Another bump sub, what do you think? ---- results in: 1 out of 6.

digicat

Using some registry set freebies, I sent in another 6 nice looking PSA 8s to see if I could get some .5 bumps. What do you think will get the nod?

Corners were the #1 issue why some of the cards I sent in with my last bump sub didn't get the bump. so I chose cards with stand-out corners, so we'll see.

The scans were all done at different times, and as time went on I figured out how to get the most out of my scanner, so some of the scans came out dark and gray, but I can't rescan them until I get them back.






I think they're all worthy of getting bumped, but I think the 70 Perry, 71 McCovey, and the 80 Henderson have legit shots at PSA 9s.

Bosox1976

I'd say the 71 McCovey for sure.

jswieton

i like the rickey

CDsNuts

I would say yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. On second thought, change the second to last yes to no.

bobbybakeriv

<< <i>i like the rickey >>



Sounds like a direct quote from Rickey himself!

fattymacs

I'd say yes to the Marichal, McCovey, and Ricky.

chaz43

Don't be surprised if none of them get the bump. chaz

RonBurgundy

Yes on Cepeda and McCovey.




BURGUNDY

psafan

Marichal and McCovey are your only hopes

PoppaJ

69 Marichal - Yes
64 Cepeda - Yes
64 Perry - Maybe, but leaning towards No
71 McCovey - Yes
70 Perry - No
80 Henderson - No, T/B centering is off

Mickey71

I'd say yes on Cepeda and McCovey. The Cepeda looks about 60/40- It has great color--full bump??

storm888

<< <i>Don't be surprised if none of them get the bump. chaz >>



///////////////////

Must agree.

Texoma

Ok--school me. I mean I'll admit my formerly 20/15 vision aint what it used to be BUT--------

If I were grading I'm probably giving everyone of those cards AT LEAST a 9!!!!

WTF is wrong with any of those cards??? The 64 Perry--sombody point out all the flaws with THAT card!!

"You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."--Cotton Cook

Tvac897

The Perry is sweet.

storm888

"...The 64 Perry--sombody point out all the flaws with THAT card!! ."

/////////////////

Centering is a tiny bit distracting; fails the high-end "eye-appeal" test.

A couple of little PDs.

...............

A PSA Mint 9 is a superb condition card that exhibits only one of the following minor flaws: a very slight wax stain on reverse, a minor printing imperfection or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.
NM-MT 8: Near Mint-Mint.

A PSA NM-MT 8 is a super high-end card that appears Mint 9 at first glance, but upon closer inspection, the card can exhibit the following: a very slight wax stain on reverse, slightest fraying at one or two corners, a minor printing imperfection, and/or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.

SDavid

Yes - Marichal, McCovey, and Henderson.

swartz1

cepeda, mccovey and marichal - the henderson will not get the bump!

digicat

We're on business day 45, taking July 4th and the National into consideration. Hopefully we'll see some poppage any time now...

nam812

1969 Marichal and 1971 McCovey only.

mickeymantle24

Maybe the 69 Marichal, and if your lucky the Henderson! Good Luck

digicat

Well, my submission page doesn't show that the cards have been graded yet, but when I did cert lookups on each of my cards, I see that the 1971 McCovey is now an 8.5, while the others are still 8s. I wonder if they're still working on them?

otwcards

Leaning towards Cepeda and McCovey. The Marichal has the typical print line running parallel to the left border that seems to run until the blue spot in the stands to the left of Juan's mouth.

Before anyone goes off and tells me that's in the picture, I've seen several versions of the line(s). Some single, like this one, some with a faint shadow parallel to the first line and on rare occassion, I've seen Marichals with NO print line. So if it's in the picture, how is it that there are some without it?

In any respect, they are some sharp looking cards and if you get an extra bump on the Perry, then 50% is a solid outcome!

digicat

Ok, now my submission status page is updated.

1 1 08198153 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1964 TOPPS 390 ORLANDO CEPEDA Card US
2 1 40631685 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1980 TOPPS 482 RICKEY HENDERSON Card US
3 1 08259529 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1964 TOPPS 468 GAYLORD PERRY Card US
4 1 31663344 NEAR MINT-MINT+ 8.5 1971 TOPPS 50 WILLIE McCOVEY Card US
5 1 05038952 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1969 TOPPS 370 JUAN MARICHAL Card US
6 1 40137349 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1970 TOPPS 560 GAYLORD PERRY Card US


I got one out of 6. I'm really interested to see what the little stickers say about why the others didn't get the bump. Guess we'll see soon enough.

billwaltonsbeard

maybe this is a stupid question, and if so, I apologize. But why didnt you crack them out and send them in raw? Is there a benefit to sending them in the holders?

Morgoth

No chance of a downgrade if you send them in holders but you diminish you full point bumps as well if you ask me.

billwaltonsbeard

<< <i>No chance of a downgrade if you send them in holders but you diminish you full point bumps as well if you ask me. >>



Ok, that makes sense. But one would have to have VERY little faith in PSA if you thought there was a possibility of a downgrade when you think the cards were worthy of a bump up.

Morgoth

Cards also could get damaged breaking them out or when putting them in card savers. PSA has been known to damage them as well.

BobaFett72

"Ok, that makes sense. But one would have to have VERY little faith in PSA if you thought there was a possibility of a downgrade when you think the cards were worthy of a bump up."

now thats funny I'd wager if he had sent them in raw, SOME would have gone down in grade. Not that they deserved to be downgraded, but maybe the grader was having a bad day, ate some bad chili, had a hangover. Real roll of the dice to crack them out.

digicat

This is my 2nd bump sub. In my last one, I was 3 for 7, with 1 full point bump (8 to a 9) and 2 8.5s. I guess I didn't think that the psychology experiment was necessary.

I used my registry freebies for these, so I'm only out shipping, which should be made back a few times with the 8.5 bump on the 71 McCovey.

digicat

I just got the cards back today. Here are the reasons the others didn't get the bump...

69 Marichal = PD
70 Perry = PD
64 Perry = t/b centering
64 Cepeda = t/b centering
80 Henderson = t/b centering


I'm flipping all of them (except for the Henderson). If you wanna drop in a bid, click on my Ebay link in my sig.

jeffcbay

PD?

digicat

PD = print defect. I'm guessing it's the line on the Marichal and some snow on the Perry.

WinPitcher

The 64 Cepeda looks like it could bump.


Steve

shagrotn77

I still think the Marichal should have bumped to an 8.5. If that print line is as common as Scott says it is (and I would believe him), then that should not have factored into the decision not to bump.

sagard

<< <i>I just got the cards back today. Here are the reasons the others didn't get the bump...

69 Marichal = PD
70 Perry = PD
64 Perry = t/b centering
64 Cepeda = t/b centering
80 Henderson = t/b centering

>>



Did they actually give you a sticky note with the details per card?

digicat

<< <i>I still think the Marichal should have bumped to an 8.5. If that print line is as common as Scott says it is (and I would believe him), then that should not have factored into the decision not to bump. >>



Agreed. A few years back I submitted a 1969 Topps Marichal with the same print line, and it got a straight PSA 9. However, "PD" is the reason they gave. Maybe they were talking about the black dot to the right of the bill of Marichal's cap?



<< <i>Did they actually give you a sticky note with the details per card? >>



Yes.