PSA needs to learn about 1980 Topps hockey.
RedHeart54
Posts: 2,282 ✭✭✭
Don't know when this was graded and maybe they've learned since that scratched 1980 Topps hockey cards are the equivalent to perforated 1980 Topps basketball: pretty much worthless.
(The oval containing the player's name should be blackened.)
1980 Topps Gretzky AS PSA 9
(The oval containing the player's name should be blackened.)
1980 Topps Gretzky AS PSA 9
0
Comments
I know it's going to be tough!
I know it's going to be tough!
It makes me wonder if PSA has any policy at all with these, or if they're even aware of them.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>It's possible this is the OPC version and they just muffed the manufacturer ??
No chance at all on that. On the OPC version of card #87, the "All Star" at bottom-front is printed in French, and the position "Center" on the side of the puck is smaller and to the left to make room for "Centre" to it's right. Also, where on the Topps card, it says "2nd Team", the OPC version reads "2nd Team All Star".
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>It's possible this is the OPC version and they just muffed the manufacturer ??
No chance at all on that. On the OPC version of card #87, the "All Star" at bottom-front is printed in French, and the position "Center" on the side of the puck is smaller and to the left to make room for "Centre" to it's right. Also, where on the Topps card, it says "2nd Team", the OPC version reads "2nd Team All Star".
>>
No chance??
<< <i>Whoever made that decision at Topps should have to spend a night in The Box. >>
The whole idea of having a puck to scratch was so the collector could guess who the player was, then scratch to see if they were right. Brilliant idea by Topps as many Americans were new to hockey this year (because of the Winter Olympics) and the guessing game was kind of fun for those new to the sport.
As a collector I wouldn't buy a scratched one.
Patrick
Either that or people should expect the baseline to be for the cards to be scratched and pay a premium if they aren't, rather than have the basis as being unscratched considered as normal and scratched thought of as damaged.
I like the idea of Clemens being in a slab that's labeled "Donky Kong" but that's probably just me.
<< <i>Any idea that renders a substantial portion of your product essentially worthless isn't really what I would consider brilliant. >>
The point though is that this is a hobby and the experience of playing the guessing game was great for newbies to the sport. If anything scratching the product, I would think, actually makes the product more valuable by decreasing the population of unscratched cards. Imagine if kids didn't remove Bird from Topps '80 Basketball.
<< <i>Either that or people should expect the baseline to be for the cards to be scratched and pay a premium if they aren't, rather than have the basis as being unscratched considered as normal and scratched thought of as damaged. >>
The reason the value hasn't been damaged too much is because Topps printed WAY too many 1980 Hockey and there is a TON still unopened. I'm not sure about the 1980 Basketball series, but there seems to be more intact Birds than there are loose...either kids were smart and didn't rip them or there is a lot being opened today and left alone.
Bkritz
<< <i>No chance?? >>
No, no chance. At least not within the context of the question that SD replied too.
Has PSA mis labeled cards before? Yes.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>No chance?? >>
No, no chance. At least not within the context of the question that SD replied too.
>>
Yes, there is a chance, because PSA has already mislabeled OPC cards as Topps cards, and vice versa.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>No chance?? >>
No, no chance. At least not within the context of the question that SD replied too.
>>
Yes, there is a chance, because PSA has already mislabeled OPC cards as Topps cards, and vice versa. >>
OK, here's the gist of my reponse:
The original poster (jomer) asked "It's possible this is the OPC version and they just muffed the manufacturer ??", which put another way "could the card actually be the OPC version, as opposed to the Topps version?"
My response was "No chance at all on that", which is correct, as shown in my response. The OPC and Topps versions have distinctly different fronts, and the front of the card in question, is undeniably the Topps version.
I was making absolutely no reference to PSA mislabeling cards. My answer dealt strictly with the card in question.
Thank you Steve (WinPitcher), for attempting to clarify it.
Steve
Just my ignorant opinion here, but I like them better when the black is scratched off.
I know it's going to be tough!
Steve
And yes, '80 OPC can always be deciphered from Topps by the bilingual writing in the oval/"puck".
<< <i>Whoever made that decision at Topps should have to spend a night in The Box. >>
or a night in a hotel room with the fox sports blue streak puck creator...
Besides the OP that is?
IMO like 1964 Topps I really see No problem. I do feel that they should never be graded gem or mint with the
card scratched, but I see no problem with 8 and lower.
Steve
A better comparison IMO is the Topps Finest peel. In that case, the peeled versions are at least as valuable as unpeeled versions sometimes more so cuz collectors don't like the look of the "protective coating". I hated those coatings. I prefer the scratched off hockey versions, too.
<< <i>I don't think comparison to 80 BB is a good one. In that case, you are dividing one card into three, and scratching the black off the puck really isn't anything like that.
A better comparison IMO is the Topps Finest peel. In that case, the peeled versions are at least as valuable as unpeeled versions sometimes more so cuz collectors don't like the look of the "protective coating". I hated those coatings. I prefer the scratched off hockey versions, too. >>
I agree the Finest is a better comparison, I was only using '80 Topps BB as an example because they are the same year/Topps. Personally I don't like the look of '80 Basketball...to me a rookie card should be a rookie card and have nobody else on it. Bird, Ryan, Rose...all ugly rookies IMO.
<< <i>Does anyone here really think that if the black is scratched off the cards become worthless? Besides the OP that is? IMO like 1964 Topps I really see No problem. I do feel that they should never be graded gem or mint with the card scratched, but I see no problem with 8 and lower. >>
Again, it goes back to what Beckett Hockey did to establish the market on these way back in the early 1990s. I mean, anything is worth what you'll pay but I think most educated hockey collectors know that the scratched version is damaged goods. I assume this goes back even into the 80s.
Maybe something like a 1950s Red Man card without the coupon is a better example: the card is still nice, it's just not complete. PSA grades them but notates that the card is without the coupon. If they're going to grade scratched '80 hockey, they should make a similar notation/qualifier.
BTW, what is PSA's grading policy regarding scratched 1964 Topps?
I do not think they take off for it.
Steve
<< <i>Personally I don't like the look of '80 Basketball...to me a rookie card should be a rookie card and have nobody else on it. Bird, Ryan, Rose...all ugly rookies IMO. >>
I'll agree with that. I strongly prefer the '81-2 Bird and Magic cards.