Has PSA relaxed centering requirements?

PaulMaul · March 14, 2011 5:09AM

I just looked at the PSA grading standards, and I could swear the centering requirements used to be more stringent. For example, 70/30 front centering is allowed in PSA 8 unqualified. I always remember 65/35 being the cutoff for an 8. Several of the others seem looser than I recall also (65/35 front centering acceptable for PSA 9). Am I mis-remembering?

celesterussell · March 14, 2011 7:26AM

Dont get me started, IMO they have relaxed (or maybe another word is better) their standards.

People can stamp their feet, clutch their heart and pull their hair, but IMO they have.

It "aint" what it used to be.............

divecchia · March 14, 2011 8:03AM

I think they have, so buy the card not the slab...

Donato

metsfan · March 14, 2011 8:06AM

<< I just looked at the PSA grading standards, and I could swear the centering requirements used to be more stringent. For example, 70/30 front centering is allowed in PSA 8 unqualified. I always remember 65/35 being the cutoff for an 8. Several of the others seem looser than I recall also (65/35 front centering acceptable for PSA 9). Am I mis-remembering? >>

I have an SMR from 4 years ago, and it says PSA 8 front centering must be approximately 65-35 to 70-30 or better. If you read closer you will notice 65-35 qualifies and 70-30 might or might not qualify. I'm not sure what the requirements say now.

digicat · March 14, 2011 8:10AM

I looked at today's standards, as well as a few snapshots from the last several years using the "Internet Archive".

The standards for a PSA 8 are the same today as they were in 1997.

PaulMaul · March 14, 2011 9:43AM

<< I looked at today's standards, as well as a few snapshots from the last several years using the "Internet Archive".

The standards for a PSA 8 are the same today as they were in 1997. >>

You're absolutely right, I must have been thinking of the Beckett descriptions.

celesterussell · March 16, 2011 7:54AM

See link, yeah like thats a psa 9..........

http://cgi.ebay.com/1966-TOPPS-353-AL-McBEAN-PSA-9-MINT-RARE-/330543007176?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item4cf5e605c8

theczar · March 16, 2011 8:28AM

itzagoner · March 16, 2011 8:45AM

just......wow.

MBMiller25 · March 16, 2011 9:48AM

That's terrible. I know there is supposedly no way for a grader to know whose submission they are grading, but there are a couple massive submitters who get some serious head scratching returns, it really makes you wonder.

CrazyMind2017 · March 16, 2011 9:49AM

What a joke.

digicat · March 16, 2011 11:32AM

Someone was asleep on the job there. Still, I doubt that this is any indication of relaxed grading standards, just a relaxed (or lazy) grader.

edit to add:
Anyone who pays a PSA 9 price for that card is a total fool, and deserves to own that card.

Toro · March 16, 2011 1:19PM

Should've been a Mint 9 (OC) , I'm sure this was an error in the grading process

packCollector · March 16, 2011 1:26PM

error in the data entry most likely , that is no way the norm

PaulMaul · March 16, 2011 11:56PM

By my measurements, the centering appears to be about 68/32, certainly no worse than 70/30. So according to PSA 8, this would be OK as an unqualified 8. Are people here OK with that? I'm just curious, as centering seems to be very important to most people.

bbuckner22 · March 17, 2011 12:43AM

DSL consitantly has plenty of over graded cards for sale. That McBean is a joke, I don't care if it's 68/32 or what, does anyone really want that card in their high grade set?

itzagoner · March 17, 2011 12:56AM

Sethro · March 17, 2011 3:07AM

Is a data entry error a realistic explanation for a card that totally looks like it was graded incorrectly?

I recently purchased a PSA 9 NQ card with an awful diamond cut. I saw it on eBay, thought I would put in a low bid on the auction in case maybe it really wasn't a diamond cut, but just looked that way because the card moved a bit in the holder or something like that. I won the card for 60% less than VCP. (uh-oh!) I received the card yesterday. It is not a slight tilt. It is extreme. It looks even worse in person. I am stunned at how bad this card looks.

I am new to all this and still learning. I say that to qualify the comments about my critique. I am not some expert with years of experience who could give a cursory look at a card and dismiss it as inferior. Even with my lack of experience the card looks a mess.

I am wrestling with two questions. First, who in the world would submit this card? This is not some slight tilt that someone was hoping to slip past a sleepy grader. This card is a disaster!

Second, how in the world did this card get a 9? Is data entry error really a possibility? And if there could be a data entry error, isn't there some kind of quality assurance method to give a quick look at cards before mailing them out? Here is a link to the card so you can see for yourself:

Link

Lastly, I am not complaining about winning a crappy card. I took a risk hoping something that was there wasn't there. I take full responsibility for that. I just don't get how this card exists in the first place. When I saw packCollector's comment it made me think about a perspective I had not considered and wanted to see if anyone could help me understand it further. Thank you!

Garabaldi · March 17, 2011 3:16AM

I think the 100 point grading system is better.

CrazyMind2017 · March 17, 2011 4:57AM

The thing about the diamond cut is that it actually improves the centering from a technical, geometrical standpoint. Where on the card is centering any worse than 60/40?

As long as the card is able to fit into the holder, there's no qualifier for diamond cut.

The only grounds to lower the grade if it fits in the slab and otherwise meets the requirements for a 9 are poor eye appeal.

Based on eye appeal alone, that card should be a 7.5 or 8, and if it's an 8, it would be a very poor example of an 8 in my opinion.

But going by strict technical requirements, it's probably a 9.

RipublicaninMass · March 17, 2011 4:59AM

<< I think the 100 point grading system is better. >>

OMG dont give them any ideas!

hammered · March 17, 2011 5:34AM

I think the above card was a mechanical error. Probably the OC was inadvertently left off.

Concerning tilts, we've learned that a tilt is not the same as O/C, and that is why you will frequently see 9s (and even 10s) with tilts. In fact, a tilt is not O/C, since there is the same space on both borders. It's not pretty, but it doesn't really violate a specific PSA grading standard. PSA should be downgrading these on eye appeal (and sometimes they do - I've had cards downgraded b/c of tilt), but a lot of them slide by in 9 holders because of the lack of a standard.

Garabaldi · March 17, 2011 5:54AM

<< 

<< I think the 100 point grading system is better. >>

OMG dont give them any ideas! >>

I agree, but there are too many variables within a single grade.

Planemonkey · March 18, 2011 11:54AM

I think they were relaxed on this old flip, current auction on ebay T/B is terrible

ThoseBackPages · March 18, 2011 11:57AM

the tilt is my biggest pet peeve

Has PSA relaxed centering requirements?

Comments