Should I resubmit my 1963 Pete Rose rookie?

robbiegiggs · August 4, 2009 12:35PM

I need some opinions... I purchased this card a couple years ago and I've been debating, ever since to resubmit it or not. I'm posting this now because another member who lost a PSA 2 Rose at the National, posted pics of his. I have compared the two and I am now convinced I need to resubmit. Both cards are noticeably off center and have a tape tear on the back side. Mine has razor sharp corners and edges with no creases and I always thought mine got a PSA 3 because of the tear. Now that i'm seeing a PSA 2 in much worse condition, i think i need to resubmit... See for yourself and let me know your thoughts...

SDSportsFan · August 4, 2009 12:39PM

I say leave it. With that tear, I see absolutely no way that PSA will give it a 4 or above.

Unfortunately, a tear like that is all it takes for PSA to downgrade an otherwise Gem Mint 10 card down to a 2-3.

Some would say you're lucky to have gotten a 3 on it.

Steve

Dboneesq · August 4, 2009 12:43PM

I agree ... a slight paper loss knocks the hell out of the grade. If you were selling this card I think you may do better with the card OUT of the slab!

Bosox1976 · August 4, 2009 12:44PM

With that centering and a perfect back, you'd be looking at a 5. With a chunk missing, I'd say 3 is your max. I'd do a review if the curiosity gets the best of you though. Don't crack it.

robbiegiggs · August 4, 2009 1:04PM

ok, i'm comparing it to this one...

i think a review is the way to go but i wonder if PSA will actually come back and say it's actually a higher grade...?

thenavarro · August 4, 2009 1:12PM

With the centering AND paper loss, irregardless of the edges and corners, I see no way that card gets above a 3. I'm kinda surprised actually that it got that high. That much paper loss should be no higher than a 2 IMO. If you try it, definitely don't crack it out, just use the review like the person indicated above. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing your card, as personally, that card has nice front eye appeal and I think it would look wonderful signed. Would be a great candidate to have autographed and then reslabbed as PSA/DNA authentic.

Mike

storm888 · August 4, 2009 1:39PM

It is likely maxed out at 3.

BUT, unless you try it, you will never know for sure.

1960toppsguy · August 4, 2009 2:32PM

Ouch, nice card that presents much higher than the given grade but by PSA standards . . . it's overgraded. I think you are way lucky it is in a PSA-3 holder.

gregmo32 · August 4, 2009 2:36PM

Take a gamble...
What is the worst that could happen...

robbiegiggs · August 4, 2009 3:12PM

<< Take a gamble...
What is the worst that could happen... >>

...a 1 or 2.

It's interesting most here feel i should be happy/lucky that i have a 3... I was hoping someone would say it should be a 4 but I do appreciate the honest opinions. I guess i read so much from PSA about eye appeal and here i have a card with arguably "excellent" eye appeal on the front and I compare it to the PSA 2 above that has really poor eye appeal and I can't believe they are just 1 grade apart. As a whole, there is so much more wrong with the PSA 2, it makes me believe mine should be a 4.

anyway, thanks to all for your comments, keep em comin if you have more to say...

mike92694 · August 4, 2009 3:41PM

<< 

<< Take a gamble...
What is the worst that could happen... >>

...a 1 or 2.

It's interesting most here feel i should be happy/lucky that i have a 3... I was hoping someone would say it should be a 4 but I do appreciate the honest opinions. I guess i read so much from PSA about eye appeal and here i have a card with arguably "excellent" eye appeal on the front and I compare it to the PSA 2 above that has really poor eye appeal and I can't believe they are just 1 grade apart. As a whole, there is so much more wrong with the PSA 2, it makes me believe mine should be a 4.

anyway, thanks to all for your comments, keep em comin if you have more to say... >>

Yours is a "3" because the tear is on the side and does not show (for the most part) on the statistics. I also noticed that yours is one of the older grading methods (pre .5).

The difference between a "2" and a "3" is one point, but it is substantial. Yours is probably a "2.5" with excellent corners, which raised the grade to a 3.

WinPitcher · August 4, 2009 9:37PM

That much paper loss should be no higher than a 2 IMO.

Yup.

Steve

slantycouch · August 4, 2009 9:49PM

Displays much nicer than the grade for sure, but it's accurately (or a little generously) graded.

aconte · August 4, 2009 9:50PM

I would leave it too. Looks like a two.

aconte

bigred1 · August 4, 2009 10:49PM

I agree with most here, I have a few psa1 T3 Turkey Reds with pinholes, automatic 1 is my understanding. Which is worse? Combination of centering and paper loss, 3 looks about right, would not crack but could try review. That is a pretty bad 2, will give you that.

Tim

mealeworm · August 4, 2009 11:04PM

You should leave it alone. PSA should have given it a 1 per their own guidelines. IMO it is over graded.

Dave

mrmint23 · August 4, 2009 11:14PM

Plz dont crack it out. A review would be your best option. Check out this 2 it had a small tear on the left border.

1960toppsguy · August 4, 2009 11:32PM

SICK, Mantle

slantycouch · August 4, 2009 11:41PM

That Mantle's a beaut!

smtjoy · August 4, 2009 11:50PM

Overgraded with that amount of paper loss, should be no higher than a 2

robbiegiggs · August 5, 2009 12:51AM

I have only been grading cards in the past 3 years and i'm sure i'm not as seasoned as the rest on this board so i do appreciate the lesson i'm learning here. Considering my Rose and moreso, mrmint23's Mantle above, it seems there could be consideration to the overall presentation of a card, regardless of a major flaw like this that would keep it from getting that "automatic 2". Not that PSA would be able to change their proceedure, it just seems obvious to me that it should be done.

Just out of curiosity... (I do all my grading with PSA) does anyone know if Beckett drops the grade this much for this type of flaw? Is this normal across the board for grding companies?

larryallen73 · August 5, 2009 1:04AM

That's a nice looking 3. I didn't notice the paper loss that others mentioned. Shows you why I am constantly disappointed with my grading results. I would not bother re-grading the card. It is what it is. Enjoy it. One of the greatest baseball cards of all time... and you own one!

Dboneesq · August 5, 2009 1:32AM

<< That's a nice looking 3. I didn't notice the paper loss that others mentioned. Shows you why I am constantly disappointed with my grading results.! >>

THE PAPER LOSS IS ON THE BACK.

stevek · August 5, 2009 1:47AM

If you're selling, I don't think it's gonna matter it there's a 3 or 4 on the slab - you're gonna probably get better money than that anyway by posting the auction the same as here, with clear front and back scans and perhaps a closer view of the paper loss tear.

mrmint23 · August 5, 2009 1:54AM

Here is another Mantle but with paper loss on the front. Im not sure if the paper loss on the back vs the front matters.

robbiegiggs · August 5, 2009 3:47AM

Well, as much as i disagree with an automatic 2 for any size or location of paper loss, it does make me feel better about mine now that you're shoing me those Mantles... You've got some beautiful cards there, even with the paper loss.

I'd still like to know if Beckett also automatically grades this low if submitted to them... Anyone?

mrmint23 · August 5, 2009 4:19AM

Had to give the Mantles a new home so I could pick up these guys. Low grade great eye appeal.

smtjoy · August 5, 2009 4:28AM

You really need to seperate what the card grades from what it will sell for. Your card has paper loss and deserves the grade it got (imo it should be lower). Now as far as price you have a very nice presentable card, much more so than the grade and I would guess the card would sell for a nice premium.

storm888 · August 5, 2009 5:41AM

"...You really need to seperate what the card grades from what it will sell for..."

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

That concept is correct, but I am not sure it follows
that the subject card should sell for a "premium."

The card is - and always will be - a "problem" card.

If it was a stamp with such a defect, it would be virtually
worthless and designated a kid's-filler at best.

...........

As to whether Beckett would grade the card differently:

That is really not relevant to the value of the card.

If another slabber said it was a 10, it would still have
a piece of itself missing.

fiveniner · August 5, 2009 7:38AM

3 is very reasonable grade for the rose.

robbiegiggs · August 5, 2009 8:44AM

<< "

As to whether Beckett would grade the card differently:

That is really not relevant to the value of the card.

If another slabber said it was a 10, it would still have
a piece of itself missing. >>

It sounds like most members here are content with an automatic 2 standard for a flaw like this but is that because everyone knows that, that is what PSA will give it or, does everyone believe that the 59 Mantle PSA 2 (for example), with most of it's high grade attributes intact, is worth such a downgrade...? I don't. I think if another slabber gave it a 5 or even a 4, the grade is much more believeable and accurate. IMHO That's the reason i was asking if Beckett graded to the same standard.

I'm sure all are blue in the face discussing grading standards and the subject of "why didn't i get a better grade???" Hopefully I'm giving a slightly different perspective and not beating a dead horse...

storm888 · August 5, 2009 9:19AM

"...most of it's high grade attributes intact,..."

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

I have not always held the opinion I now have.

Sometime back, I thought that there might be
a large future role for "problem cards."

Now, based on Mr. Market's general reaction to
such cards, I think that "problem cards'" ONLY real
future is with folks who do not want to buy cards
that are as close to perfect as they can find/afford

Based on what I think I now know, 50-years out
the value of "problem" cards will not get any relief.

The market will not care that a card with part of itself
missing still has "most of its high grade attributes intact."

Missing paper - paper loss - is a SUPER serious defect, in
any paper collectible. It tends to cancel out the other
positive attributes.

.......

If you can find a stamp dealer who is not trying to sell
you junk, chat him up about how that sector of collectors
has treated "hurt" items.

As late as 1980, stamp sellers used to tell their victims
who asked about the importance of a stamp's reverse,
"Do you want to collect the front of stamps or the back
of stamps?"

TONs of high-value and scarce items - with booboos - were
sold to collectors who became convinced that the front of
the stamp was what mattered most. Most of that material
is now virtually worthless; no relief in sight.

divecchia · August 5, 2009 9:22AM

I would think a PSA 3 is as good as it gets for that card.

Donato

Gonblott · August 5, 2009 9:26AM

I think you should leave the Rose in the PSA 3 holder.

To me the grade seems fair and the chances of grade bump would be slim.

That card would look great signed by Rose.

Mickey71 · August 5, 2009 9:39AM

PSA already did a miracle giving that a 3. I would think you could send the card in 20 times and it grades a 3 only once. The rest of the times it's a 1 or 2. This is where the .5 should apply. PSA 1.5: I can"t believe this thread is that long. confused;

Should I resubmit my 1963 Pete Rose rookie?

Comments