Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Is this not OC???

BlackieBlackie Posts: 1,719 ✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
Seen this on another board......good point was made .......how is this not OC???

image
1964 Topps Football

Comments

  • BlackieBlackie Posts: 1,719 ✭✭✭
    though it is a beauty......
    1964 Topps Football
  • BlackieBlackie Posts: 1,719 ✭✭✭
    Ebay auction # 140564720387
    1964 Topps Football
  • tsalems1tsalems1 Posts: 3,464 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If I sub that, I would get O/C every time
    opcbaseball.com
  • BlackieBlackie Posts: 1,719 ✭✭✭
    Me too Tom...........image
    1964 Topps Football
  • DboneesqDboneesq Posts: 18,219 ✭✭
    From PSA website: Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front.

    I would think the side to side centering should be measured at the black box, which would give it a 25/75 measurement ... CLEARLY O/C.

    If you measure side to side near the top of the card then it JUST SQUEEZES in at 30/70.

    Either way, even though the card is in great shape, IMO it does not have "8" eye appeal.
    STAY HEALTHY!

    Doug

    Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
  • cardbendercardbender Posts: 1,831 ✭✭
    A grading error. S/B labeled 8 oc.

    Tough card. The last 8 of this card auctioned for over $1000.
  • yankeeno7yankeeno7 Posts: 9,251 ✭✭✭
    Maybe its a PSA 10 (oc)
  • BlackieBlackie Posts: 1,719 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Maybe its a PSA 10 (oc) >>

    image
    1964 Topps Football
  • packCollectorpackCollector Posts: 2,786 ✭✭✭
    clearly oc and an error. I must be the only sap that sends these things back to psa when it is such a blatant an error
  • DialjDialj Posts: 1,636 ✭✭
    image I still haven't figured this one out.

    image
    "A full mind is an empty bat." Ty Cobb

    Currently collecting 1934 Butterfinger, 1969 Nabisco, 1991 Topps Desert Shield (in PSA 9 or 10), and 1990 Donruss Learning Series (in PSA 10).
  • BlackieBlackie Posts: 1,719 ✭✭✭
    You aint kiddin... Nice Mantle but way OC
    1964 Topps Football
  • YogiBerraFanYogiBerraFan Posts: 2,390 ✭✭
    Someone got lucky on that one.
  • mlbfan2mlbfan2 Posts: 3,115 ✭✭✭


    << <i>image I still haven't figured this one out.

    image >>



    Did you submit that card? If not, PSA lets people request "no qualifiers", right?
  • swartz1swartz1 Posts: 4,912 ✭✭✭
    PSA 10

    &

    PSA 7


    Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
    - uncut


    Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
  • kgibsonkgibson Posts: 264 ✭✭✭
    Can someone explain why PSA sometimes gives the higher grade with the qualifier but sometimes gives a grade that is 2 lower without a qualifier? Is it just up to the grader? I know the registry treats them the same but does the collecting community generally have a preference?
    "You know we just don't recognize the most significant moments of our lives while they're happening. Back then I thought, well, there'll be other days. I didn't realize that that was the only day."
  • Mickey71Mickey71 Posts: 4,259 ✭✭✭✭
    My favorite are vintage cards that are 9 o/c. They have almost always have a dinged corner for some stupid reason.
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭
    That Mantle above has centering that's 16/84. The maximum OC that PSA 5 allows is 15/84. Based on the standards, this card is graded accurately.


    The Tremblay has centering of 29/71. According to the PSA grading standards, 30/70 is the worst centering that can still be PSA 8, so they missed this one.
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • divecchiadivecchia Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Can someone explain why PSA sometimes gives the higher grade with the qualifier but sometimes gives a grade that is 2 lower without a qualifier? Is it just up to the grader? I know the registry treats them the same but does the collecting community generally have a preference? >>



    Some people when they submit their cards request no qualifier, so they would get the lower straight grade. Others don't specify anything and they would end up with the higher grade with the qualifier.

    99% of the time I stay away from cards with qualifiers.

    By the way image to the boards...

    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)
  • bobwillerbobwiller Posts: 19
    Hey Digicat, just curious as to how you are calculating your centering? ruler to the screen image? Opening the image in an imaging application? If so, what app and how are you measuring?

    Thanks,
    Bob
    -------------------------------------------------
    Follow on Twitter
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭


    << <i>Hey Digicat, just curious as to how you are calculating your centering? ruler to the screen image? Opening the image in an imaging application? If so, what app and how are you measuring? >>



    I use Jruler, which you can download from here.

    I blow up the image a little in the browser, then calculate:

    "Left border width" / ("left border width" + "right border width") = Left border centering

    100 - "Left border centering" = right border centering
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    One point that should be made here is that you can request 'no qualifiers'
    it does not mean they will grant it. They may on some, not on others.
    They may also grant it on the entire order, etc.

    At least this is my understanding and experience.


    edited to add: Some qualifiers like ST and MC will not be net graded.
    Good for you.
  • DialjDialj Posts: 1,636 ✭✭
    I know the guy who submitted it. We piggybacked on a submission. He didn't request "No Qual." Just one of those things with OPC I guess.
    "A full mind is an empty bat." Ty Cobb

    Currently collecting 1934 Butterfinger, 1969 Nabisco, 1991 Topps Desert Shield (in PSA 9 or 10), and 1990 Donruss Learning Series (in PSA 10).
  • gemintgemint Posts: 6,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Check out this '61 Cerv. How that got a straight 8 and not 8MC is beyond me. How does a card worth this kind of money slip through the grading process?

    61 Cerv

    There's also a '68 Gates Brown PSA 8 on the Bay that looks like it has a wavy right border. Maybe it's just the scan but it really looks like a 6 year old trimmed the right edge of the card.
    https://ebay.com/sch/gemint/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=
  • fiveninerfiveniner Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭
    If you indicate on your submission sheet that you do not want any qualifiers you will get a straight grade however low.A miscut will not be graded.
    Tony(AN ANGEL WATCHES OVER ME)
  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    Tony not all the time. I was also talking about the MC qualifier not the N6 or whatever number it is miscut where
    you get a voucher.

    Steve
    Good for you.
Sign In or Register to comment.