WOOOW! Check out this Fisk!

onefasttalon · March 13, 2006 1:33AM

Awesome! Man I wished I had the $$.... Fisk PSA 10

Always liked Fisk... I don't have a huge (graded) collection, but this would deff. be the pinnacle!

Brian48 · March 13, 2006 2:08AM

Nice front, but that tilted back is really annoying to look at. At least for me anyway.

Southerncards · March 13, 2006 2:31AM

How can a card with a noticeable tilt get a 10? That's ridiculous.

Brian48 · March 13, 2006 2:36AM

Well, I suppose this is just a case of the grader invoking the discretionary clause of "does not effect eye appeal" since the front looks OK. Although I'm sure with my luck, I'd get a 9 (OC) if I were to submit this card myself.

Brian48 · March 13, 2006 2:36AM

Southerncards · March 13, 2006 2:43AM

I dont really like the idea of 'grader invoking the discretionary clause of "does not effect eye appeal" '

Standards should be the same. The eye appeal should pertain to the back as well. A 10 should be flawless.

Somebody was finishing that card up as the 5:00 whistle blew!

onefasttalon · March 13, 2006 2:48AM

The back is a little off... and by "a little" I'm being nice. Still, the front is deff. great! Such a rare find nonetheless!

Boopotts · March 13, 2006 2:55AM

<< <i>I dont really like the idea of 'grader invoking the discretionary clause of "does not effect eye appeal" '

Standards should be the same. The eye appeal should pertain to the back as well. A 10 should be flawless.

Somebody was finishing that card up as the 5:00 whistle blew! >>

The back needs 70/30 centering for PSA 10 consideration. This card conforms to that.

There are many PSA 10's out there with tilts on either the front or the back.

digicat · March 13, 2006 2:59AM

Well, if no graders envoked the "eye appeal" clause, then any nice card with 60/40 centering would get a 10. Remember, the scale for the 10's allows for up to 60/40, unless they make the "eye appeal" call.

Writer11 · March 13, 2006 3:05AM

Another nice Fisk card.

I'm just not a huge fan of the three player rookie or four player rookies. I wish it was just Fisk on that card.

On a sidenote, I'm learning from you guys on here about condition issues like tilts etc. I appreciate your insights.

Thanks.

Southerncards · March 13, 2006 12:02PM

<< <i>

The back needs 70/30 centering for PSA 10 consideration. This card conforms to that.

There are many PSA 10's out there with tilts on either the front or the back. >>

I understand what standard PSA uses, but shouldnt a 10 be better than 70/30? I mean Gem mint should come alot closer to 50/50 or 55/45.

packCollector · March 13, 2006 12:15PM

psa does not consider the back centering in my opinion as long as it is not miscut. I have seen so many 9's with 95-5 centering on the back. i would love to own this card. who cares if the back is tilted , I would never flip it over anyway and it is in the guidelines and the front of the card is what matters. I have seen many 80-20 backs on 10's and would much rather have this with the tilt or this vs a 9 that was almost miscut.

sometimes we get way cuaght up in technicalities of the grade and forget what we are buying , if a card looks as dead on as that on the front , I'll take it

Southerncards · March 13, 2006 7:01PM

I agree that its a nice card and anyone would gladly own it, but isnt professional grading all about the "technicalities of the grade"?

packCollector · March 13, 2006 9:43PM

yes but psa does not really consider back centering imo unless it is miscut. back centering may account for .5% of the overall grade in psa's eyes. in this case it is centered regardless, you may not like tilts so it may really bug you but a card is measured from it's worst point and at it's worse point this cards back centering is well within guidelines. also , this card is tilted in the holder when it was scanned which makes it even more distracting. if it was straight in the holder it would be clear that there really isn't an issue

NewJerseyMeatHook · March 13, 2006 9:50PM

Solid MINT 9. Very nice card. Worth the cash? Na.

Backs generally don't bother me unless miscut.

downgoesfrazier · March 14, 2006 3:13AM

It's tough to tell how nice it is from that particular scan, but the image sure does look clean. That's a likely 10 for sure. Images that spectacular need special attention. I just hate multi-player RC's. I consider 1973 Fisk's RC...although that makes me an idiot. Super-nice card.

calleocho · March 14, 2006 6:26AM

It looks like the card its tilted inside the holder ...more of an optical ilusion.

The card its not well aligned...if you tap the holder ..the back would look a lot better.

Rambler · March 14, 2006 6:47AM

Looks like a premo card to me and I don't even like Carlton Fisk. His shot off the foul pole in game 6 in '75 is still painful to watch. Was hard to take for a die hard Reds fan, especially when that Reds traitor Bernie Carbo dud hit the three run shot in the 8th to tie it up. Guess it all worked out though.

Why do they call it a foul pole anyway ? Shouldn't it be a fair pole ?

iamthegreatcornholio · March 14, 2006 8:16AM

The centering of the back really doesn't bother me, but is that paper loss in the "7" in 1972?

WinPitcher · March 14, 2006 8:20AM

I agree with Cal.

Brian...........I think it is green ink that floated onto the black.........not paper loss.

Steve

Fletch1750 · March 14, 2006 8:43AM

Fletch1750 · March 14, 2006 8:44AM

Has anyone here ever dealt with the seller?

ranorama · March 14, 2006 12:02PM

I agree with questioning the ink on the front side "7" & "2" printing.

And not just the askew tilt on the rear side, I thinks I see orange ink bleedover the end line, RH side of GARMAN and same for FISK.

Nonetheless, that is still a beautiful card. Population of 3!

WOOOW! Check out this Fisk!

Comments