Am I crazy or did I get taken to the woodshed on these 1982 Topps cards?

Bosox1976

They're not 10's, but puh-leeze. Each has an imperfection, but not corners, edges, or surface - centering seems mightily overpenalized.

Backs are clean - 65/35-ish. I've not submitted 82's before - is this typical? That's $40 down the toilet.

ldferg

ouch!!! how did those get 7s???

Boopotts

Well, the stuff that's OC is OC-- I don't see how you could complain about that. As far as the mystery 7's go, I think we all have a bin somewhere filled with these private little disgraces, but if you look close you'll usually find either a) paper loss on a back corner, or b) a small bend in a corner on the front.

Bosox1976

Boo - They aren't perfectly centered, but don't seem off by much. Can't believe none of these Ripkens is a 9 either. I generally grade 1962, 1963, or 1975 Topps (plus Mantles) - and all are very condition sensitive. Maybe they are tougher on new stuff than vintage, but any of those 7's or 9oc's is a straight 8 easy in vintage. I better quit messing with the recent stuff.

itzagoner

that hurts....take heart, they're tough on this issue for some reason....i sent in a handful incl. a Ripken RC which got a 9, but most of the others got 8's and i thought they dead solid 9 or 10....oops, oh well

SDavid

I've submitted a fair number of Ripken rookies to bgs, and I wouldn't have expected a 9 on any of those except maybe the bottom card (depending on how the rest of it looks).

Boopotts

I think you can do OK with modern stuff if you're just very, very selective about what you send in. Get a loupe, carefully look it over, and if you're sure you can't see anything wrong with it then send it in. But if you see a defect-- or even think you see a defect-- then don't. The problem you can run into with breaking boxes with the intention of submitting the best cards (and I'm speaking from experience) is that you start to feel the box was a loss unless you submit a bunch of cards from it. But all that does is delay the realization that there just wasn't much in there worth submitting. It's easy to give into the feeling that 'wow, I'm into this case for $450, I better find SOMETHING to submit from it or I've just burnt up half a grand". If you go in with that attitude you're going to find 'submittable' cards-- you've already decided that before you break the first pack-- but you'll end up being stuck with a bunch of slabs that may or may not sell for the grading fee.

I don't know if this is what happened to you, but I do know it's happened to me more than once. And the reason I bring this up is that I'm sure I wouldn't have submtted any of the OC cards. Now I also wouldn't be happy with 9's or less from a 1982 set, so depending on the reasons why you submitted your standards for what constitutes a good submission may be different than mine, but I think it's never a bad idea to be extremely conservative when deciding what modern cards to submit.

montanafan

i recently saw a '93 finest refractor psa 10 linked from these boards that had worse centering than some of those cards.. bummer... hope i got a different grader on a different day

WeekendHacker

Bo,

Did you happen to notice that you got the infamous 314 grader? He's graded enough to get past 315 and now is 316. 82's are a tough bunch. Blemishes are easily detectable on the back corners. I don't think you should have much of a gripe about the centering on those 9's. Although I agree, I'd rather have it in an 8 holder without the qualifier. I've been burnt myself by either overlooking something or submitting in the hopes that PSA grades a questionable card on the high side.

Bosox1976

No corner blemishes at all on the 7's - none. Oh well - it's not the end of the world.

FavreFan1971

I got the 314 grader on a crack out of 29 1972 topps football. I cracked out eight PSA 7's. Every one of them turned into an 8. I cracked out 18 PSA 8's, 9 of them turned into 9's and the rest remained at 8's. I cracked out three PSA 9's that came back as 9's. I had a great experience with the 314 grader.

slatsme

Who or what is this infamous 314 grader? I just had my first 12 submissions graded and they started out with 316.....

itzagoner

The notorious 314, er currently 316 grader does seem to have a reputation building here....sometimes quite liberal, other times quite tough....hmmmm, sounds a lot like my Dad, haven't seen him around much lately....

WinPitcher

The number 314 or 316 or whatever number does not reflect a certain grader.

I thought the Reggie Jackson card was harshly graded. the t/b centering looks worse then it really is by the scan.


Steve

SDavid

I got the 314 grader on a crack out of 29 1972 topps football. I cracked out eight PSA 7's. Every one of them turned into an 8. I cracked out 18 PSA 8's, 9 of them turned into 9's and the rest remained at 8's. I cracked out three PSA 9's that came back as 9's. I had a great experience with the 314 grader.

I don't think that has anything to do with a particular grader. I've just always thought that psa is less consistent with lower dollar cards, especially lower dollar modern cards than they are with high dollar cards (I'm assuming these weren't all Roger Staubach rookies). I've seen a lot of stories on here about commons or modern star cards going from a 7 to an 8 or an 8 to a 9, but I haven't read too many stories about someone resubmitting a '62 Mantle psa 7, getting an 8, and making $500.

softparade

<< <i> As far as the mystery 7's go, I think we all have a bin somewhere filled with these private little disgraces. >>



Ain't that the truth

shambo2000

Some of my recent grades on '82 Topps with the alleged 316 grader.











Out of 22 1982's submitted, six received a 10 grade and 15 got a 9. Also one 8. All with no qualifiers.

Go figure.

The lone ripken got a 9!

Shannon

PhilliePhanatic

I wish all of my "7s" looked like those!