A Slight Rant and a Forum to Comment on N1 vs N6 vs N8

gemint

I get frustrated sending in cards from vending stock only to have cards rejected for 'EVID TRIM'. If the graders aren't sure if a card is trimmed (and they certainly can't be sure if they're rejecting cards that are from original vending or wax finds) then the submitter should get credited back for the cost of grading for N1's or they should just create a new category for 'I'M NOT SURE'. I have a set of 1975T regular baseball that I've owned for about 10 years. At that time, I bought 5 NM-MT+ sets from a guy who was busting a vending case. I had graded all the manjor star cards from all 5 sets including the Bretts, Younts, Ryans and Aarons and had zero rejected for N1, N6 or N8. I'm 100% comfortable with the provinance of those sets. With the raw commons and minor stars, I selected the nicest copy of each one for my personal set, packaged up the remaining sets along with the graded stars and sold them in the early 2000's. I sat on the commons from my personal set since that time because it wasn't a focus for me to grade out. Lately I've started throwing a handful of them into my recent submissions. Though I do get my share of 9's and even got a 10, I'm getting some coming back with the dreaded 'N1' death blow. I know that Mark (Treetop) had a heck of a time getting PSA to holder his pristine '75s from his vending find but I think that was due to N6 more than N1. I'm not sure if he had N1 rejections as well. Maybe he'll chime in to confirm. Many have posted stories on here about getting cards rejected for trimming even though they pulled them directly from packs. There was also Felicia's '76 vending box thread that confirmed the same thing.

So I thought I'd start a thread for discussion on what the collecting community here considers are the standards for N1, N6 and N8. Here are some of my thoughts and some questions I pose to get the conversation started:

N1 - Evidence of Trimming - We're not questioning the obvious hack jobs. But what is the difference in a short factory cut and a blade trimmed card? Normally you should see a different (smoother) grain pattern along the edge if the card is cut with a razor as opposed to what the factory used (I assume wires for most 50s-70s issues). So I assume the graders are looking for consistency in the grain pattern of the four edges with some signature that wire cutting leaves behind. They are also likely looking for "pinching" on the top or bottom of the edge as evidence that a blade compressed the cardboard along the border of the trimmed side. So how can a factory vending card show these signs? Why do only some show it and others don't? Do they just take the shorties and assume they are either 'trimmed' or 'min size' and take an educated guess?

N6 - Minimum Size Requirement - What exactly is the standard for rejecting a card for being too short? I see lots of cards that are undersized in holders. Many of my cards that are rejected are very slightly narrow side-to-side. So how much less than 2.5" x 3.5" for a post 1956 Topps card or 2 5/8" x 3 3/4" for a 1952-56T card does a card have to be before it gets rejected? Is this a hard and fast rule? If so, why are they sometimes holdered? I have had cards rejected before for minimum size only to get reholdered later on with a resubmission. Others get rejected on resubmission as well.

N8 - Miscut - Some miscuts are easy to see. The most common I find are where the sheet or blade seems to have slipped during the cutting process as one edge of the card splays out slightly at around the midpoint of the card. There are others that seem to have a scrape on a small section of the border. Then there are the diamond cuts. But what if a card seems to measure up perfectly well but still gets rejected as miscut? I've had a few of those where they get rejected upon resubmission but they still seem to be ok.

Hopefully we can get some good participation on this topic. In the 10 years or so I've been posting on here, I don't recall ever seeing an indepth discussion on the Nx grading standards. I'd be interested to pique everyone's brains to get their thoughts. Hopefully the result is we all become better at spotting issues or that knowledge will help us challenge the graders when they reject our vending beauties.

bking

GREAT topic - I have wondered about some of that ever since I got my first slabbed card that ws inside a sleeve. When told that sometimes they use those to keep the card from moving, my first thought was "then you're saying the card is under sized??" I still don't get it, but I'm a rank amateur around these parts so I look forward to the discussion.

mtcards

I have only ever had one card come back "Evid of Trim". I resubbed it and it came back a 9. It was a 1977 RobinYount that I got straight out of a group wax break a year or so ago. My curiosity was what exactly was "the evidence" of trimming and whap happened to that "evidence" by the time I resubbed it and it came back a 9. Sure, it only cost me another $5 to get what is close to a $80 card, but when a card is rejected as evidence of trimming, PSA should at least have a number designation such as N1- A, N1-B, etc. so that the "evidence" is listed instead of a random "We had evidence, but prefer not to let you know about it"

gtgrad99

I thought I had seen somewhere that the Min. Size reason code was given for anything not within 1/32" of the stated size from the factory.

As far as EOT goes, I personally think that they should provide the 'evidence' as noted by a previous poster. If a specific flaw is not able to be noted, but the card is not graded, a voucher should be provided. We're paying for these to be professionally graded, so a legit reason should be able to be provided. I don't think that we should be out money based on a potentially unsubstantiated defect.

Just my $0.02.

gemint

<< <i>GREAT topic - I have wondered about some of that ever since I got my first slabbed card that ws inside a sleeve. When told that sometimes they use those to keep the card from moving, my first thought was "then you're saying the card is under sized??" I still don't get it, but I'm a rank amateur around these parts so I look forward to the discussion. >>



Was that a case where the card was oversized and put in a bigger holder? I have a 1970 Ryan that is too large to fit in the standard holder, so they put it in a 1952-56 holder with a plastic sleeve. That's a bit of a different case. In that case, the card is cut large from the factory.

Edited to add - That does bring up an interesting question. If PSA has a standard for cards cut too short from the factory, why don't they have one for cards cut too large? Otherwise, maybe they should just slab all factory cut cards, regardless of if they're under or oversized.

bking

<< <i>

<< <i>GREAT topic - I have wondered about some of that ever since I got my first slabbed card that ws inside a sleeve. When told that sometimes they use those to keep the card from moving, my first thought was "then you're saying the card is under sized??" I still don't get it, but I'm a rank amateur around these parts so I look forward to the discussion. >>



Was that a case where the card was oversized and put in a bigger holder? I have a 1970 Ryan that is too large to fit in the standard holder, so they put it in a 1952-56 holder with a plastic sleeve. That's a bit of a different case. In that case, the card is cut large from the factory. >>



Nope - Regular holder; the card just needed some help to stay still, but it's not under min size I guess.

As for the EOT topic, here's what I'd say if I was the vendor - "if we provide detailed evidence, we're educating the trimmers" and "if we send a voucher, then trimmers have no disincentive to submit". I don't buy either one of those, but I bet that's the company line. How hard is it just just voucher the EOT's, then track them by submittor and deal with the serial offendors.

thedutymon

Good Day,
In before the POOF !!!



Neil

leadoff4

Great topic and a perfect time for posting it as I've have too many cards come back as N6 & N8 lately. The problem I have with PSA on this subject is their inconsistency. Recently I've had a VERY low pop mid-60s common come back as PSA 5, evid of trim and most recently N6 min. size. So, my question is, do they really know what it is? Lately, I've had multiple cards come back different grades on each different submission... and I'm talking about at least 3 cards that have come back with different grades on 3 different occasions. I've also sent multiples of some cards and only 1 of 4 graded, while the other 3 were Evid of Trim BUT they measured exactly the same as the one that graded(hmmmm). I resubbed all 3 of the N1s(evid. of trim) and the next time they all 3 came back as N6(min. size). Basically, it's getting ridiculous.

hammered

N1 - I get about one of these every 50 cards or so that I send in. And yes, sometimes that card is smack in the middle of a vending group. And it's usually someone like, Ernie McNally, and I think, "you've got to be kidding me". The truth is that PSA cannot say with absolute certainty that a card is trimmed. I think 'evidence' is the wrong word for N1. The proper name for the rejection should be "Suspicion of Trimming". But I'm OK with that. Due to recent events involving certain sellers (who by their own admission have received up to 50% EOT rejection rate), I can't fault PSA for erring on the side of caution. The price that we pay for PSA catching MOST trim jobs is that they will sometimes falsely label legit cards as trimmed. When I get an EOT, I just resub. Usually it gets slabbed the second time.

N6 - I think the standard is within 1/32 of an inch. Some very popular 77's are often cut narrow, like the Rose and Ryan. And I pulled a narrow Murphy RC from a vending box that is still sitting on my desk, cuz I doubt they'll slab it. This is a rejection type I think PSA could do away with. They have to know that some cards are just factory cut small (or large, for that matter) and as long as the edges don't have signs of alteration, they should slab it. I never understood the rationale behind rejection of a legit card that just happens to be slightly undersized.


Edit: N8 - haven't had but one or two of these, but I've always wondered why some miscuts get the qualifier designation (no voucher) while others are rejected as N8 (voucher). It seems that standard is the same on both, according to the website.

leadoff4

Next, why don't we give our opinion on the year(s) that come back with the most N6 & N8 grades. Most of the cards I submit are from the mid-60s so for 60-69, I would say the following years have the most N6 & N8 based on my experience.
1964-a lot of N8
1967- a lot of N6 & some N8

gemint

<< <i>Next, why don't we give our opinion on the year(s) that come back with the most N6 & N8 grades. Most of the cards I submit are from the mid-60s so for 60-69, I would say the following years have the most N6 & N8 based on my experience.
1964-a lot of N8
1967- a lot of N6 & some N8 >>



1971 has been a heavy N6 year for me.

Sportsamerica

The last N1 got when I resubbed it came back a 10.... Sometimes I think that they take the safe way and reject it.

Stone193

This is a good question - I don't submit hardly anything so I don't get disappointed very often.

I think the key concept that will affect this entire discussion is the subjective element of any individual grader.

1. Evid of trimming - as you said - some hack jobs are easy to see - so what's happening with the rejects that a person KNOWS are not since they pulled them out themselves?
Have no real idea - guess? The grader is picking up on "cutting inconsistencies" created at the factory? Even when the card is not short at all?
a. If the card is short - is there an "institutional" directive to reject some at this level to increase revenue? I would sure hope not.

2. Min size requirement - When a card is significantly undersized according to factory specifications - there's plenty of ambiguity in the term "significant..." I once contacted PSA and they told me anything shorter than 1/32" off the specified size of the card. So, why do some slip by? Subjective grading I would guess? Tho, ya do get a vouchure - and one could always just resub and see if it gets by the second or third time?

3. Miscut - This term is used when the factory cut is an abnormal cut - this is very vague IMO - PSA could go back to the drawing board on this one - so now that I'm thinkin about this - perhaps PSA could take a look at this whole section and work - a bit - on the rhetoric.

Off another section on abbreviations:

MC (Miscut):
Cards that exhibit an atypical cut for the issue or ones that contain partial portions of more than one card will be designated "MC".

*This is a bit more explanatory - what does "atypical" cut mean? I would guess they're alluding to the diamond cut?

We can pretty much see some miscuts - some will be very close - the diamond cut and the mal-aligned obverse or reverse cards, are probably the only things that I can truly understand under this category.

Last - and this is something that - no matter how many times any discussions come up on grading - we can't do anything about - the SUBJECTIVITY of the grader - I can promise that I would contradict myself if given 100 cards - grade them - be given the SAME 100 cards the next day, and the next day.... It's just the nature of this kind of process IMO.

mike

storm888

"...As for the EOT topic, here's what I'd say if I was the vendor - "if we provide detailed evidence, we're educating the trimmers" and "if we send a voucher, then trimmers have no disincentive to submit". I don't buy either one of those, but I bet that's the company line. How hard is it just just voucher the EOT's, then track them by submittor and deal with the serial offendors...."

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

Retail-buyers of slabbed cards find some sense of comfort
knowing that PSA is willing to make mistakes that favor
caution.

The sad thing is that TPGs likely reject too few bad cards; the
good cards that get whacked are just collateral damage in
the pro-collector war.

Safeguards that limit the crimes of "serial offenders" are
in place. Slowing the flow of low-vol bad subs is bound to
result in drowning a relatively small number of dolphins.

Resellers that submit cards simply need to consider their
N1 fee-losses as a biznez expense. Those expenses are
paid for by end-users of the slabbed cards.

Collectors that like to submit their own cards simply need
to budget a little extra hobby-cash for occasional N1 losses.

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

I really don't want to pay more to get my cards graded in order
to provide a funding scheme for all N1 refunds. I am already
paying the N1 tax when I buy slabbed cards from the large
resellers.

DrJ

Grading is purely subjective.. Here is a tale of one of my 1970 Steve Carlton...

Originally in a GAI 5.5 holder. Card looked NM-MT in the ebay auction so I took a chance assuming a wrinkle. When card was received I saw no wrinkles under magnification so I cracked it out and sent it to PSA.

1st Submittal -- N6 Minimum Size. DOH!

On a lark I decided to submit again since the card measured up with my other examples.

2nd Submittal -- PSA 8.


So this one card went from a GAI 5.5 to a N6 Min Size and now lives in a PSA 8 Holder.

Grading is such a game, and I have decided for 2010 I am not playing the game of trying to score high grades on cards which when not a 9/10 do not even recoup the grading fees. The only cards I am getting graded this year are for my personal collection and I will buy everything else already graded.

J