Just got a card back with an ST qualifier, I don't see it.

MCMLVTopps

I received a card today from PSA that was graded PSA 8ST. I've looked and looked and read the grading standards (which are a bit vague), I just don't get it. I am attaching scans of front and back. Please enlighten me on what caused the ST qualifier. I have many, many cards whose back is much darker than this and have are straight grades.

Thanks,
Al

nearmint

Check for a bit of wax on either side. It doesn't take much to get the ST. Try holding it at an angle to the sun or a light.

SDSportsFan

It's probably most noticed by the white rectangle in his beard.

Edited:

OK I guess that's just gray in his beard

The ST qualifier is probably due to wax or gum residue on the card. Hold it up to a light at different angles and you should see it.

Steve

MCMLVTopps

I've held this card every which way, AND, under a magnifying glass to boot. I don't see anything, no gum, wax, beer or Jack Daniels on this card. Well, it does fill a hole in my Tiant Master Set. If there is a substance, it must be viewable only under a microscope, because to the naked eye, this card presents a very nice, clean appearance. Now, if it I had set my coffee cup on it and left a nice "stain", that would be different.

This was from my 15 card membership submission. I gotta say, the turn time was exceptionally quick. They received my submission on the 18th, and I got the box back today, the 28th. My grades were pretty decent, six 10s; four 9s; one 8, one 8ST; one 7; one 6.5; and one 5. About seven of the cards are fairly rare, and the 1976 Linnett (that came back as a 9), is the only '76 Linnett Tiant ever graded by PSA, which makes it even better than a 1 of 1.

Overall, I'm very pleased with my results.

Thanks for the responses guys.
Al

Mickey71

Did you angle the card while doing a headstand and drinking Jack Daniels at the same time? Did you barrow a scope from NASA? I think the graders sometime look at the cards this way.

SDSportsFan

Do you know any CSI's?

If so, you might could see if they'd let you borrow one of those there light thingys they use to illuminate certain "stains", if you know what I mean

Steve

MCMLVTopps

I mean really...is this card's eye appeal distorted in any way from a friggin stain?

If this card has a stain worthy enough to make it get a qualifier, I think PSA is really over-reaching. Like I said, if it had a real STAIN, like a coffee cup ring or something like that, I'd be ok with it and of course would never have sent the card in. Who looks at a card at such an angle as to even discern a bit of wax? How many vintage out there with gum stain on them, yet no qualifiers? The card is clearly an 8, maybe a 9, but to toss the qualifier in and essentially make the card useless for any future sale, is really myopic to say the least.

If it continues to bug me, maybe I'll send Cosetta a coupla scans and see what she can find out for me. The least they couldh've done was to tell me what the stain was and where it was, 'cause honestly, I don't see it. The only thing wrong with this card is the fish eye on the back just above Tiant's last name.

Yeah, SD, I think I need one of those special "stain scopes", then again, maybe they only work on blue dresses.

Oh well, you guys make sure you check for stains before submitting. I'll bet my stain is more invisible than your stain!!

nearmint

I've also gotten some where it was easier to feel the problem than see it. In those cases, it was gum residue, I think, that made the back feel rough. You're right, though: if you can't see the problem, an ST qualifier--effectively a 2-grade ding--seems harsh.

cardbender

Stain or no stain, I love that OPC rough cut. Nice Tiant card.

celesterussell

agreed, I have a 1969 wery tough low pop that came back an 8.5 st and I can t see it , even had other pros look for it, try to resubmit.

If you are worried about them cross checking a resubmitted card, have another PSA member resub it.

They do cross check you know.

digicat

Hmm. Lower right corner on the back (card displayed horizontally). Looks like there's some slight discoloration there. Could that be it?

bxb

Come on guys, the stain is obvious:

It says "Yankees" on the card.

cadets68

My experience with the 1979 OPC cards is that of gum residue. It is something you feel on the card. But probably not see on the card.

Good luck, still a nice card.

Shawn

otwcards

My guess is that in the area I highlighted, there is some wax/wear that is being assigned the ST qualifier... You'll note some horizontal dark "lines" in the border that are typical with the OPC packaging and are usually found as the result of the wax seal and sometimes results in the edge being pushed on either the front or back...

hammered

Could also be wax/gum residue on his jacket by his right underarm area
Hard to tell

mike22y2k

Had the same issue with a 79T hockey card. I swore up and down it was going to be a 8. The nicest example I had ever seen which if it was a true 8 would have been 1 of 2. Scrutinized this thing up and down with a glass probably 10 times before I subbed it. I also got a 8 ST but couldn't see the problem until I cracked it to resub it. At the right angle to the naked eye you could see a little wax. I was able to wipe it off with no damage to the card and now I'm going to resub.

I was looking for a difference in color on the card but the answer wasn't even the color.

MiniMaster

to the right of players name and position near the edge of the card I see a dark dot that could have caused the ST qualifier. Then again it most likely is a combination of other things collectors have been mentioning here. Also check the right lower corner of the back of the card. It seems there is a darkening at the very corner. Also a black dot on the left back side edge. A print mark above the "a" in Tiant on the back of the card. All of these issues combined could definitely send a grader over the edge to place a qualifier on it. If a grader wants to find something to justify a grade.... it can usually be done if you look long and hard enough.

I'm with you.... the card looks great

MCMLVTopps

I may bust out the card and resubmit at some point. However, I think it is clear to see that the card, both front and back present very decent eye appeal...if a grader has to use a magnifying glass to find something wrong, or some little spec turns a card like this into an ST, then I say something is wrong with the grading system.

I have looked at this card a zillion times, outside in the sun at every angle, and yes, under a magnifying glass. I do see a bit of something, but bit is the operative word. It is counterproductive IMO to have or allow graders to get hell bent to (Q) an OPC (which seems to be the real deal) when in fact whatever they see is not very discernable to the naked eye. To me, an ST is something that is immediately obvious, not something it takes you 30 minutes to find on a little piece of cardboard.

In the scheme of life, this is less than a gnat bite. I do however find it very myopic of the grading system that the card you see has an ST qualifier. If ya gotta squint and guess and talk about a tiny this that or the other, somethin' just ain't right.

Maybe I'll drag it to Chicago, cover the label and ask Joe if he thinks the card is a straight 8 or a qualified 8.

I gotta move on, it is what it is.

Thanks guys for the posts.

Al