Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Label buying at it's finest

bigreddogbigreddog Posts: 1,156
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
It never ceases to amazing me how the PSA Registry can make people blind in their
mindless quest to move up in the standings, Even if it is with sub par cards with nice labels.

Here is a perfect example. The 72 Ron Yary Rookie is a Low Pop card and I do
need it for my set as well. This one is currently on Ebay at $201.50.
I don't care if the label says it a MINT 9 or not, that card is not nice enough to be in my set. Especially at that price.
It is a tough card, but Ive seen nicer 8's. The centering is horrible and tilted as well and I suspect the back is no better.
In comparison heres a Jerrel Wilson I just got back from psa and their calling that O/C?
imageimage

PSA and it's horrible inconsistancies in grading are why the "All-Time Finest" and set rankings in the registry are really meaningless.


Here are some other cards that were just recently on ebay from the " #1 Finest set"

imageimageimageimage
These cards are damn near miscuts! My O/C Jerrel Wilson above is nicer than all of these cards.
The labels may say 10. Needless to say none of them are nice enough to make it into my set.
Its a good thing PSA is the biggest and many still buy into that. But their grading is really suffering.

Comments

  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭


    << <i>The centering is horrible and tilted as well and I suspect the back is no better. >>



    I don't see the problem, it looks ok to me. Centering left to right is a bit better than 60/40, but t/b is pretty solid.

    The 9oc you posted is worse than 35/65 t/b.
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • BoopottsBoopotts Posts: 6,784 ✭✭
    Centering on the Yary is quite a bit better than the centering on the Wilson.
  • MorgothMorgoth Posts: 3,950 ✭✭✭
    I don't see the miscuts on the other cards you posted. They all seem well within their grade guidelines.
    Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
  • bxbbxb Posts: 805 ✭✭
    The centering on the Yary technically is "better" than the centering on the Wilson.

    But I think the tilt is the problem on the Yary. I don't know about you, but tilts drive me crazy.


    Even though the Wilson is OC top to bottom, I think it has better eye appeal.
    Capecards
  • BoopottsBoopotts Posts: 6,784 ✭✭


    << <i>The centering on the Yary technically is "better" than the centering on the Wilson.

    But I think the tilt is the problem on the Yary. I don't know about you, but tilts drive me crazy.


    Even though the Wilson is OC top to bottom, I think it has better eye appeal. >>



    I see your point, but I think the fact that the Yary has a yellow border, and the Wilson has a blue, makes the centering issues with the Yary (for me) not quite as distracting.

    But, thankfully this is all academic. I mean, we all collect cards because it allows us to relive our youth, and nobody here cares about flips anyway. That's what I love about these boards; no one here sweats the small stuff.
  • ezyshooterezyshooter Posts: 711
    I don't agree with the OC qualifier on your card but i don't agree it qualifies for a straight 9 as well. I'm sure it falls into the PSA 8 category. I'd rather see your card in a PSA 8
    holder then a PSA 9(OC) holder.
    Don't get me wrong we have all seen little misses where PSA has put cards with centering like yours into straight 9's but not to often.
    Send it in and ask for a straight PSA 8.
    JMHO
    Steve
    Die Hard Toronto Maple Leafs Fan !!
  • MeteoriteGuyMeteoriteGuy Posts: 7,140 ✭✭
    The Yary card does not look like it is setting flat in the case to me.
    Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards.
    Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
  • ezyshooterezyshooter Posts: 711
    Actually the card you are not happy has a print defect above the S so card should have not graded a PSA 9(OC) anyways. Should not be marked with a PD qualifier but if i was grading that card it would be a PSA 8 no qualifier.
    Steve
    Die Hard Toronto Maple Leafs Fan !!
  • 1960toppsguy1960toppsguy Posts: 1,127 ✭✭
    I think you are being a bit anal as those all appear to be fairly graded cards especially considering you blew up the YARY card.
  • ezyshooterezyshooter Posts: 711
    I see you brought it up in another thread about these PSA 10's. Those are centered. They might not be 50/50 but are more then enough centered for PSA 10 status.
    Your PSA 9 (OC) is nowhere close to the centering of those 10's. Centering is 30/70 where the PSA 10's are out maybe 58/42 at worse case scenerio.
    Maybe you need glasses ? I think you are just disappointed with the grade and think it's all PSA's fault. Sorry but the card speaks for itself. It is OC but again it should have qualified for a PSA 8 even with the print defect but the print defect is not major.
    If people thought otherwise they have said so. It's not like we are against you. We have all had cards come back and said Wow ? What did i miss ? After checking it and sometimes missed something and others the grader just blew it. This is not the case. Since you did not ask for no qualifiers the grader gave you the benefit of calling the card a PSA 9(OC) even with the print defect. If i had that card centered 50/50 up and down i guarantee it would still only be a PSA 8 because of the print defect.
    Cheers, Steve
    Die Hard Toronto Maple Leafs Fan !!
  • DavidPuddyDavidPuddy Posts: 3,488 ✭✭✭


    << <i>These cards are damn near miscuts! >>


    Really?

    Is this thread JUST supposed to drum up discussion/controversy?
    "The Sipe market is ridiculous right now"
    CDsNuts, 1/9/15
  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    The Yary card is not sitting in the slab properly so it makes the tilt that it does have seem worse.

    Steve
    Good for you.
  • StopYurWhiningStopYurWhining Posts: 719
    if you turn the monitor upside down they look just fine.
  • MeteoriteGuyMeteoriteGuy Posts: 7,140 ✭✭
    Anyone who thinks the OC card, which is OC, is better then any of those 10's is not going to, or lacks the ability to comprehend grading.
    Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards.
    Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
  • nightcrawlernightcrawler Posts: 5,110 ✭✭


    << <i>It never ceases to amazing me how the PSA Registry can make people blind in their
    mindless quest to move up in the standings, Even if it is with sub par cards with nice labels. >>





    Like sick animals

  • bigreddogbigreddog Posts: 1,156
    FIRST off the Jerrell Wilson Card had nothing to do with anything. It was simply used as a comparison. I don't dispute that card nor am I bitter about it, nor would I waste my time trying to get it graded as an 8 It has since been replaced with
    a true centered Mint 9 copy for my set. I could care less about the O/C one.

    #2 I did not enlarge the Yary card, thats the size it was saved from ebay. Why would that matter anyway???


    Apparently I hold my eye appeal and grading of MINT cards higher than most. That Yary card simply does not have nice enough eye appeal and centering to be MINT 9 in my book.


    Are you kidding me on the 10's??? First off I don't even believe in the GEM 10 Grade as I think it is a fake grade.
    All 10's are really only 9's hiding under that label. Now if I did believe there was a true grade called "GEM MINT 10" you better believe that card would have to be absolutley perfect with dead on perfect centering for me. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that you have a grade that implies Perfection and then set guidelines and standards that allow it not to be perfect.


    Apparently many of you have disagreed here and I guess thats what makes the hobby and grading so subjective. I guess Im just a bit stricter on the cards I wish to add to my Mint 9 set and that Yary falls way short for me, as well as the 10's that are not even 9 worthy in my book.

    I'll pass on that Yary for over $200 even tough it is a tough card. I will have to wait until I see the right one for me that I feel has the right
    eye appeal. As well as the correct grade for my set. Until then I will let the Label collector's have these kind.





  • StanTheManMusialStanTheManMusial Posts: 2,053 ✭


    << <i>FIRST off the Jerrell Wilson Card had nothing to do with anything. It was simply used as a comparison. I don't dispute that card nor am I bitter about it, nor would I waste my time trying to get it graded as an 8 It has since been replaced with
    a true centered Mint 9 copy for my set. I could care less about the O/C one.

    #2 I did not enlarge the Yary card, thats the size it was saved from ebay. Why would that matter anyway???


    Apparently I hold my eye appeal and grading of MINT cards higher than most. That Yary card simply does not have nice enough eye appeal and centering to be MINT 9 in my book.


    Are you kidding me on the 10's??? First off I don't even believe in the GEM 10 Grade as I think it is a fake grade.
    All 10's are really only 9's hiding under that label. Now if I did believe there was a true grade called "GEM MINT 10" you better believe that card would have to be absolutley perfect with dead on perfect centering for me. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that you have a grade that implies Perfection and then set guidelines and standards that allow it not to be perfect.


    Apparently many of you have disagreed here and I guess thats what makes the hobby and grading so subjective. I guess Im just a bit stricter on the cards I wish to add to my Mint 9 set and that Yary falls way short for me, as well as the 10's that are not even 9 worthy in my book.

    I'll pass on that Yary for over $200 even tough it is a tough card. I will have to wait until I see the right one for me that I feel has the right
    eye appeal. As well as the correct grade for my set. Until then I will let the Label collector's have these kind. >>



    The bolded touches on something that I have felt for many years. I have a lot of cards that have been holdered in "gem mint" labels(PSA, BGS, and SGC), but every one of them has some slight imperfection when I scour over them very, very closely. Is there such a thing as the perfect card? I'm not so sure.

    I tend to believe you just have to find the best looking card that is in the "gem mint labeled holder" if you are mindset of buying gem mint graded/holdered cards, or find the most "mint" card, if you are just looking to buy 9's, ect... As old as the saying of "buy the card, not the holder" is, I have to say it's very true. I guess that's where a keen eye can pick off some bargains in 8 and 9 holders. I know I have picked off my share of cards over the years that were cracked and submitted back for higher grades. Grading is subjective, with no doubt.

  • nightcrawlernightcrawler Posts: 5,110 ✭✭


    << <i> I have a lot of cards that have been holdered in "gem mint" labels(PSA, BGS, and SGC), but every one of them has some slight imperfection when I scour over them very, very closely. Is there such a thing as the perfect card? I'm not so sure. >>




    Definatly... but at 20/20 vision. If we go 100x, we're screwed.



    I like the Wilson, and think the OC qualifier is something that should apply for side to side more than top to bottom... But I like more bottom than top. The eye appeal on the Wilson is not that good IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.