Kinda bummed.

mmync

I finally found a centered example of this card, but Psa didn't like it very much!!




14608874 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1969 TOPPS 85 LOU BROCK Card US

MBMiller25

How did that get a 4? Surface wrinkle or something?

mmync

<< <i>How did that get a 4? Surface wrinkle or something? >>



I know the corners aren't razor sharp, but I still think they look pretty nice. I don't know what else it could have been other then a surface wrinkle. Before I bought the card I looked at it under a 7X lighted loupe, and both surfaces looked great. I sent it in as one of my 6 freebies.

Bottom9th

Wow!! That looks awesome to me!

initialD

WOW!!

The registration on that card is incredible!!

I got a PSA 6 coming back from the group sub that doesn't have that pop

BigRedMachine

<< <i>

14608874 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1969 TOPPS 85 LOU BROCK Card US >>



What!?!?! A 4????

lsutigers1973

Maybe they thought it was an 88 Fleer Michael Jordan.

PoppaJ

<< <i>

<< <i>How did that get a 4? Surface wrinkle or something? >>



I know the corners aren't razor sharp, but I still think they look pretty nice. I don't know what else it could have been other then a surface wrinkle. Before I bought the card I looked at it under a 7X lighted loupe, and both surfaces looked great. I sent it in as one of my 6 freebies. >>



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

Hi Mike,

Never discount the possibility that the wrinkle might have developed after it reached its destination.

I sent in a '51 Bowman Mantle RC that was expected to be in the 7 or 8 range .... it came back a 5 due to a damaged corner

Just saying ... it might not be you!

PoppaJ

gemint

It would have to be a wrinkle. '69 Brocks are rarely that well centered. If it doesn't have significant corner wear, I can't see why it would grade so low. My 8 is centered about the same and has some light corner wear mostly noticeable on the pink reverse.

Edited to add - Can you provide a scan of the reverse?

yankeeno7

CLCT shareholders demand a paid resub

onebamafan

Grader a Cubs fan?................................Im just sayin'
")

Vintageismygame

I had the same problem with a 1958 Topps Bart Starr that I sent in. I had two different people look at it with loupes before I sent it in. Both agreed that it should have been a 6 or 7. Yeah it comes back a PSA 3 with a light surface wrinkle on the left side!!

ndleo

I do wonder if the grading companies are trying to increase subs by playing games with the grading. I have had 1-2 cards per Beckett submission (out of 10-15) come back as "cards restored" on the past five subs. Usually they say a side was trimmed. Funny that each card used to be in a PSA holder before I sent it in.

I'm starting to keep a pile of them and resubmit into PSA. These aren't high grade cards either, mostly 5-7.

mmync

Poppa J,

If I remember correctly, I think you where saying that you've never sent any of your '52 Topps 'Mantles in for grading, and that you have no intentions of doing so. Well, the more I play the whole grading game, the more I appreciate your decision on keeping them raw, and not chasing after other peoples opinions on them.
So +1 for Poppa J

hammered

A wrinkle usually drops a card 3 grades. A 9 will come back a 6 and so on.
Yours looks like a 7, so a PSA 4 sounds right even if there is the tiniest of wrinkles.
I think PSA needs to re-think their position on surface wrinkles that are not even visible but under very high magnification.
It is simply a flaw on the card, and no more of a flaw then a rough edge, indentation, fisheye or a dinged corner IMO.
A drop of 3 grades should be reserved for actual creases.

ymarea

<< <i>Poppa J,

If I remember correctly, I think you where saying that you've never sent any of your '52 Topps 'Mantles in for grading, and that you have no intentions of doing so. Well, the more I play the whole grading game, the more I appreciate your decision on keeping them raw, and not chasing after other peoples opinions on them.
So +1 for Poppa J >>



mmync,

I find what you said very profound...especially the part about not chasing after others' opinions. That goes to the very heart of TPG. The only cards that I submit are for my 1972 OPC CFL registered set, and that is just to feed my ego.

I know this will sound arrogant, but I'll bet others share the same opinion: The only grade that counts is the one that I say it is. What I mean by that is if I'm satisfied with a card's condition, I'm happy. It doesn't matter to me what anyone else, TPG's included, say about it. I'm very strict in evaluating my cards, so the quality of my collection remains high. I crack out EVERY graded card I buy (except '72 CFL) no matter how old the card or how high the grade. I collect cards, not plastic.

Keeping my collection raw allows me to enjoy it just as I did when I was a kid (minus the bike spokes!), the way I believe cards were meant to be enjoyed. If I should ever decide to sell, I might send in some of the higher value cards for grading just to entice more buyers and increase my haul. I am, however, a card lover/collector, not an investor.

Before those who swear by TPG engage me in a debate, I know that slabbing cards has it's merits. Except for protecting the card, though, most of the positives relate to buyer confidence and seller profit...both good things. Like I said above, I am not an investor. I could not care any less about a cards book value, average realized prices, or any of that stuff. If I like a card and can afford it, I buy it. If I have duplicates, I keep the best one (according to my own assessment) and sell the rest (always relatively cheap).

usmc1986

If you want to sell that Brock, LMK

Semper Fi
Dan

Nathaniel1960

Breakout the steamer and roller and re-sub for a sweet PSA 7. It will be worth it!!