can subbing dups of the same card impact grade? (with poppage)

baldmike

So I got back into collecting about a year ago and I only have a few subs under my belt; apprx 200crds and overall I'm more or less happy with this recent sub. I included duplicates on 12 cards in this sub in hopes of at least one grading GEM MINT which happend on a few of them (not all) but I'm wondering if that's not smart given subjectivity of grading; would it be better not to sub dups that are essentially the same quality? Do you think POP has influence; i.e. could it be less likely for both cards to grade GEM MINT if it's a low pop card?

I appreciate any thoughts and advice



A's FS POP 2



Jones POP 3


Giants FS POP 2


two point difference - can't say that I see it...




Definitely didn't expect this Kelleher to grade EX-MT. Think it's because the picture is "lighter" ? ..............(8.5 for reference)



Parrish POP 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Brown POP 2

more images from this sub


Email Me (baldmike81@gmail.com) if you want to trade and can improve my '81 Topps Tigers set (Mint or Gem Mint only please)




1 1 17729557 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1975 TOPPS 66 WILLIE HORTON Card US
2 1 17729558 MINT 9 1975 TOPPS 89 JIM RAY Card US
3 1 17729559 MINT 9 1975 TOPPS 522 GARY SUTHERLAND Card US
4 1 17729560 GEM MINT 10 1981 TOPPS 15 LARRY PARRISH Card US
5 1 17729561 GEM MINT 10 1981 TOPPS 96 A's FUTURE STARS BEARD/CAMACHO/DEMPSEY Card US
5 2 17729562 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 96 A's FUTURE STARS BEARD/CAMACHO/DEMPSEY Card US
6 1 17729563 NEAR MINT 7 1981 TOPPS 196 DUFFY DYER Card US
7 1 17729564 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 225 RUPPERT JONES Card US
7 2 17729565 GEM MINT 10 1981 TOPPS 225 RUPPERT JONES Card US
8 1 17729566 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 234 LOU WHITAKER Card US
9 1 17729567 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 250 RON GUIDRY Card US
10 1 17729568 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 281 FRED STANLEY Card US
11 1 17729569 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 291 AURELIO LOPEZ Card US
12 1 17729570 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 300 PAUL MOLITOR Card US
13 1 17729571 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 302 DODGERS FUTURE STAR PERCONTE/SCIOSCIA/VALENZUELA Card US
14 1 17729572 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 314 RICH DAUER Card US
14 2 17729573 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 314 RICH DAUER Card US
15 1 17729574 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 319 ROWLAND OFFICE only 1 GEM MINT
15 2 17729575 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 319 ROWLAND OFFICE Card US
16 1 17729576 NEAR MINT 7 1981 TOPPS 332 LEE LACY Card US
17 1 17729577 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 380 WILLIE STARGELL Card US
17 2 17729578 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 380 WILLIE STARGELL Card US
18 1 17729579 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 392 LANCE PARRISH Card US
18 2 17729580 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 392 LANCE PARRISH Card US
19 1 17729581 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 417 DAN SCHATZEDER Card US
19 2 17729582 NEAR MINT 7 1981 TOPPS 417 DAN SCHATZEDER Card US
20 1 17729583 GEM MINT 10 1981 TOPPS 418 BOBBY BROWN
21 1 17729584 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 445 ELLIS VALENTINE
21 2 17729585 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 445 ELLIS VALENTINE
22 1 17729586 NEAR MINT 7 1981 TOPPS 448 TIM CORCORAN
23 1 17729587 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 468 JOHNNY WOCKENFUSS
23 2 17729588 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 468 JOHNNY WOCKENFUSS
23 3 17729589 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 468 JOHNNY WOCKENFUSS
24 1 17729590 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 479 EXPOS FUTURE STARS T.RAINES/R.RAMOS/B.PATE
25 1 17729591 GEM MINT 10 1981 TOPPS 502 GIANTS FUTURE STARS BOURJOS/HARRGSHMR/ROWLAND
25 2 17729592 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 502 GIANTS FUTURE STARS BOURJOS/HARRGSHMR/ROWLAND
26 1 17729593 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 572 JACK MORRIS Card US
27 1 17729594 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 593 STEVE KEMP Card US
28 1 17729595 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 617 CRAIG REYNOLDS Card US
28 2 17729596 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 617 CRAIG REYNOLDS Card US
29 1 17729597 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 633 BILL LEE Card US
29 2 17729598 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 TOPPS 633 BILL LEE Card US
30 1 17729599 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 655 DAN DRIESSEN Card US
31 1 17729600 MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 666 TIGERS TEAM Card US
32 1 17729601 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1981 TOPPS 779 MICK KELLEHER TRADED
33 1 17729602 NEAR MINT 7 1981 TOPPS 827 KEVIN SAUCIER TRADED Card US
34 1 17729603 MINT 9 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US9 DANNY WORTH Card US
35 1 17729604 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US13 MAX SCHERZER Card US
36 1 17729605 MINT 9 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US24 MIGUEL CABRERA/VLADIMIR GUERRERO Card US
37 1 17729606 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US37 ALEX AVILA Card US
38 1 17729607 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US43 BRENNAN BOESCH Card US
39 1 17729608 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US52 ANDY OLIVER Card US
40 1 17729609 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US64 JOSE VALVERDE Card US
41 1 17729610 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US120 BRENNAN BOESCH Card US
42 1 17729611 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US167 RAMON SANTIAGO Card US
43 1 17729612 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US199 JHONNY PERALTA Card US
44 1 17729613 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US250 MIGUEL CABRERA Card US
45 1 17729614 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US276 AUSTIN JACKSON Card US
46 1 17729615 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US281 JOSE VALVERDE Card US
47 1 17729616 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US290 JUSTIN VERLANDER Card US
48 1 17729617 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US297 DON KELLY Card US
49 1 17729618 GEM MINT 10 2010 TOPPS UPDATE US326 MIGUEL CABRERA Card US
50 1 17729619 MINT 9 2010 TOPPS PEAK PERFORMANCE AUTOGRAPHS PPAGB GORDON BECKHAM Card US

thehallmark

I've wrestled with this question myself over the last year and I do think there are times when a pristine 10 can make a gem-mint 10 look more like a 9 when someone is looking at the cards one after the other.

The conclusion I came to is that I would rather never submit dupes so that I don't have to worry about this being an issue. If you know you are going to submit more cards in the future, just hold the 2nd copy back and submit it next time.

lfa2mfg

Bald Mike,

PM sent.


Thanks!

ldferg

Nice sub on the 81s. This is one of the most difficult year sets for 10s that I've seen in all sports (baseball, football, and basketball). I've yet found a way to determine what yields a 10 from a 9 in this year.

I think there is some downside to submitting multiples of the same card. Like you, putting a gem mint 10 next to a 9 from the same lot is incomparable and will leave you scratching your head, then there are the 8s that pop in and you end up rolling your eyes thinking of resubmission. From my latest round of 81 basketball, I will more than likely keep it to no more than 2 of the same card on any future submissions.

MCMLVTopps

my 2 cents

I think you do risk impacting the grades of cards when you submit multiples. The graders are human, though they use specific grading guidelines, oftentimes the final grade is subjective, not objective. You are also allowing the grader to place one card against another, where one may be a 10, the next one is a "better" 10 and the first one may then suffer to a lower grade because you are allowing a comparison to be made. The human element is difficult to pinpoint, but clearly, subjectivity comes into play.

What would I do? I'd make sure that all my future submissions did not contain duplicates. If you are still wondering why the card 9'd instead of 10'd, crack it and resubmit.

itzagoner

i love this topic, so i thought i'd weigh in.

i've had success with past submissions by including multiples of the same card for comparison while looking for a 10/9 or 9/8 combination and most of the time it has worked out positively, including a few rare occasions when 2 cards both earned a grade of 10 or 9.....i've mixed things up at times by making the card with the expected higher grade as the second card after the first example, and that worked as well.

just a brief testimonial in favor of. whatever works, eh.

tigerdean

How the heck is that one card a six?

mealeworm

I used to put lower grade cards right before the card I was looking for the highest grade possible. I don't know if it matters but my thinking was some Joe would be day dreaming thru my cards and see what looked to be a minty card pop up right after a 5 or 6 and assign a high grade. All probably too much thinking on my part but it sounded good back in the day. I am sure I am not the only one that sent "fillers" in subs in hopes to make their cards appear better.

Dave

Dialj

If you are submitting dups of the same card knowing that the cards are in different conditions, I think you have a better chance of one getting the higher grade. It has worked. Although I recently submitted 4 cards of the same card, knowing they were in different conditions only to have all of them come back in same grade (8). Two were IMO definately not 8s and the other two I honestly thought were 9s. Go figure the grader met me in the middle. Attached are the four cards. Let me know what you think.

bking

Well, the first 3 aren't centered well enough for 9's IMO.

baldmike

<< <i>my 2 cents

I think you do risk impacting the grades of cards when you submit multiples. The graders are human, though they use specific grading guidelines, oftentimes the final grade is subjective, not objective. You are also allowing the grader to place one card against another, where one may be a 10, the next one is a "better" 10 and the first one may then suffer to a lower grade because you are allowing a comparison to be made. >>



This is exactly what I can't stop wondering. But then again, couldn't the argument be made that subbing individually there would not be an issue of having a 10 and a "better" 10 and therefore the result may be two undergraded 9s...

MCMLVTopps

baldmike...

Hard to say, like I said, it's all subjective. Just read the SMR grading on page 34 of the latest issue...they actually use the word "subjectivity".

My biggest swing was cracking an SGC84 and it came back a PSA 8. It was a 1955 Topps baseball card, made a quantum leap in value.

The prime issue as I see in the difference is the monetary value of the card and it bumps you up a bit in the Registry. Nobody on this planet can discern the difference between a PSA 9 or 10 when each card is held at arms length...may be true for PSA 8s against a higher card as well. When you have to loupe a card to appreciate the difference, I wonder if that difference is worth the obsession of having a 10 vs a 9.

I have a complete 1955 Topps set (currently 14th on the Registry). The set has 188 PSA 8s, 17 PSA 7s, and a PSA 6. I built a display case and have all 206 cards proudly displayed in all their glory in this case. From my recliner, I can enjoy the wonderful view, but really can't tell the 6 from all those 8s. When you have 15 cards across and 14 rows, makes for a very nice piece of eye candy.

GL with future submissions. Don't get too twisted over all this stuff, it's really just cardboard.

ThoseBackPages

<< <i>

I have a complete 1955 Topps set (currently 14th on the Registry). The set has 188 PSA 8s, 17 PSA 7s, and a PSA 6. I built a display case and have all 206 cards proudly displayed in all their glory in this case. From my recliner, I can enjoy the wonderful view, but really can't tell the 6 from all those 8s. When you have 15 cards across and 14 rows, makes for a very nice piece of eye candy.

>>



may we see a picture?

MCMLVTopps

I will try to take a pic of the set. My problem is the flash, but if I can get one that looks decent, I'll post it. I also have the 4 missing cards in the display case as well...Score, Musial, Ford and Feller. When I began to try and do the math to measure for the set, how wide, how deep, blah, blah, I was literally amazed that 15 cards across times 14 rows just happened to equal 210, which is exactly the number of cards in the set.

I'll work on the pic...the set is just awesome when displayed in this manner.

MCMLVTopps

Pic of 1955 Topps set posted above.

blacklab

It's not always possible, but when you can, hold off on dup submissions.

ldferg

When you resub, do you crack or keep in the holder? This question has been asked before, but I do not remember the concensus.

MCMLVTopps

The few times I've submitted a card for review I've always cracked it and sent it in raw. I think sending a card still in the slab is like having an 0-2 count right at the git go.

bobbybakeriv

<< <i>The few times I've submitted a card for review I've always cracked it and sent it in raw. I think sending a card still in the slab is like having an 0-2 count right at the git go. >>