Is this really a 9? ('77 Topps Mexican)

shagrotn77

I really don't know anything about this set, so this is a serious question:

'77 PSA 9

Stone193

shag

That's got to be one of the toughest sets on the planet.

But some of the corners look like they have exploded!

Graded on a curve? Perhaps?

But the corners don't look like 9s IMO.

I'm willing to bet the guys who collect this set will overlook that and agree that it's one of the better examples of the card on the planet.

mike

ToppsCo1lector

Grading on a curve? Most definetly. Although I have to say it is very well centered example, but maybe it's just me but grading on a curve is BS. Why not give grades according to uhh, standards?

ldferg

whoa....good question indeed. like you, i know very little about this issue other than what i've read here on the boards.

plus the big print mark at the top of the card.

itzagoner

Cafes? i didn't know Rucker played for the Cafes, i thot he played for the Bistros....BTW nice 8 JMO

onlyanumber

Actually I have seen many Mexicans with the extra dimples--on corners on borders etc. I'm a little surprised by what appears to be a wax stain over 'CAFES'. But considering what I've seen with the Mexicans, that is a decent card...

zef204

Those corners are standard. The centering on that card is unreal for a 77 Mexican. I cannot believe thats in a 9 holder with that print mark. With out the mark, I think its worthy of a 9. That being said, I have had some 5's come back as 9's and some 8's come back as 5's. They have no idea how to consistently grade this issue.

mikeschmidt

I don't think PSA should grade on a curve. Those corners are atrocious.

Stone193

I just don't know.

I'll let the experts take over.

mike

baseballfanatic

The card is graded by a battery of TRAINED and PROFESSIONAL, certified graders who check the card for corner wear, centering (with an ultron digimax laser guided ruler to ensure exact dimensions), surface wear, edges and color pigmentation. Neophytes don't realize the important of the gloss and vibrancy of the colors.

Once a grade has been determined, each card is carted off to the Judicious Examination Dimensional Initiative Council, also known as the JEDI Council, where the master graders themselves pass judgment on the card. After spirited debate and consultation, the Master Graders issue their decree and a final grade is issued.

If all is well, the card is then delivered to the ultra secure sonic sealing card slabbing room, where the card is triple checked to match with the label and the final product is completed.

As you can see, the entire process is VERY time consuming, but well worth the cost and time, in my opinion.

AlanAllen

The cards were issued in perforated strips, so there's essentially no way to get sharp corners. It's not a matter of grading on a curve... those are the corners as-issued.

Joe

Stone193

<< <i>Judicious Examination Dimensional Initiative Council, >>

ToppsCo1lector

^^But the other perforations on the sides are clearly not as visually effective on the overall appeal of the card. Check out this one, I wish the owner had scanned it with a dark backround

zef204

<< <i>

I just don't know.

I'll let the experts take over.

mike >>

All of the corners are like that.

mikeschmidt

<< <i>The cards were issued in perforated strips, so there's essentially no way to get sharp corners. It's not a matter of grading on a curve... those are the corners as-issued.
>>



It doesn't matter in my mind. I would rather have the card get its correct technical grade - and if that means that no 1977 Topps Mexican ever gets graded a 9, so be it.

Stingray

<< <i>Those corners are standard. The centering on that card is unreal for a 77 Mexican. I cannot believe thats in a 9 holder with that print mark. With out the mark, I think its worthy of a 9. That being said, I have had some 5's come back as 9's and some 8's come back as 5's. They have no idea how to consistently grade this issue. >>



Sorry to disagree, just because a certain issue is prone to have some defects, I do not find it ok to give it a higher grade just because all the cards are like that. A 9 should be a 9 without regard of the issue, you have a regular Topps card graded like that and it would be a 5 or 6?? They have standards for a reason, I must have missed the footnote that states "certain issues because of known production problems with the cards are graded on a different grading scale."

zef204

<< <i>

<< <i>The cards were issued in perforated strips, so there's essentially no way to get sharp corners. It's not a matter of grading on a curve... those are the corners as-issued.
>>



It doesn't matter in my mind. I would rather have the card get its correct technical grade - and if that means that no 1977 Topps Mexican ever gets graded a 9, so be it. >>

What are you talking about?

So should cards with rounded corners, like 1970 topps super glossy, never be given high grades because the corners aren't square?

Stingray

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>The cards were issued in perforated strips, so there's essentially no way to get sharp corners. It's not a matter of grading on a curve... those are the corners as-issued.
>>



It doesn't matter in my mind. I would rather have the card get its correct technical grade - and if that means that no 1977 Topps Mexican ever gets graded a 9, so be it. >>

What are you talking about?

So should cards with rounded corners, like 1970 topps super glossy, never be given high grades because the corners aren't square? >>




Problem with that logic, they were intended to have round corners.


Example for everyone, remember 1998 Score Baseball when it first came out, most had chads on the corners of them, they did get the problem fixed and got the corners sharp, but if you had the exact same card from the first print run and and after it was corrected, would they get the same grade???

rbeaton

I'm a little familiar with this issue and agree with Zef. They were not "cut" like regular cards. The print mark at the top definitely should have knocked this card down below a 9.

Robert

mikeschmidt

<< <i>What are you talking about?
So should cards with rounded corners, like 1970 topps super glossy, never be given high grades because the corners aren't square? >>



No, but Wilson Weiners cards are not given exceptions because they have super-thin borders, and thus are almost always O/C

Topps Greatest Moments cards have a handful of cards that are typically notched. Those are not given a higher grade simply because they were produced with the notch in them.

O-Pee-Chee issues from the 1970s were almost always terribly miscut with blunted corners. But they don't receive higher grades because of that.

1955 Bowman has huge size variations - but the shorter, factory-issued cards are not graded, they get "Min. Size Requirement"

Phillies Burger King cards were issued in packs of three in tightly-wrapped cellophane, and almost always have blunted corners and bowed cards. They do not receive higher grades because of the way they are issued.

Your comparison is not analogous to this discussion.

zef204

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>The cards were issued in perforated strips, so there's essentially no way to get sharp corners. It's not a matter of grading on a curve... those are the corners as-issued.
>>



It doesn't matter in my mind. I would rather have the card get its correct technical grade - and if that means that no 1977 Topps Mexican ever gets graded a 9, so be it. >>

What are you talking about?

So should cards with rounded corners, like 1970 topps super glossy, never be given high grades because the corners aren't square? >>




Problem with that logic, they were intended to have round corners. >>

And these were intended to have perforated corners. It is not a defect but rather how the cards were manufactured.

zef204

<< <i>

<< <i>What are you talking about?
So should cards with rounded corners, like 1970 topps super glossy, never be given high grades because the corners aren't square? >>



No, but Wilson Weiners cards are not given exceptions because they have super-thin borders, and thus are almost always O/C

Topps Greatest Moments cards have a handful of cards that are typically notched. Those are not given a higher grade simply because they were produced with the notch in them.

O-Pee-Chee issues from the 1970s were almost always terribly miscut with blunted corners. But they don't receive higher grades because of that.

1955 Bowman has huge size variations - but the shorter, factory-issued cards are not graded, they get "Min. Size Requirement"

Phillies Burger King cards were issued in packs of three in tightly-wrapped cellophane, and almost always have blunted corners and bowed cards. They do not receive higher grades because of the way they are issued.

Your comparison is not analogous to this discussion. >>

Notice that in every example above you concede that "some," "almost always", and "variations."

All of these cards were produced like this.

mikeschmidt

<< <i>
All of these cards were produced like this. >>



Zef: The perforations on that PSA 9 MINT card are freaking ugly. If you look at many of the other PSA-graded examples on ebay, the perforations on a number of them are significantly less messy than on that nine. I'm not saying that the perforations should not be there, but I'm saying that they are really, really messy.

There are numerous other issues that have perforations on them [most Kellogg's issues, for instance], whereby a large part of the grading criteria is a) are the corners sharp and then b) are the perforations neat and clean, or are they freaking messy?

mikeschmidt

Zef:

See below. Here is a PSA 8 from the set that a) doesn't have a chunk missing from one corner, and b) doesn't have half of another card attached to one of the upper corners. I would call this example a "clean break perforation"



Please compare that Payton's corners to the Reggie Rucker PSA 9. It's not even close.

zef204

I am very familiar with this issue and I like it.

I apparently will not change your mind and you will not change mine. Let's agree to disagree.

zef204

<< <i>Zef:

See below. Here is a PSA 8 from the set that a) doesn't have a chunk missing from one corner, and b) doesn't have half of another card attached to one of the upper corners. I would call this example a "clean break perforation"



Please compare that Payton's corners to the Reggie Rucker PSA 9. It's not even close. >>

If the scan was closer up with a black background, you would see that it is a lot closer than it appears.

ldferg

i'd resubmit the payton.

...and ask for the 064 grader...

DaBigHurt

To answer the question of the original poster, after careful examination of the picture, it does appear that the 1977 Topps Mexican in question is indeed a PSA 9. If you look carefully at the upper right hand corner, right below the #138, which is the card number itself, you can see "MINT 9."

itzagoner

thanks for clearing that up...cute kids

ldferg

i agree with dbh...it is definitely a 9, no doubt.

jimq112

I pulled this card from a pack last weekend, put it right in a cardsaver, the corners are how it came. The bottom left corner is brand new but looks awful at 10X.

I can blow up a corner on a dark background if you want a good closeup.

AlanAllen

A better analogy would be the edges of early OPCs. They are not downgraded for rough cuts because that's how the cards were produced. Even when the rough cut makes the corners fuzzy, the card can still be a 9. Should the Rucker be a 9? Probably not. Should cleanly perforated corners be treated more kindly than poorly perforated corners? Definitely. Should an otherwise clean '77 Topps Mexican FB be graded a 5 because it has perforagted corners? Hell no.

Joe