I almost give up on cracking & resubbing/crossover

lsutigers1973

Grades just popped.

Both cracked from SGC 88 slabs:

NEAR MINT 7 1959 TOPPS 291 PITCHING PARTNERS RAMOS/PASCUAL
NEAR MINT 7 1959 TOPPS 457 DODGERS TEAM

Formerly an SGC 96 MINT:

NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1964 TOPPS 84 CARL WILLEY

Was a BGS 9 w/ 9.5 on centering and edges with a 10 on corners. Sheet cut?

N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1982 TOPPS 21 ORIOLES FUTURE STARS BONNER/RIPKEN/SCHNEIDER

VitoCo1972

with regard to the older cards, SGC grades less strictly on centering on stuff older than 1980 than either PSA/BGS. Cracking slabs is a losing proposition with slightly OC high grade SGC cards.

lsutigers1973

The 3 SGC crackouts are very well centered. The Carl Willey is 50/50 all around.

Mickey71

JMHO. I think things have changed in regards to SGC and PSA. PSA is tougher right now-by far. And yes SGC doesn't know what centering standards are.

WinPitcher

Just goes to show how subjective grading really is.


Steve

olb31

The card was probably was not cut correctly at Topps. Sometimes when you open a new pack from the 80's the cards appear to be different sizes. Thus, the card probably did not meet the exact length and width, but was not trimmed.

lsutigers1973

The first 2 I mentioned I can live with a 1 point drop. Was worth the risk because of the price difference in a 1 point increase.

The Ripken I kind of suspected may be sheet cut.

The Carl Willey is shocking to me. Was an SGC 96 and dead centered. Looks flawless. Honestly thought it had a chance to be the first PSA 10.

nam812

<< <i>......Was a BGS 9 w/ 9.5 on centering and edges with a 10 on corners. Sheet cut?...... >>



3 grades higher than the actual grade (which means the surface grade is what lowered it down to a 9) and you didnt know it was a sheet cut card?

WalterSobchak

PSA is just so tough on the vintage right now. A couple of months ago I bought a '59 Clemente PSA 7 (which you can tell from the flip has been graded recently) that looked very nice in the scan.
The card in hand is absolutely beautiful. If I looked at that card raw I would have thought it was an absolute no-brainer PSA 8, with a puncher's chance at an 8.5. I have no idea what I am missing that knocked it down to a 7.


I plan on joining PSA sometime next year, and my instinct is to crack it out and re-submit it as one of my six freebies- but I don't know if I will actually have the sack to do it. I bought the card from an experienced EBay seller.... chances are he's already tried it, maybe more than once!

SDavid

I think PSA is being very conservative right now both with what they grade and how they grade it.

Sheet cut cards are usually oversized, though.

otwcards

<< <i>PSA is just so tough on the vintage right now. A couple of months ago I bought a '59 Clemente PSA 7 (which you can tell from the flip has been graded recently) that looked very nice in the scan.
The card in hand is absolutely beautiful. If I looked at that card raw I would have thought it was an absolute no-brainer PSA 8, with a puncher's chance at an 8.5. I have no idea what I am missing that knocked it down to a 7.


I plan on joining PSA sometime next year, and my instinct is to crack it out and re-submit it as one of my six freebies- but I don't know if I will actually have the sack to do it. I bought the card from an experienced EBay seller.... chances are he's already tried it, maybe more than once! >>



I'm confused... You not a member, so how do you submit to determine that PSA is "just so tough on vintage right now?"

I hear many say that they're getting crushed on grades when submitting vintage cards, but I'll tell you, they've been pretty much spot on with regard to much of what I've seen lately. Sure, there's the typical 5% overgraded and the 5% undergraded, but that's usually the norm. When they really tighten up, the EOT percentages seem to go through the roof. And when you're cracking vintage wax and subbing low pops, the expense of resubbing the EOT's can really add up.

lsutigers1973

<< <i>I hear many say that they're getting crushed on grades when submitting vintage cards, but I'll tell you, they've been pretty much spot on with regard to much of what I've seen lately. >>



I had 2 really good subs in a row that allowed me to turn a nice profit and keep a few goodies for my personal collection. My last 3 have been brutal and were basically the same cards from the same source as the cards sent on the 2 good subs.

WalterSobchak

<< <i>I'm confused... You not a member, so how do you submit to determine that PSA is "just so tough on vintage right now?" >>



I have purchased many vintage PSA graded cards for my PC, I follow many others on the Bay, and I read this board a lot. It appears to me that on the cards graded with the new flips, the standards tend to be considerably higher than they were in the past.
JMO, I am by no means an expert.