1962 Topps Landrum PSA 8

mariner · December 16, 2006 1:44PM

A new one popped up on ebay today. Toughest card in the 1960's range, but I can not believe this one did not get the PD qualifier?? Or, I am being too harsh on the card?

1962 Topps Landrum PSA 8

bbne1 · December 16, 2006 2:07PM

Looks like it might be on the holder, not the card itself.

Boopotts · December 16, 2006 3:03PM

I've seen examples before where they'll cut the 'snow' some slack if the rest of the card is exceptionally tight-- and that one, print defects notwithstanding, looks gorgeous.

HoofHearted · December 16, 2006 3:59PM

BIN for $1,500 ?! SMR's $28 guidelines can't be THAT far off, can it?!

Anyway, PSA allows a "minor printing imperfection" for a PSA 8 and my old eyes can't detect any major PD. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing, mariner...

Bosox1976 · December 16, 2006 8:47PM

Looks clean enough to me Don. He posted his submission results (including this Landrum, another Landrum, and the 59 Triandos in 8):

Here - What a submission!

pjsportscards · December 16, 2006 8:55PM

I hope that I get the same grader for my submission that has been at PSA for almost a month. There is no doubt I would have received an OC designation on the Triandos if I had submitted it. The guy received some fantastic grades.

jayhawke · December 16, 2006 10:29PM

I have had '63's come back with less snow that were hit with a pd. We all like to talk about eye appeal. That card doesn't have it.

helionaut · December 17, 2006 12:44AM

Maybe the seller changed the scan between the original posts and now, but here on Sunday morning that card looks very clear and sharp. If I had seen that card last night I would've popped the BIN myself, and I don't collect that set. Though I would have to start, I guess.

Griffins · December 17, 2006 12:52AM

Looks pretty snowy to me, but the corners sure are sharp!

mariner · December 17, 2006 3:16AM

I agree that the other qualities of the card are outstanding. My comment is related to the snow. I have submitted similar cards in '62 and '63 and always get a 7 or a PD qualifier on an 8. I have actually submitted two Landrums like this and missed out on the 8's because of similar snow.

If I remember correctly, Scott Susor had a gorgeous Landrum not that long ago that he even resubmitted and still got a 7 both times, just because of a similar amount of snow.

I think the submitter of this card got lucky with the grader(s), IMHO. Having said that, I am very happy for him....a great submission for him.

mariner · December 17, 2006 3:42AM

BTW, the card has a buyer. It will be interesting to see what the second 8 looks like when he puts it up....if he does.

sagard · December 17, 2006 3:51AM

Any amount of snow used to mean 7s or (PD). I noticed around last spring PSA seemed to widely start granting minor snow the "8".

Bosox1976 · December 17, 2006 4:50AM

I've seen more latitude as well. There are 62/63 cards with more snow than that getting through these days. The SGC 92 1962 Topps Locke I did a thread on was snowy too, but standards have changed.

Resubmit your snow today?!

scottsusor · December 17, 2006 5:36AM

<< <i>If I remember correctly, Scott Susor had a gorgeous Landrum not that long ago that he even resubmitted and still got a 7 both times, just because of a similar amount of snow.

I think the submitter of this card got lucky with the grader(s), IMHO. Having said that, I am very happy for him....a great submission for him. >>

Don,

He got lucky indeed! And you're mostly right about the Landrum I had that got a PSA 7 on both submissions. It had very minor snow in only one upper corner of the card. If it were graded today, it would likely get a PSA 8. Here's what I've observed in about the last eight months. PSA has decided to treat snow less as a "definitive" issue and more as a "degree" issue. Its true that when my Landrum was graded, ANY snow would result in the card getting a maximum grade of PSA 7, even if it was otherwise a PSA 9 or PSA 10. Now, very light snow will only push a card down to a PSA 8 grade while heavy snow will still push it down to a PSA 7.

In my opinion, this Landrum's snow is heavy enough to where it should have pushed it down to the PSA 7 grade. However, another more recent PSA grading phenomenon I've observed is that PSA has become a bit more lenient on the "toughest of the tough" cards. In other words, if the card is a 1962 Landrum, 1960 Simmons, 1971 Raymond, etc. PSA will allow more leeway on everything (corners, edges, centering, snow, etc.) just to produce a few more of them in a PSA 8 (but never a PSA 9) grade. This can be both negative and positive. Its negative in that the card(s) don't truly deserve the PSA 8 but its positive in that it allows set builders looking for what may be one of the last cards they need in PSA 8 to complete their set.

Further, from my tracking of these cards on eBay, its clear that the "more leeway PSA 8" cards do fetch a lower price than one that would get a PSA 8 without the extra leeway. So, often, a lot of collectors do "buy the card, not the holder" at least on these, but it doesn't appear that this was the case with the Landrum. Without somebody overpaying the $1500 BIN just becasue it was available, if the card had started at the typical $9.99 I'd guess that it would have sold for much less.

Scott

jayhawke · December 17, 2006 6:33AM

It looks like crabcake is putting together an 8/9 set. He has purchased a lot of 9's over the last 2 months.

Davalillo · December 17, 2006 7:05AM

I simply cannot believe that the card had a BIN at $1,500.

This card would have sold with a BIN of $4,000 imo.

The last Landrum sold at over $4,000 to a stupid buyer who made a bad decision chasing what he thought at the time would be a rare and sought after card.

Jim

mariner · December 17, 2006 7:59AM

Scott....thanks for weighing in on the Landrum. I thought that I remembered your Landrum story correctly. I agree with you and others who think that there is a modest change in the winds regarding snow on a card....that it now is the degree of it. Interesting thoughts on low pop "leeway" grades too. Thanks!

Jim....I think $4K would be too high for a BIN but I do think he probably could have put, say, $2000 or even $2500 on it and might have still made a sale....maybe.......but it would have been worth a try on his part.

I am working on my '62 set as well......about 50% graded and having fun with it. I have a Landrum in a 7 and I would like an 8 eventually. Honestly, I would not want this 8....unless it was at a great price, relatively speaking. On the other hand, if this same sharp cornered, well centered Landrum came up with no snow, I would pay a much better price for it. Supports Scott's comments about the qualities of the card driving how well a card does, sales-wise.

Kurtman9 · December 17, 2006 8:51AM

Don, I agree this card was a "lucky 8" with the amount of snow the scan shows and there's probably more if you see it in person.

Be that as it may, I'll wait 3 or 4 years when there are 10 or 12 more 62 Landrum 8s out there and it will come down to a semi-reasonable price. I have seen it happen with numerous "low pop" 61s that turned out to be not so low pops in a year or two. Seems like the same thing will happen with 62s (I've already seen it happen).

Scott, That is an extremely interesting theory on those "really low pop" grades with PSA.

Kurt

Stone193 · December 17, 2006 9:32AM

I don't know - that snow doesn't look that bad to me?

Maybe I'm not that critical?

Or - is part of this discussion predicated on the fact that this is a low pop - hi dollar - card?

If this were a 20 buck common - would we still be having this discussion over the amount of precipitation?

Just wondering for the sake of discussion.
mike

Southerncards · December 17, 2006 10:53AM

There is nothing NM-Mt about that card.

VintageJeff · December 17, 2006 10:55AM

You guys sound really bitter. The card is beautiful. If you think that card should be in anything other than an 8 holder you need your eyes examined.

mariner · December 17, 2006 12:30PM

VintageJeff....Not quite sure where you get that everyone sounds bitter?? Your comment is puzzling. This is just a thoughtful discussion on the qualities of the Landrum card which is a very tough card. One of the reasons is that it is usually always off center or has a lot of snow on it. That is how most '62 Landrums look which is why it is the toughest card in the 1960-69 card sets. I think that we all can discuss the card and thoughts on PSA grading nuances without the negativity.

Some think the card belongs in an 8 holder and some don't. No big deal, just a good topic to chat about. I don't think anyone needs their eyes examined either. I would think that you could offer constructive and respectful comments without insulting other collectors, don't you?

packCollector · December 17, 2006 12:47PM

my 2 cents , if that card was not a low pop sought after card in psa 8 , he would not have bothered to submit it. with all that snow , it would have gone into my what could have been pile which is cards that are razor sharp at 1st appearance but are butt ugly after you look at all of the attributes.

sagard · December 17, 2006 1:01PM

<< <i>You guys sound really bitter. The card is beautiful. If you think that card should be in anything other than an 8 holder you need your eyes examined. >>

I suspect you could go through your '67s and not find a single card with snow that bad. The card is beautiful, but snow used to never have a place in an unqualified 8 holder.

Dav-

I'd bet the buyer of the $4K Landrum has made plenty of very good decisions and shouldn't sweat that one no matter how it turns out.

Davalillo · December 17, 2006 8:37PM

Sagard,

You're only as good as your last purchase--probably not one of my best buys--seemed okay at the time--toughest card in the 60s -pop 2 etc.

Oh well.

Dav

Morgoth · December 17, 2006 11:58PM

It's cool to here a collector say yeah I made a mistake. I have made so many now it's hard to keep count. My favorite was selling a 33 Foxx Goudey low number PSA 7 back in 2001 for SMR at the time. It has basically doubled since then.

VintageJeff · December 18, 2006 4:46AM

Maybe it's just that I don't have any experience in 62's but the card looks nice to me and I don't see a whole lot of snow. My bitter comment came from the fact others were saying their cards didn't get 8's well maybe they were weaker in an area that this card isn't?

SDavid · December 18, 2006 4:58AM

You could probably go on ebay at almost any time and find 84 T football 8's with more snow than that card. Granted, modern 8's carry no extra value, so the graders may not be as stingy with them, but I know I've seen worse looking 8's than that.

Stone193 · December 18, 2006 6:30AM

Don, others - I hope my comment about the card wasn't misconstrued - I'm not being smart - I really think it's a nice card and I really don't see that amount of specks/snow as a detractor from the grade.

But, you guys are more experienced than myself in that area.

I see this as more of a detractor:

Merry Christmas
mike

Southerncards · December 18, 2006 6:36AM

Thats not the same scan I looked at previously.

helionaut · December 18, 2006 12:27PM

My monitor isn't the sharpest in the world, one of the dullest in fact, so I don't really see the issues with snow on this card.

But inverting the colors makes it a lot more apparent

It's impossible to tell if all the smudges are on the card, holder, scanner bed, etc., but it does put it in a different light. I do like the blue wood, though.

Kurtman9 · December 28, 2006 1:38PM

The one and only highest graded 1962 Topps #323 Don Landrum PSA 9:

Got $5,500?

mariner · December 28, 2006 2:34PM

Amazing to see a Landrum in a 9. I have wondered who had this card.

zef204 · December 28, 2006 2:55PM

<< <i>In my opinion, this Landrum's snow is heavy enough to where it should have pushed it down to the PSA 7 grade. However, another more recent PSA grading phenomenon I've observed is that PSA has become a bit more lenient on the "toughest of the tough" cards. In other words, if the card is a 1962 Landrum, 1960 Simmons, 1971 Raymond, etc. PSA will allow more leeway on everything (corners, edges, centering, snow, etc.) just to produce a few more of them in a PSA 8 (but never a PSA 9) grade. This can be both negative and positive. Its negative in that the card(s) don't truly deserve the PSA 8 but its positive in that it allows set builders looking for what may be one of the last cards they need in PSA 8 to complete their set.

Further, from my tracking of these cards on eBay, its clear that the "more leeway PSA 8" cards do fetch a lower price than one that would get a PSA 8 without the extra leeway. So, often, a lot of collectors do "buy the card, not the holder" at least on these, but it doesn't appear that this was the case with the Landrum. Without somebody overpaying the $1500 BIN just becasue it was available, if the card had started at the typical $9.99 I'd guess that it would have sold for much less.

Scott >>

Scott,

I don't buy that for a minute! First of all, that would be a major flaw in PSA's business practice. They want more cards graded, not less. Therefor if they want to bump up pops as you suggest, that would result in way less subs and re-subs. A major conflict of interest. I sent in some of the toughest 1972's twice and they are all borderline 8's on centering. None of them landed in an 8 holder. I know you know what can be an 8 and such, but I have an idea as well.

It also seems that NJMH was banned for a lesser accusation than you just made.

Happy Holidays,

Jordan

mariner · January 29, 2007 11:16AM

A new Landrum on ebay.....should be interesting to see how it does.

1962 Topps Landrum PSA 8 Jan auction

usmc1986 · January 29, 2007 11:45AM

The red blotches on his hat didn't warrant a PD qualifier? Interesting........

Dan

mariner · January 29, 2007 11:55AM

Dan, maybe the grader thought it was just natural Cardinal bird droppings.

Southerncards · January 29, 2007 12:11PM

is that chipping along the right edge or the light?

mariner · January 29, 2007 12:18PM

It is definitely some slight chipping....appears to me to be a slight rough cut on that border.

1962 Topps Landrum PSA 8

Comments