cards w/ printing defects

thehallmark

If you suspect PSA isn't aware that 99%+ copies of a certain card seem to have the exact same printing defect, what is the best way to help them make the correct assessment of that card's grade?
Should you attempt to alert them to the defect prior to subbing?
Should you ask them if they are aware of the defect prior to subbing?

digicat

What kind of defect are you talking about?

Personally, I think the grading standards should stand firm regardless of how common a defect is or not.

thehallmark

Like if there's a fish eye or a print dot that's in the same place on virtually every copy of a card, then PSA ought to catalogue the card's specs to include the "defect", right?

I know there are examples of this in some 50s/60s Topps baseball where a black margin line will be extended past the perpendicular for a few millimeters. So how exactly does PSA find out which cards have those sorts of issues throughout an entire print run? Is our input welcome in matters such as those?

DeutscherGeist

One popular card comes to mind with a very chronic problem. The Molitor rookie card has this mysterious smudge on the bottom portion of the card. There are a few that do not have it. I don't think PSA should assign a 10 on a card with that smudge no matter how good the corners, centering, surface, focus of picture and edges are. It will limit the amount of PSA 10s and 9s, but that's OK, it will only raise the prices on the high grade versions.

I think we should respect what a GEM MINT 10 means. If one type of card never gets a PSA 10 because 100% of the print run was defective, so be it. It will make the PSA 9 or 8 a premiere card that is rare.

The Mickey Mantle rookie exists in PSA 10, but I doubt there is a Honus Wagner in PSA 10. So what. No big deal. The PSA 8 is already worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

People will understand that a PSA 8 is the best for one type of card, so a pervasive defect should never get a free pass.

vladguerrero

In my experience the only way to combat getting low grades for items like this is to sub at min. 2/3 copies at a time. I also wouldn't refer to them as "print defect" as they defects didn't occur in the printing process if every card has them, more likely a low quality original stock photo or one with a printing defect. Something like the Molitor is in my mind a print defect. I would also do more research/buying to find out if your 'suspicion' is correct before pursuing it further.

vladguerrero

People will understand that a PSA 8 is the best for one type of card, so a pervasive defect should never get a free pass.

I agree 100%, but there's been some explosion of particular late 80's cards that always had insanely low pop reports, because they are basically impossible to find Gem, then they started to get graded with the rational that 'they all have these kinds of defects' (not the same defect, just things like lots fish eyes even though in different locations), so to allow some Gems into the system they let some through this way. I experienced this with PSA and BGS, BGS is easier to tell though because you will get minimum Gem subgrades (ie 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 9.0... and no 10's), PSA just get the straight 10 and you never know why it was given that grade unless you know about the particular card and understand they seem give less respect to "modern" 10's than vintage.

WinPitcher

<< <i>Personally, I think the grading standards should stand firm regardless of how common a defect is or not. >>




Me too.

Early Bowmans seem to get a pass as well. Not because of a print defect
but because of wax on the back of a card.