It's just absurd.
downgoesfrazier
Posts: 1,515 ✭✭
awful.
I have sold a half-dozen of these that were better than this eye-sore. I looked at all of his "10's" and none look really exceptional--as usual. I've bought many nice cards from Roger, but there is an alarming number of sub-par cards in those 10 holders that he submits. This Jackson is poorly printed, weakly struck, and has an unsightly print fish-eye in the position flag. For the one and only 10, I'd go with THISone. I wouldn't have graded either one a 10, but the 4-sharp copy is atrocious. His Hal McRae is worse. It's a doggone shame what a bunch of sheep some registry collectors have become. I'll bet the Jackson tops 800 to 1000 bucks. It's really not sour grapes, guys. It just amazes me what Roger gets away with on his subs.
dgf
I have sold a half-dozen of these that were better than this eye-sore. I looked at all of his "10's" and none look really exceptional--as usual. I've bought many nice cards from Roger, but there is an alarming number of sub-par cards in those 10 holders that he submits. This Jackson is poorly printed, weakly struck, and has an unsightly print fish-eye in the position flag. For the one and only 10, I'd go with THISone. I wouldn't have graded either one a 10, but the 4-sharp copy is atrocious. His Hal McRae is worse. It's a doggone shame what a bunch of sheep some registry collectors have become. I'll bet the Jackson tops 800 to 1000 bucks. It's really not sour grapes, guys. It just amazes me what Roger gets away with on his subs.
dgf
0
Comments
I agree with you that no PSA 10 should have a print hicky (the fisheye) on it, but aside from that I don't see any glaring problems aside from the lousy scan. The white point of the scan is waaaaaay off. I can tell because the white flip is as off-white as the card stock. We all know that flips are bright white. Leads me to believe that if the scan had been color corrected properly, the card would have presented much better and more accurately I'm sure. One of your criticisms of the card has me scratching my head, though. What do you mean by "weakly struck". I've not heard that term before. All in all, it's a weak 10 (because of the hicky), but it ain't horrible.
By the way, the second card you linked is very nice too. But, the white point on that scan is too blue (actually makes the card look nicer because it enhances the whites, the uniform and the helmet), and it has either the slightest tilt or diamond cut along the vertical edges. I would not see that card as being better than a PSA 9.
-- Yogi Berra
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
No tilt. Youre head is crooked. The registration shows bleeding behind the YANKEES. The yellow plate is clearly slipped there. Nothing makes a '77 uglier than the two significant flaws that plague the 4SC copy. The second card linked is the nicest Jackson I have found on my travels and resides in my set. Oddly, the card is absolutely BLAST white...almost a flaw in and of itself as most '77s are not that crispy white. I think I metioned that NEITHER card was better than a 9, but my card is much stronger than that eye-sore. Not even close. You can blame the scan all you want, but some of Rogers cards look pretty nice with the same scanner.
dgf
dgf
I'm not defending 4SC's card. I know he has his share of crap, just like DSL. But I am objective and judge each card on its merits, not by its seller. I honestly didn't see where the yellow plate was hanging on that card, but given the file compression and size of the jpeg, I'm not convinced that it is, though I won't dispute it. I took another look at your card and it still doesn't look straight to my eye. So, I blew your card up in Photoshop. I applied a perfectly square red crop box around the outermost corners of your card. Then I applied red perpendicular lines (each of these is two pixels wide) over the black frame lines of the photo. this quick exercise revealed two things:
1. Your card is not cut with perpendicular lines. Top and bottom are nearly perfect while the side dimensions, particularly the left edge, is wider at the bottom than the top.
2. Your card does not have parallel vertical lines relating to the trim and the image. There is more white border between the trim and the black line at the bottom than at the top. This seems to indicate that it also has the slightest tilt, or perhaps diamond cut.
Please be objective when looking at the image I have attached below. This is your card. But, it's still a great card. I measure units to 1/72nd of an inch daily in my line of work and I can see without aid when something is out of alignment by as little as 1/32nd of an inch. My head is neither crooked nor do I need a chiropractor. My eyes NEVER decieve me.
dgf
I also stand corrected. A chiropractor is not the kind of doctor you are in need of.
dgf
<< <i>I measure units to 1/72nd of an inch daily in my line of work and I can see without aid when something is out of alignment by as little as 1/32nd of an inch. My head is neither crooked nor do I need a chiropractor. My eyes NEVER decieve me. >>
How many 32nds in a minute?
How many 32nds in an inch?
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Phil, you disappoint me. I try to have an objective, fact-based conversation about two cards that both have merits and flaws. I make an articulate, rational point to counter your point regarding your superior opinion of your Jackson. I back that point with a graphic that shows my point to be true and yours to be incorrect. (Nonetheless, you still have a fine card.) Your response is to debase the conversation to personal attacks and deragatory innuendo, while at the same time doubling your defense of the card you own while having no factual basis of defending your rigid opinion.
Next time you have opinions about two cards and solicit opinions about those cards in a public forum, I suggest you keep your opinion to yourself becuase you are a zealot regarding your collection and seek every opportunity to show us all that only you can detect a true Gem Mint card. Next time, I suggest you put your opinions and energy to use not on this forum, but by launching DGF grading to prove that only you are qualified to grade a 1988 Topps card.
Loves me some shiny!
Still, both cards are nice IMHO and, for the record, I know Phil has just about the nicest set of 77s this side of Mars and is definitely an expert on the set.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>Phil, you disappoint me. >>
CON,
I'm sorry. That wasn't intended as a personal attack. It was tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps an icon would have been inserted to help things along. Again, written word is tough to interperet sometimes in abbreviated form without tone, particularily when you're as straight as me.
The original point of the thread was to point out that the card graded a 10 was just not special in any way and that grade should have been held back for a truly remarkable specimen. It was not to have my own card blown up and sectioned. You could do that to virtually any card and point out some insignificant--or significant flaw. Frankly, YOU disappointed ME. The POINT is/was that, once again, a card magically appeared as Gem Mint, that was likely submitted in hopes of squeaking out a 9. This is Roger's third run through the rejects from his case and he has submitted four Jackson's prior to this and all were like this one...no 10's...until now.
You seem to take issue with me quite a bit on these things and typically blame the scan. You told me you would actually purchase a Marty Perez card to see for yourself. How did that turn out?
Dillusional? 88 Topps? Where the f&!k do you get off? What if the card is slightly tilted in the holder--it is--and your lines don't line-up perfectly at the top--they don't. That would account for your little "gap", no?
Jradke,
It's not so much grade envy as Money envy. There's a BIG difference in the $ when a mistake/gift is made like this on a card of this caliber. Why would you waste your time with a post like that? Why did I waste my time answering it??? I guess we're both bafoons.
dgf
I'll hopefully put this thread to bed and chalk it up to "I was wrong." 4SC's card is the bomb and I don't know what I'm talking about. It is clearly superior to my PSA 9 copy and the winner will be very proud to own such a card that is clearly superior to all other MINT specimens graded to date. CON has shown me the error of my ways and PSA is always correct--it's just the f'in SCAN that makes it look like they're too generous with 4SC. In fact, I'm going to only collect PSA 10's as they are the only cards that count. No card is ever graded a 9 that is worthy of a 10. No card is ever graded a 10 that is worthy of a 9 or 8. PSA is always correct. I was dilusional to think that my card was superior to that other masterpiece. Oh, sure, the registry on my card is better and it's exceptionally clean with no corner wear whatsoever under 10x magnification and 100 watts of scrutiny...and a perfectly centered reverse. The uncommonly white pristine stock aside, the orange COULD be a deeper shade. Now, while the air-brushed cap region is immaculate--extremely uncommon for the issue, this should not be factored but rather the fish-eye should be overlooked. That PSA 10 Jackson will be the rock that this hobby will be based on for generations to come. I'm sorry to have doubted and disappointed you, oh mighty great one with photoshop. The more I think about you sectioning that card the more obnoxious that becomes and the less I like you.
Cheers!
dgf
Nothing. They're great-looking cards! I'm with you there. I just don't know what the f--k they have to do with a poorly graded 1977 Topps Reggie Jackson.
dgf
Thanks for clarifying your your intent... and yes, icons do help with communicating the "personality" of a post!
I did agree with you that 4SC's Reggie was a weak card, likely not worthy of a 10. But, and this is inherent when looking for nuances in a card, the scan provided just didn't offer enough detail and it was improperly color adjusted. (And I bet 4SC uses ore than one scanner which may account for the differences in auction images.) I'm not saying the card would be a PSA 10 (as I said, no 10 should have a print hicky), but I do think it would look better than that scan provided. Shame on 4SC for not providing a better image. I hope it costs him $300 in the auction.
I also didn't see where your card was vastly superior either. The color and print registration appears to be better, but the quality of 4SC's scan won't let me make a conclusive decsision on that. Color is the easiest element of an image to enhance or destroy if a card is not scanned properly. I simply pointed out that the trim on your card left something to be desired as well. Still a great card, but in its own way not significantly better than Roger's. Both cards should be PSA 9, IMO.
You point out that I typically blame the scan. Actually, I blame the seller for not providing a clear sharp scan. Maybe they do it out of laziness or maybe out of deception. I don't want to get caught up in judging scan quality as opposed to card quality. I don't take issue with you, Phil. I just keep an open mind that cards can actually be better than they are presented on eBay. I picked up a PSA 10 1980 Nolan Ryan a couple years ago that was roundly trashed on these boards (when the auction was running) because it was a DSL card. The card was not white, it was too dark, it was a slider. The negative comments ran the gamut. I could see through some of the deficiencies of the scan and decided to bid. When I got the card, it was stunning, and I had other PSA 10 1980 Angels cards to compare it to, and it was hands down the best PSA 10 1980 I had ever held. I have shown it to other veteran collectors who agree. It really paid off for me to have an open mind in that instance. I have also received PSA 10s on my own submissions on cards that clearly had a nick on one corner or showed other visible flaws, and I'm not Roger or Shane. I submit maybe 300 cards a year and to my knowledge have not bought any favors from Joe Orlando.
And this is the point where we differ. I never want to trash a card based on a crappy scan. You seem to have a trigger finger on shooting cards down that may not be as awful at first glance as you would have us believe. I like to assume the card got the grade it desereved and the scan is the issue. I think most of the time, that is true. Sure, PSA messes up plenty and overgrades and undergrades on a daily basis. It is a shortcoming of the industry. Cards that make technical grades won't always make the "eye appeal" grade.
So, Phil, this is not about you. I didn't tell you to get your eyes checked or that I needed to see a shrink. I simply tried to be objective and you took offense to that. I didn't intend to offend you, and I'd like to think you didn't intend to offend me either. It's simply a fucking difference of opinion. (I can type bad words!)
As far as the Photoshop grid I did on your card, I based it on making sure the bottom edge of the card was straight, and it is. The top trim is not parallel to the bottom trim and the side trims are not perpendicular to the bottom trim. No corner on that card is a perfect 90° angle. Perhaps the entire production run in 1977 was trimmed in this manner and may account for the illusion of tilt you referred to.
By the way, I did bid $45 on that Perez card and ended up the underbidder... to you I think.
I really wish the 'old' SCD grading was still around. I see that Reggie Jackson card [I won't specify which one...], and I think "Hey Man, now there's an 11 if I've ever seen one"
We really need to have an 11 grade. No, really.
-- Yogi Berra
Then. . .on other orders, you'll get a silly number of 10s.
I think this is quite important for both the dealer and collector because of the premium a 10 realizes versus a PSA9. I think too many of the set registry folks are assembling a set of holdered cards rather than a collection of cards they're truly proud to own.
Mike
<< <i>Unfortunately, the PSA10 has become the most arbitrary grade there is. It really comes down to the grader. Some graders just get their finger stuck on the 9 button and you ask what in the world does this guy think a 10 really looks like - and would he be able to recognize a 10 if he saw it. I recently had a 35-card order of 86T that came back with 31 9s and four 8s. I'm totally unconvinced there weren't any 10s in there.
Then. . .on other orders, you'll get a silly number of 10s.
I think this is quite important for both the dealer and collector because of the premium a 10 realizes versus a PSA9. I think too many of the set registry folks are assembling a set of holdered cards rather than a collection of cards they're truly proud to own.
Mike >>
that card for circulation should make a public apology to all Baseball collectors around the world! The card is just ugly period and I honestly could not look at it for more than 5 seconds! If you want a user friendly Jackson we could start with the 81,76,78,78 RB,78 WS,80,81 Donruss action and the 74's and the list goes on! The cards does nothing for me regardless if it was graded a 1 or 100 and every grade in between! OK back to the bash.................................
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
I agree... it's almost as ugly as the '73 Reggie! Topps probably picked that photo of him because it would have been pretty easy for the photo artist to retouch the helmet and uniform in Yankee garb. It is a dud of an image though.
I don't mind the 73 Reggie at all. With the way the shot was lit, it can have an almost sepia tone to it.
Mike
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
PSA Card 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 and 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 doesn't 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.
centering is terrible on his and to me a card with any fish-eye big or small should never get a 10 especially
with the big one on that 10. To me the 9 that Phil has is accurately graded and a clean card with better
centering. Heck I think that is a smokin' card. I usually don't post here anymore but I had to since I thought
the trapezoid comment was too funny.
I'm kind of shocked with the play and preference the 10 is getting but then again I gotta remind myself
there are a lot of cert buyers out there and here too. The true card buyers are a rare breed. Just look
at the prices of some of these overgraded gems. Heck I'm probably just as bad as many which led me
to keep two cards in the sets I collect (way back when). I had the high grade card and the nicer card
in my set for a while. Go figure....
Anyhow...Phil nice Psa 9 Mr. October. I like his 76 + 78 card better though...Sorry!
aconte