Options
PSA 8 (OC)
jcdcubs
Posts: 341
SMR PSA 7 = $8, PSA 8 = $20, PSA 9 = $50
What SMR for PSA 8 (OC)? $14.00? more or less?
What SMR for PSA 8 (OC)? $14.00? more or less?
0
jcdcubs
Posts: 341
jcdcubs
Posts: 341
jcdcubs
Posts: 341
Comments
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
Looking for Jonny Gomes cards, especially Triple Threads and printing plates. Will consider all cards, though. Got something? Contact me at c_u_l_1@yahoo.com
<< <i>A qualifier takes two grades off (8-2=6, etc.), so SMR would be roughly the equivalent of a 6... >>
LWMM
That's the rule for the registry and totally correct.
But, when a card gets an OC - 8 OC e.g. - it really depends upon how OC it is.
E.g. - if the card had centering of 90/10 - and had the qualities, otherwise, of an 8 - they would assign an
8 OC.
But if the person asked for no qualifiers - based on the centering - the best grade it could be assigned is
a PSA 3.
I agree, all and all that OC is the kiss of death.
I think I'm correct on this?
mike
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
That being said, I think there are some good values to be had that have the OC qualifer. Or any other qualifer for that matter.
My Auctions
Zef said, in essence: "All OCs are not created equal."
This OC has near-great eye-appeal, because it is so
wide-slid left that it almost appears to be full-bleed.
(In the post below, you will see the same OC Q and
the same card, but it lacks the "appeal" of this one.)
storm
The flaw in this 9 is a distraction. A flaw - called by the same name "OC" -
is almost no distraction at all in the 8 above.
The same difference can be found in certain T/B OCs.
They are cheap now, but I do not know how long that
will last; somebody has got to get wise to the rarity
factors of some of the 50s - 60s high-grade OCs.
At some point, as I have harped on b4, the "registry deductions"
will be seen not to "apply exactly" to market value. 2-points off
on the registry was never meant to transfer to SMR. Folks just
assumed, and continue to do so, that the same-exact deduction
must apply to both registry and market.
What if all those folks are wrong? A whole bunch of value could
accrue to a hoarder. (I am not hoarding these, and I have been
selling them, but it is NOT an easy sell BECAUSE I cannot give
this kind of pep-talk/explanation on eBay.)
storm
Here is a 72 Jurgensen that I know will get a 9OC. Personally I think this card has awesome eye appeal.
My Auctions
Here is a 72 Jurgensen that I know will get a 9OC. Personally,
I think this card has awesome eye appeal."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yes !!!
That is an example of the T/B "eye-appeal" that I mentioned.
In order to identify such nice/worthy cards, we have to set
aside what we know/think about the PSA Q-game. Someone
looking at the Jurgensen, who had no knowledge of the PSA
scheme, would say, "That card has great eye-appeal."
Ten-years from now, folks who dismissed this concept may
find that they have passed-up a lot of ops to make large
profits.
storm
That card is a beauty!
The card is right about at 70/30 - and not a 9.
But, it falls in the 8 range - would the grade look better to you as an 8 as opposed to 9OC?
Just curious.
mike
you as an 8 as opposed to 9OC?"
/////////////////////////////////////////////
On the subject card - not on all cards - I would much
prefer the 9OC.
If I am wrong, and what I think will happen does not
happen, one could always crack-out such a card and
take the 8.
storm
stone,
I am not sure which I would rather have. If I undertake the 71 set on the regestry, I would probably lean to the straight 8. If I just keep the card in the collection I think I would rater have the 9OC as I think 9 corners speak volumes about the pristine condition of a card.
My Auctions
<< <i>I think the reason the Jurgy has such good eye appeal is that the top border is roughly the same width as the l and r borders. I think that lends itself to easy on the eye. If the top border was the 30 adn bottom 70, I don' think the card would look nearly as nice.
stone,
I am not sure which I would rather have. If I undertake the 71 set on the regestry, I would probably lean to the straight 8. If I just keep the card in the collection I think I would rater have the 9OC as I think 9 corners speak volumes about the pristine condition of a card. >>
I concur Zef.
That's one of the things I wish PSA had - a breakdown, like Beckett, of why the card got graded the way it did.
mike
//////////////////////////////
If your 8OC looked like the Jurgensen above,
it would be easier to sell than a 6.
storm
PSA 8 (ST) = PSA 6?
<< <i>How about PSA 8 (ST)?
PSA 8 (ST) = PSA 6? >>
Depends a lot on where the ST is, and what kind of ST it is. If it's a Wax ST on the back, and the front is nice, it's mine. If it's a somebody spilled something on the front ST, it better be cheap.
If it's not too bad of a ST, there's some people here who can probably tell you how to make it a PSA 8 NQ
Ya got a scan?
Again, the 2 grade penalty is a "registry" rule and doesn't necessarily pertain to the ebay or book value.
mike
<< <i>Just as a personal matter of aesthetics, top to bottom centering (within reason) is a lot less important to me than left to right. That Jurgens card is a perfect example. >>
I completely agree. Vertical centering just isn't as jarring to the eye as horizontal.
That said I think that the OC qualifier doesn't deserve the stigma it has in the hobby. I would personally be happy to have either of those Unitas's above although the eye appeal of the 8 (it's brighter) makes me prefer it to the 9.