Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Qualifiers or no Qualifiers Which is Better?

mexpo75mexpo75 Posts: 1,938 ✭✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
I have a vintage set which I am thinking about having graded. My question is would most of you have them graded with no qualifiers or take a higher grade with a qualifier attached? thanks.
PackManInNC

Comments

  • olb31olb31 Posts: 3,512 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1) She has a killer body, but less than average face (8 face) or

    2) She has a beautiful face and personality, but weighs over 200 lbs (5 )

    which one sounds better to you?image
    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • CrazyMind2017CrazyMind2017 Posts: 1,205 ✭


    << <i>1) She has a killer body, but less than average face (8 face) or

    2) She has a beautiful face and personality, but weighs over 200 lbs (5 )

    which one sounds better to you?image >>



    Whichever is less psychotic is the lesser of two evils. Oh wait, you were talking about cards, weren't you?
  • ThoseBackPagesThoseBackPages Posts: 4,871 ✭✭
    qualifiers suck
    Big Fan of: HOF Post War RC, Graded RCs
    WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
  • bkingbking Posts: 3,095 ✭✭


    << <i>qualifiers suck >>



    For some, me included, it depends on the qualifier. A PD or ST doesn't upset me as much as an OC or the dreaded MC.
    ----------------------
    Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
    ----------------------

    Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
  • ThoseBackPagesThoseBackPages Posts: 4,871 ✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>qualifiers suck >>



    For some, me included, it depends on the qualifier. A PD or ST doesn't upset me as much as an OC or the dreaded MC. >>



    i hear you, but a PSA 9(PD) is NOT equal to a PSA 9
    Big Fan of: HOF Post War RC, Graded RCs
    WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
  • Sean1125Sean1125 Posts: 3,479


    << <i>

    << <i>

    << <i>qualifiers suck >>



    For some, me included, it depends on the qualifier. A PD or ST doesn't upset me as much as an OC or the dreaded MC. >>



    i hear you, but a PSA 9(PD) is NOT equal to a PSA 9 >>




    So she's psychotic once a day instead of once a month?
  • HallcoHallco Posts: 3,651 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>1) She has a killer body, but less than average face (8 face) or

    2) She has a beautiful face and personality, but weighs over 200 lbs (5 )

    which one sounds better to you?image >>



    Whichever is less psychotic is the lesser of two evils. Oh wait, you were talking about cards, weren't you? >>



    200lbs is usually the lowest starting point for my taste!!!! imageimage
  • CollectorAtWorkCollectorAtWork Posts: 859 ✭✭✭
    I used to think qualifiers suck, but I think an 8OC is superior to 6 NQ.
    Babe Ruth Master Set
    Lou Gehrig Master Set
    Non-Registry Collection
    Game Used Cards Collection
  • bkingbking Posts: 3,095 ✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>

    << <i>qualifiers suck >>



    For some, me included, it depends on the qualifier. A PD or ST doesn't upset me as much as an OC or the dreaded MC. >>



    i hear you, but a PSA 9(PD) is NOT equal to a PSA 9 >>



    Didn't mean to imply it was, but I might take a 9 PD over a 7 NQ.
    ----------------------
    Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
    ----------------------

    Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
  • CrazyMind2017CrazyMind2017 Posts: 1,205 ✭
    Depends how bad the flaw is that led to the qualifier being assigned.

    There's no such thing as a 10 with a qualifier, so sometimes a 9(PD) can be close to a 10 except for one little flaw that might not even be significant.

    Agreed that a 9(PD) will never be as good or as valuable as a 9NQ, but a qualifier doesn't always mean the number would get knocked down two full grades if net graded. Some 9(PD) cards might be given an 8 or even 8.5 in some rare cases, especially if the card would have been a 10 without the slight defect. I think it's reasonable to expect such cards to command higher prices than some 8s.
  • bkingbking Posts: 3,095 ✭✭


    << <i>Depends how bad the flaw is that led to the qualifier being assigned.

    There's no such thing as a 10 with a qualifier, so sometimes a 9(PD) can be close to a 10 except for one little flaw that might not even be significant.

    Agreed that a 9(PD) will never be as good or as valuable as a 9NQ, but a qualifier doesn't always mean the number would get knocked down two full grades if net graded. Some 9(PD) cards might be given an 8 or even 8.5 in some rare cases, especially if the card would have been a 10 without the slight defect. I think it's reasonable to expect such cards to command higher prices than some 8s. >>



    True; it's why I actually tend to submit with a NQ requested. If I get a card that seemd to have been slammed due to what I consider minor, I may resub without the NQ. When buying, it's all about the scan.
    ----------------------
    Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
    ----------------------

    Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
  • divecchiadivecchia Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As others have already said, to most people it depends on the qualifier.

    I personally don't like any qualifiers, but I think i may be in the minority...Donato
    Hobbyist & Collector (not an investor).
    Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set

    Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    Depends on the card, I'd take a 9OC over a 6 or a 7 in some cases.


    Steve
    Good for you.
  • mexpo75mexpo75 Posts: 1,938 ✭✭✭✭
    I am looking into send in 3 57 Topps football checklists. Two of them have some check marks and then removed and one has no marks but is badly o/c or possibly mc. I am leaning towards sending in for grade with qualifiers instead of saying no qualifiers. Am I wrong?
    PackManInNC
  • bkingbking Posts: 3,095 ✭✭


    << <i>I am looking into send in 3 57 Topps football checklists. Two of them have some check marks and then removed and one has no marks but is badly o/c or possibly mc. I am leaning towards sending in for grade with qualifiers instead of saying no qualifiers. Am I wrong? >>



    The ones with check marks and erasures will likely grade VERY low; qualifiers won't come into play for erasures IIRC.
    ----------------------
    Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
    ----------------------

    Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
Sign In or Register to comment.