Here are some links to several 1979 OPC George Brett cards, the PSA 8s look the same as the PSA 10 - same centering and same rough edges. How does PSA distinguish??
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
Card #3 scan isn't good enough for me to say, but while the cards are all centered well, the first two don't seem nearly as nice as the "10". The "10" looks more rectangular, the first two look like the card has more of a curved appearance at the corners.
I have always wondered about the "rough cut" and how it effects the grade.
Joe
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Card #3 scan isn't good enough for me to say, but while the cards are all centered well, the first two don't seem nearly as nice as the "10". The "10" looks more rectangular, the first two look like the card has more of a curved appearance at the corners.
I have always wondered about the "rough cut" and how it effects the grade.
Joe >>
In the PSA 10 auction, scroll down and take a look at the close-up scan of the card. The bottom left corner does not look close to being square and you can also see how rough the edges are.
I am a huge OPC collector and have sent 5 1979 Brett's in and every time I get an 8. I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, is the correct comment.
RookieWax..... Bottom of card in the 10 auction does appear "curved". The other cards look even worse as far as scans seem to show.
Personally I don't think a card with a rough cut deserves a 10. What if an unaltered card shows up with sharp edges? Not all O.P.C.'s have them, although it certainly points to their authenticity. Some people on these boards LOVE the rough cut. I used to operate an industrial shear and like a smooth cut.
I was simply trying to answer the op's question, and I still think the 10 is a better looking card, it wouldn't get a 10 from me though. The others look about like 8's.
Scans are always hard to go by. Must have a loupe to see the corners, and raw card in hand to check surface.
Joe
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
No offense to anyone, but if you think you can actually grade a card by viewing a scanned reproduction of it then you have no idea how to grade a card. An owner of one of those cards already came out and said his card has a soft corner. While some defects may show cleary in a scan, others may not show at all. It just takes the most minute corner chip to knock your card down to an 8.
The first one has issues that are more than the rough cut, the third one is OC and the second one seems to have slight snow on the front. Personally, the second one is nicer of the PSA 8's just from the photos. The PSA 10 looks deserving for a OPC card.
<< <i>No offense to anyone, but if you think you can actually grade a card by viewing a scanned reproduction of it then you have no idea how to grade a card. An owner of one of those cards already came out and said his card has a soft corner. While some defects may show cleary in a scan, others may not show at all. It just takes the most minute corner chip to knock your card down to an 8. >>
Of course we all know this to be true with Topps cards. But with OPC, ALL those cards are filled with rough cuts, chipped edges, non-sharp corners, etc......and then you add in the typical 1979 slanted printing. All this being said, my entire point was that I would bet a PSA grader would have a tough time distinguishing and explaining any differences in the grades of those PSA 8s vs the PSA 10.
Again, with Topps cards, I totally agree and most people on here are good at predicting a grade of a Topps card by looking at nothing more than a scan. My whole point here is that with the rough edge/corner allowances for OPC cards, the centering and surface are pretty much 100% of the grade. And if those 8s had a surface wrinkle, they would be in PSA 5 or 6 holders, not 8s. The main reason for my post was that I just submitted a 1979 OPC Brett to PSA and wanted to have some discussion here about how PSA can possibly distinguish between grades other than centering and surface. My card was centered just like the PSA 10 above and the edges might be even a bit better. So if my card comes back a PSA 8, I will be baffled.
Comments
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
----------------------
Working on:
Football
1973 Topps PSA 8+ (99.81%)
1976 Topps PSA 9+ (36.36%)
1977 Topps PSA 9+ (100%)
Baseball
1938 Goudey (56.25%)
1951 Topps Redbacks PSA 8 (100%)
1952 Bowman PSA 7+ (63.10%)
1953 Topps PSA 5+ (91.24%)
1973 Topps PSA 8+ (70.76%)
1985 Fleer PSA 10 (54.85%)
<< <i>the seller ? lol >>
Couldn't have said it better myself. 4SC...................Imagine That !!!!
YeeHah
Neil
I have always wondered about the "rough cut" and how it effects the grade.
Joe
<< <i>Card #3 scan isn't good enough for me to say, but while the cards are all centered well, the first two don't seem nearly as nice as the "10". The "10" looks more rectangular, the first two look like the card has more of a curved appearance at the corners.
I have always wondered about the "rough cut" and how it effects the grade.
Joe >>
In the PSA 10 auction, scroll down and take a look at the close-up scan of the card. The bottom left corner does not look close to being square and you can also see how rough the edges are.
Personally I don't think a card with a rough cut deserves a 10. What if an unaltered card shows up with sharp edges? Not all O.P.C.'s have them, although it certainly points to their authenticity. Some people on these boards LOVE the rough cut. I used to operate an industrial shear and like a smooth cut.
I was simply trying to answer the op's question, and I still think the 10 is a better looking card, it wouldn't get a 10 from me though. The others look about like 8's.
Scans are always hard to go by. Must have a loupe to see the corners, and raw card in hand to check surface.
Joe
<< <i>No offense to anyone, but if you think you can actually grade a card by viewing a scanned reproduction of it then you have no idea how to grade a card. An owner of one of those cards already came out and said his card has a soft corner. While some defects may show cleary in a scan, others may not show at all. It just takes the most minute corner chip to knock your card down to an 8. >>
Of course we all know this to be true with Topps cards. But with OPC, ALL those cards are filled with rough cuts, chipped edges, non-sharp corners, etc......and then you add in the typical 1979 slanted printing. All this being said, my entire point was that I would bet a PSA grader would have a tough time distinguishing and explaining any differences in the grades of those PSA 8s vs the PSA 10.
I own a 1978 OPC, a 1979 OPC, & a 1980 OPC Brett, all PSA Graded 10 with pops of 1 (for now).
I have numerous 7's, 8's and 9's to compare these cards ....
From an OPC standpoint... I think the grade is sufficient ..
I would have to say that they are in Ten holders....
and the bottom line .... that's what we are looking for.
Based on ALL PSA CARDS..
We all have tens that could be 9's & 8's that should be 10's ...
If you get a card back that is graded a ten that should be an eight, do you send it
back for regrading?
<< <i>Are you a Brett or OPC collector? >>
I have always been a Brett fan, but I don't specifically focus on Brett cards. OPC cards are just a small part of my collection.