psa qualifiers

FastWillie

Hi - I'm new to the board and new to grading- I was curious at how to value cards with qualifiers . I have a psa 8 oc and a 7 mc

any info would be appreciated- look forward to being a new member


Dave

gosteelers

Dave,
First off, welcome! Is Fast Willie for the one and only Fast Willie Parker? Anyway, knock your qualifed cards down two grades. For instance, value your 8 OC as a PSA 6...

Mark

FastWillie

The one and only fast willie parker- thanks for the info - why so much knock down - why dont they just grade it down?

Thanks Dave

Alfonz24

Welcome FastWillie,

For set registries, any qualifiers are a 2 grade deduction.

As far as prices, the MC is a lot worse than an OC. Some OCs do not look bad. People who are buying the holder (the PSA designation), then the qualifier will hurt you. But others will look at "eye appeal" and see the OC qualifier as a bargain. So if you are selling, the OC will eliminate some buyers.

You may want to do a topic search on OC and get more input (and scans) regarding qualifiers.

Alfonz24

ripkenintheminors

Excellent topic. I recently purchased a PSA 6 with a MK qualifier. The MK was due to writing on the back of the card. With that being said, no eye appeal was lost on the front of the card. The writing on the back made for a great story as well. Apparently a little girl didn't want her brother(s) to take her cards so she wrote her name on the back.

RobMM77

Qualifiers can sometimes be a problems but with star cards such as for instance a Mantle, or a Namath it may not knock down the price all that much. Last year I made out pretty good on a 58 Topps Jim Brown rookie that was PSA 7 OC. I have also sold a 52 Bowman Willie Mays in a PSA 6 OC and did pretty well. I believe you can request "NO Qualifiers" on your submission ticket (that may have already been addressed). Eye appeal seems to play a key role when trying to make a sell. Anyway, welcome to the boards.......Rob

XanaduNow

This is verbatim out of the SMR magazine. Hope it helps.

"Pricing Cards with Qualifiers

When it comes to rpicing, there is no general rule that can be applied to cards that exhibit qualifiers such as OC (off-center), PD (print defect) or ST (stain). It really turns on the eye-appeal of the card and the inherent difficulty of the issue. For example, since a 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey, Jr. rookie card is relatively easy to obtain free of qualifiers, one of these cards would drop in market value significantly if any qualifier is present. The value would drop as much as 1-2 grades, at minimum, in terms of value. In other words, a PSA Mint 9OC would probably sell between PSA NM 7 and a PSA NM-MT 8 value.

On the other hand, there are issues that are so difficult in high-grade that the qualifier, depending on the type and the severity, would not lower the value greatly. For example, a 1954 Wilson Franks card with an OC designation may not be severely affected since that issue is extraordinarily difficult to find nicely centered. In addition, the degree of the qualifier can also be a factor. A PSA 8OC 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #144 that features 75/25 centering will usually carry more value than one featuring 90/10 centering. This is also true for other qualified cards, like cards exhibiting stains or print defects. Severity is the key. The more the qualifier hinders eye-appeal, the more the value will suffer."

I took a little "artistic liberty" by placing that sentence in bold because I feel it often doesn't get factored in. Just like there are varying degrees of a banged up corner there are also varying degrees of a qualifier and value or realized prices will (or should ) be affected accordingly.

Hope that helped

Arthur

XanaduNow

Oh, and welcome to the boards fastwillie!

Excuse my manners.

Arthur

ripkenintheminors

Since we're on the subject, feel free to offer opinions. I bought this card for around $800 less than a PSA 5 with no qualifiers:



Here is the MK:

VintageJeff

Is that pencil? Send it to an auction house.

ripkenintheminors

<< <i>Is that pencil? Send it to an auction house. >>

XanaduNow

I hate to hijack this thread but since it was already brought up .....

"Questionable" practices by large auction houses has been in some threads lately. Ran across this while flipping through the SMR mag the other day and found it both interesting and relevant ....

Under the UNGRADEABLE CARDS portion of the Qualifiers on PSA's website:

NO GRADE DEFINITIONS

N-1 Evidence of Trimming - When a card’s edge has been altered, a card doctor may use scissors, scalpel, cutter, or any other cutting instrument. A trimmed card may show one of the following: Hook up or down, have one razor sharp edge, a difference in toning along the edge, a wavy look.

N-2 Evidence of Restoration - When a card’s paper stock is built up - for example, when ripped corners are built up to look like new corners.

N-3 Evidence of Recoloration - Where a card’s color has been artificially improved.

N-4 Questionable Authenticity - This is the term used when a card is counterfeit.

N-5 Altered Stock - This term is used when the paper stock is altered in one or more of the following ways: Stretching and trimming, recoloring and restoring, trimming and recoloring, restoring an trimming, crease or wrinkle is pressed out, or gloss is enhanced.

N-6 Minimum Size Requirement - When a card is significantly undersized according to factory specifications. You will be given a voucher good for another submission for the same type of service.

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

N-8 Miscut - This term is used when the factory cut is an abnormal cut. The grading fees are returned. You will be given a voucher good for another submission for the same type of service.

N-9 Don't Grade - When we do not grade an issue. The cards may be oversized or an obscure issue. The grading fees are refunded. You will be given a voucher good for another submission for the same type of service.

This post will be a little more prevalent to those who have read the other threads. I'm not trying to offer any kind of conclusion on the topic, just found these statements and definitions on PSA's website interesting.

Arthur