High grade cards qualifier vs non-qualifer ???

bobbyw8469 · June 27, 2011 12:09AM

Just wanted to post a poll/discussion....given a high grade card, and a monetary value, what do you think is/should be worth more?

Take the 1952 Topps Mantle rookie card. A PSA 9 (OC) vs a straight PSA 7?? Just wanted everyones opinions on the matter.....

Dboneesq · June 27, 2011 12:11AM

For me it would really depend on what the "7" looked like. If it was a centered "7" with decent corners, I'd go for the "7".

hookem · June 27, 2011 12:17AM

<< Just wanted to post a poll/discussion....given a high grade card, and a monetary value, what do you think is/should be worth more?

Take the 1952 Topps Mantle rookie card. A PSA 9 (OC) vs a straight PSA 7?? Just wanted everyones opinions on the matter..... >>

I'll take the card without the qualifier 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. I wish PSA did not have qualifiers.

YogiBerraFan · June 27, 2011 12:18AM

Is it way OC or just enough to get the qualifier? If the OC is not extreme the 9 should bring more money easily.

itzagoner · June 27, 2011 12:22AM

worth?? you're funny.

ask the folks who patrol eBay why they prefer to pay substantially more for 8(OC) or 9(OC) vintage cards than their supposed non-qualified equivalents.

so the "is" part of your question has been covered.

the "should" part? i think we both know the answer to that, but as always, the market can and will decide.

you're scratching your head over prices you've seen lately for qualified cards?? me too, perhaps some regrades are in order here.

storm888 · June 27, 2011 12:26AM

Obviously, the card choice presents an "extreme" example.

BUT, the 7 would prolly still have a broader market. That would
be especially true if the seller tried to over-exploit the mere number
9 by charging a wrongful premium for it.

T/B OC would get hit less hard than L/R OC in that card. If the OC
came from the back of the card, the sale would still be tough but
would prolly do better than the 7.

.................

A 7 or 8 (OC) of the same card might fair better than a 5/6, tho.

I have had better luck dumping 7/8 OCs at decent prices than I have
had getting rid of 9 OCs, in vintage commodity cards.

.................................

To grasp the severe fault of OC cards, study the history of classic
stamps.

Even really rare stamps that are not perfect are now being whacked
hard in the market.

Probstein123 · June 27, 2011 12:43AM

in this case I'm pretty sure the 9OC mantle RC will sell for more......in almost all other cases, I'd prefer the 7 to the 9OC....

Mickey71 · June 27, 2011 1:27AM

9 o/c's almost never have mint corners...sometimes they are barely NM-MT corners.

Sportsamerica · June 27, 2011 1:47AM

Here is an example... Not a Mantle, but shows a 9oc vs 7

Note Ebay price difference was $125... In this case I take the 7 over the 9oc

hammered · June 27, 2011 2:05AM

OC (or any other qualifier) should not exist, and I am frustrated by PSA's stubbornness and their refusal to eliminate them
If a card is OC enough to merit the qual, then by definition it is not mint
To say a card is mint "except for centering" (which is what the OC designation says) is absurd to me
It's like saying a vehicle is brand new except for the engine
Centering and surface issues (PD) are two of the four major grading categories for PSA
So if a card fails one of them miserably yet still gets a qualified 9 hurts PSA by causing confusion and inconsistency (ie, when does a card get a 9OC and when does it get a 7) and it hurts the card market by luring in suckers and uninformed buyers who think a 9OC or 9PD card is "almost" or "barely" mint when, by PSA grading standards, it is not even close

digicat · June 27, 2011 3:32AM

If PSA would start using subgrades to describe individual aspects of the card's condition, qualifiers would not be needed.

If I get a PSA 7, it matters to me quite a bit if the card got a 7 based on one aspect, or based on them all.

I'd much rather have a card with 10s in corners, surface, and edges but a 7 in centering than a card with 7s in all 4 categories.

SportsCardCollector · June 27, 2011 4:16AM

<< To say a card is mint "except for centering" (which is what the OC designation says) is absurd to me
It's like saying a vehicle is brand new except for the engine >>

Close, but not exactly. To use the car and engine analogy, if a car maker has a model that usually comes with a 6-cylinder engine, but to appeal to energy-concious buyers they also make an underpowered version with a 4-cylinder engine, then they are both new (Mint 9) on the dealer's lot. But to let the world know that the 4-cylinder is not "normal" it would be considered Mint 9 UP (underpowered). Once the car is purchased and leaves the dealer's lot, the condition is dependent on how well the owner maintains it (grades 1-8.5). The 4-cylinder car will always be underpowered and should always get a UP qualifier to note it's deficiency, even if it's a 1 UP.

This is where I believe PSA's grading gets it wrong. An OC card was a screw up by the printer and that screw up can never be fixed. The OC should be a permannent notation that this card was printed worse than the majority of others of this same card. (I have always believed that if most of the cards like this one were printed OC that year, then there should not be a qualifier because that was the norm for that card that year.) You should not drop the qualifier if an off-center card is in mint condition and give it a PSA 7 because it's still an off-center card. Because of PSA not giving subgrades, two PSA 7s can be very different, but have the same grade.

To me grading should grade the "condition" of the card once it left the dealer's lot. Are the corners sharp? Are the edges clean? Did anything happen to the surface? Those are all part of the condition of the card caused by it's various owners. The centering of the card was determined when the ink hit the paper and that is a manufacturing issue, not a condition issue.

For full disclosure, I have important cards in my collection that are PSA 9 OC and PSA 7. I "value" the PSA 9 OCs higher in my mind because they are misprinted cards that have survived the past 50 years in showroom new condition. My PSA 7s are nice cards that are "used" and show it.

stown · June 27, 2011 4:38AM

Depends. Is it raw, advertised as MINT, and has dinged corners?

hammered · June 27, 2011 5:25AM

<< You should not drop the qualifier if an off-center card is in mint condition and give it a PSA 7 because it's still an off-center card. >>

But an off-center card cannot, by definition, be in mint condition. And that's the problem. You can say the card is pack fresh or sharp or whatever.
But if a card is badly OC you cannot call it mint, any more than you can call an automobile "new" if it has an engine with miles on it. And that was my point.

Subgrades could help, but only if PSA will do what BGS does. PSA could assign subs of 9,9,9, & 6 (for centering) to a card and still call it 9OC. This is where I think BGS gets it right - if a card has all 9s but a 6 in centering then the highest overall grade it can get is a 6.5, or .5 higher than the lowest sub. They don't give it a 9OC because that's just stupid - the card isn't mint. It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter if the card's flaw came from the factory or from handling.

SportsCardCollector · June 27, 2011 7:22AM

<< But an off-center card cannot, by definition, be in mint condition. And that's the problem. You can say the card is pack fresh or sharp or whatever.
But if a card is badly OC you cannot call it mint, any more than you can call an automobile "new" if it has an engine with miles on it. And that was my point.

Subgrades could help, but only if PSA will do what BGS does. PSA could assign subs of 9,9,9, & 6 (for centering) to a card and still call it 9OC. This is where I think BGS gets it right - if a card has all 9s but a 6 in centering then the highest overall grade it can get is a 6.5, or .5 higher than the lowest sub. They don't give it a 9OC because that's just stupid - the card isn't mint. It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter if the card's flaw came from the factory or from handling. >>

I know what you are saying. But in your car analogy, you use the example of a new car with a used engine. Obviously, that is not a new (or mint) car. But what if the manufacturer decided to put a smaller, poorer performing brand new engine in the car at the factory. Wouldn't that still be a new (if somewhat less desirable) car?

My point is that an off center card can be in mint physical condition. That is why PSA's definitions say that it can't get a mint, non-qualified PSA 9 grade, but it can be considered to be a mint, but off-centered, PSA 9 OC. I think this is where PSA gets it right and BGS gets it wrong by calling it a 6.5 in your example. I think PSA should stick to their designation and not use the out of calling it a PSA 7. That causes confusion with a "regular" PSA 7. They shouldn't do it both ways.

detroitfan2 · June 27, 2011 7:27AM

Just like there are PSA 7 examples of certain cards that are nicer than PSA 8 examples of the same card, you will always be able to find PSA 7 examples of a card that are nicer than PSA 9OC examples of the same card, and vice-versa. To me, the real question is, given a high $ raw card that you are about to submit, would you rather have the card grade PSA 8OC, or would you rather have it grade PSA 6? Which would bring more in the marketplace?

CrazyMind2017 · June 27, 2011 11:59AM

The question of whether you'd rather have a 9Q or a 7NQ is theoretical and philosophical in a hypothetical way.

Applied in practical terms, some 9Q cards would be graded a solid 8NQ 100 times out of 100 if the submitter asked for no qualifier. Others would hit a ceiling of 5NQ or sometimes even lower, particularly off-center cards that are just a tiny fraction of an inch away from being miscut.

It depends how severe the flaw is that results in the original qualifier being assigned.

NickM · June 28, 2011 4:44PM

I have some very nice looking cards that are slightly oversized so that the back shows the entirety of that card and a little bit of the back design of an adjoining card (including a tough regional issue). They have MC qualifiers - one is a 7 (MC). What grade would you give a card like that?

Nick

yankeeno7 · June 28, 2011 6:18PM

<< Depends. Is it raw, advertised as MINT, and has dinged corners? >>

chadridge · June 29, 2011 6:16AM

<< 

<< But an off-center card cannot, by definition, be in mint condition. And that's the problem. You can say the card is pack fresh or sharp or whatever.
But if a card is badly OC you cannot call it mint, any more than you can call an automobile "new" if it has an engine with miles on it. And that was my point.

Subgrades could help, but only if PSA will do what BGS does. PSA could assign subs of 9,9,9, & 6 (for centering) to a card and still call it 9OC. This is where I think BGS gets it right - if a card has all 9s but a 6 in centering then the highest overall grade it can get is a 6.5, or .5 higher than the lowest sub. They don't give it a 9OC because that's just stupid - the card isn't mint. It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter if the card's flaw came from the factory or from handling. >>

I know what you are saying. But in your car analogy, you use the example of a new car with a used engine. Obviously, that is not a new (or mint) car. But what if the manufacturer decided to put a smaller, poorer performing brand new engine in the car at the factory. Wouldn't that still be a new (if somewhat less desirable) car?

My point is that an off center card can be in mint physical condition. That is why PSA's definitions say that it can't get a mint, non-qualified PSA 9 grade, but it can be considered to be a mint, but off-centered, PSA 9 OC. I think this is where PSA gets it right and BGS gets it wrong by calling it a 6.5 in your example. I think PSA should stick to their designation and not use the out of calling it a PSA 7. That causes confusion with a "regular" PSA 7. They shouldn't do it both ways. >>

I agree withe this post. I actually value 9 OC cards above 7's, up to a point of O/C'edness. In terms of my 1955 Topps set focus, the fact that a 50+ year old card has survived to maintain its physical condition to a Mint 9 level (color,gloss,corners) is very cool, and this is why straight 9's are so damn expensive. To have a Mint condition card for a fraction of a PSA 9 price is desirable to me, even if it is OC. The OC is an initial condition problem out of the factory, the 9 represents how well it was handled/aged over the years. Some like me find that a desriable trait. Even crazy OC is still cool, though it does cross below that PSA7 line at some point for everyone.

Chad

<<Edited to add that if anyone has 9OC cards from 1950's and earlier that they think are worth somewhat less than VCP avg for a 7, let me know, you may have a buyer

>>

bobbyw8469 · June 29, 2011 6:27AM

<< agree withe this post. I actually value 9 OC cards above 7's, up to a point of O/C'edness. In terms of my 1955 Topps set focus, the fact that a 50+ year old card has survived to maintain its physical condition to a Mint 9 level (color,gloss,corners) is very cool, and this is why straight 9's are so damn expensive. To have a Mint condition card for a fraction of a PSA 9 price is desirable to me, even if it is OC. The OC is an initial condition problem out of the factory, the 9 represents how well it was handled/aged over the years. Some like me find that a desriable trait. Even crazy OC is still cool, though it does cross below that PSA7 line at some point for everyone >>

+1 for me as well. Mr. Mint basically says the same thing in his book, and while everyone says he is an a-hole, and I don't agree with how he handles purchasing collections, I believe he has got it right in his assessment of MINT cards.

High grade cards qualifier vs non-qualifer ???

Comments