of them. Jack Morris and a handful of other Tigers come to mind. There are some cards that always look like a ghost of a player.

dgf

Stone193

I'm not sure which players I like better...

Don Russ or Berk Ross?

mike

DaddyRich

I'd rather have a famous players card, like Yogi Berra than some unknown named Berk Ross....geez people, come on.

WinPitcher

Back in the day, before it was realised that a certain issue would not yield a card in true gem condition we always graded such cards as near mint. I guess as time went on and people began to notice that certain cards never appeared in true gem condition that they then gave it a gem grade as it was the best possible.

I do not suscribe to that way of grading. A card should be virtually perfect in every way to get the gem grade. I am not talking PSA or graded companys I am talking personally.

Which way is right? who knows.

I remm opening case after case of cards from 1983 thru 1991 and I saw many cards that were dogs to true gems. i guess it had to do with what print run.


Steve