Scans Of "Thick" Cards Recent Poppage

Remobolan

I like the new "thick" card holders. I was able to send in seven Marino cards that I didn't think would ever be able to be graded. I was happy with the grades although I think they are a little tough on these types of cards. It is going to be almost impossible to find "10's" in this genre of cards, they are almost always rough cornered and puffy due to the gluing of two halves together with a chunk of material in between. However, I am happy to have them to add to my Marino Master Set (as soon as they are added to the set). Please enjoy the scans.

Remobolan

Sorry, Here are the others:

The holders are a little hard to stack they don't lock into each other as well as the regular size holders. However, all in all I am glad PSA finally offers a case for these very cool cards.


Jack

gregm13

Jack,

Very nice looking cards...congrats!! Now you're forcing me to start picking up the thicker jersey cards that I have tried to stay away from (as they couldn't be graded until recently).

Have you picked up anything else nice lately? I just picked up the 2 remaining 1998/1999 Stadium Club Co-Signers that I needed. I already had the Marino/Manning and Marino/Testaverde...but recently bought the Marino/Couch and Marino/Leaf. I love those cards!

Regards,

Greg M.

gregm13

Jack,

I think you're doing fine if you get a PSA 8 on those type of cards. It's like the 1998 Playoff Pennant cards...no matter how nice they are, you'll be extremely lucky to hit anything higher than a PSA 8.

Regards,

Greg M.

Volver

I agree with the grading on these types of cards. PSA should have a seperate grading scale (I know that will never happen, but it is a different type of card)...it will be next to impossible to find a GEM MINT card....too much chipping. If you got a 9, I think you are doing great.

KalineFan

I sent in some thicker cards for grading.....the grading was fine...but,

I ABSOLUTELY HATE THE NEW HOLDERS! They are bulky, clumsy and don't even stack!

They need to refine those things! I am not sending any more cards in until they do a
new holder!

My 2 cents!

Tony
KalineFan

Remobolan

Greg, No this was about my wad when it came to thicker cards in my old inventory. I have my eye on a couple on the bay but I don't have anymore hiding. You have me on the auto's I have very few and am going to have to invest in quite a few to even make a dent in the master set. Although I am happy with the Pinnacle Inscriptions PSA 10 you are holding for me. You're right about the pennant cards I got a 9 on one but it was the nicest one out of 5 that I had and it should have been a 10.

I guess my question is: If the total population of a certain card is 20 and there are no 10's then aren't the 9's really 10's? I mean is a 10 a perfect card or the best example of a card of a certain type. If no 10's were ever produced than a 9 would be a 10. You're right they won't change their grading criteria. Maybe they could make their scale go to 11 you know the old SPINAL TAP amplifier scale, then the not so perfect 9's could be made 10's and then if you find a perfect, perfect, perfect one it could be an 11.

KalineFan, I guess I said I "like" the new holders when I really meant that I am glad they came out with a thicker card holder. They don't stack well and they are bulkier than I had expected. I guess that is because they were really designed to hold packs of cards not individual thick cards. I think they could design a holder in the middle somewhere for just thick cards. I don't know how much technical work would go into something like that but there are literally thousands of thicker cards that could be graded if they came up with a thicker holder.

jradke4

I am glad there are others that seem to think that PSA has different grading scales.

When I started out in the hobby as a young kid (80's0 I was fortunate to have a nice hobby shop near by. The shop owner has been in the hobby business for 30+ years now, and collecting much longer. I asked him one day if you would grade an older card differently then newer cards. He said, no, all cards must be graded against the same standard. It doesnt matter if its a t206 or a 1988 topps.

Now look at how PSA grades. To me it seems that they have sliding scales. It seems that in some cases they are easier on say 1971 topps football, compared to say the thicker cards and newer cards. I will post some scans tomorrow to make my point.

Jay

halosfan

What holder did you have these cards in for your sub?

Remobolan

Halosfan,

I sent them in Card Saver 4's. They are oversized semi rigid just like Card Saver 2's just big enough for 3' X 5' cards. They are expensive but work fine. I thought about sending them in inside a 4 section sheet protector cut down but the card savers are better.


Jack

jradke4

i use a team bag to put the card in then insert into a CSI.

jradke4

Here are the scans I promised. First are three 71 Topps Football graded 8, 6 and 5.






Second here are Exq's PSA graded 9, 8, 7, 6.





If you look at the cards it appears that the 71's were graded easier imho. The Exq's, cant have many creases (due to thickness). So all that can bring them down would be soft corners, centering or chipping. If you look at the 71's they all have chipping even the 8.