guys, final 5 to finish set..any help.....looking for psa 7 on these but will use other companies 7's or raw if you think it will grade 7 or better..... 84...152...245...562......the 5th card i need is a graded psa 8 of #5 Ryan h.l...yes, i know these are toughies but figure the best place are you guys....you can pm me with what you have and prices you need... thanks and happy/safe/healthy new year
If anyone here is the buyer of the 504 card PSA 8 lot, let's talk. I could use about 20 of them.
After looking at the posted list of included cards, I think $3477 was a pretty good deal for someone who wants to jump into a set but, after factoring in the Paypal and ebay juice, its only a borderline deal if the plan is to flip them individually or in small lots.
FYI - I decided to win the large PSA 8 lot on ebay. Once the numbers posted, it turned out there were quite a few lower pops included (Burleson, Stanley, Dreissen, Hughes, Singleton, Doyle, Cruz and a number of others) in the lot and very few doubles. It works out that I have all but four of the missing cards to make a set.
This is a follow up to last weeks post regarding MinSizeRq and the actual measurements of some cards that were not green/yellow or red/yellow. Well, I received the package today and, overall, am very happy with the sub as it was my first in ten years and therefore very experimental. It will pay to spend an extra minute to examine the corners and surfaces (two cards were returned as a 6 due to a spider crease and a "pimple").
Here is my beef: The standard size of a 1975 Topps Mini is 2.25" x 3.125" (or 54mm x 79.4mm). I think we all accept 80mm as "standard", but it would stand to reason that IF a card was a hair short, you should be OK.
I had 22 cards returned with a MinSizeRq flip. Sure, some of these were known shorts that were 78-79mm...the regular offenders like Driessen, Lis, Carroll and Tovar.
Also included, however, were some others that are not known for being short. Indy asked that I measure these to see what was going on. Here are the results:
#58 Taylor 79.5+ mm #64 Chalk 80mm (It could be argued that its actually a hair over 80, but who cares?) #96 Cosgrove ~80mm (so close to 80 that its negligible) #146 Padres Team 79+mm #149 Foli 79.75mm
So what gives? They will certainly be sprinkled into future subs, but the mystery will remain.
The Kobel has a wax stain on the reverse...the front is absolutely pristine. I believe the PD on Borgmann is in the 'NS' area of TWINS. As for Claudell, I'm pretty sure its just the classic snow to the right of "A'S".
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yep. White flecks on photo = PD or PSA 7 max if one requests no qualifiers.
I'm stumped on the Chalk and Cosgrove especially. Do the widths on those two measure precisely 57 mm? If it's even a hair less I suspect that is what led to the min size on those. If there's is anything consistent about mini's across color combos, it's that the width is consistently dead-on 57 mm. I recall maybe 2 that I've seen under 57 mm, and I have my suspicions on their authenticity.
Indy, you and I think alike. After measuring and being convinced that they were all full size, I began scanning the three w/qualifiers when it dawned on me to check the widths as well.
On width, there is not even a hint of difference. All returned cards, even the short green/yellows, are a solid 57mm wide.
Well, I'm still stumped. Perhaps they lost their focus on those or had tired eyes for a short while? I'm reaching for an explanation obviously. I sometimes wonder how their grading staff can look at cards all day; my eyes get tired after about an hour or so. The good thing is that you received your grading vouchers on those two cards and can submit them again.
On the Borgmann, I've submitted two of those, and each time was knocked down for the white snow in the photo. I sold one of them and the other sits in my set as a PSA 7. I really like the card I kept and thought for sure the snow was subtle enough for the card to receive a PSA 8.
I agree with Grote.... snow effected these two examples.
I recently picked up the Claudell Washington PSA 9 PD card that was on the bay. It was so nicely centered and without the snow. I was able to get a better deal than the B it N price. Still paying much more than a normal 7 or 9 OC would obviously sell for. But it was so nicely centered and clean that I had to buy it. The back is not so nicely centered..... the front is the nicest centered example I've seen filling the holder. Better centered than my 9 no qualifier. After receiving the card and having a better look, I'd have to agree to disagree with the PD qualifier. I'm very happy to have this example regardless of the grade. Buying the card and not the grade definitely worked out this time!
After receiving the card and having a better look, I'd have to agree to disagree with the PD qualifier. I'm very happy to have this example regardless of the grade. Buying the card and not the grade definitely worked out this time!
Are there any signs of wax or gum stains on the back when you tilt the card in the light? If not, you might want to crack and resub that one. If it's a 9PD, the risk/reward is in your favor for that card.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
No wax stains at all. Appears a very faint (white) print mark on the lower left side may have been the reason? I've seen very obvious print marks on PSA 9 no qualifier's. I feel this card could get a bump on a resubmission. It is very difficult to see the print mark in the yellow color area of the card (lt side).
Is this the card you're referring to? If so, I doubt you will get an upgrade as there is noticable snow on the surface and the white print defect on left border will likely keep this card with a PD qualifier.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
If that is the card in question, I've definitely seen worse wind up in holders with flips that read: PSA 9. That said, it is not a perfect mint card. Really, really nice though for a Claudell. One of the better I've seen for sure. Maybe an 8.5 on a good day? That would still be nice.
There's a lot that the Registry "formula" leaves to be desired. I mean, I personally think the Brett RC is worth more than ten commons, with all being the same grade. I'd also rather have a #3 Gibson HL in PSA 10 before I'd want five commons in PSA 10, let alone three.
The GPAs generated by The Registry are by no means The Truth. It's really up to each collector/buyer/seller to evaluate every set on his own, as opposed to blindly and solely using The Registry to rank cards/sets.
And then there's the years of precedent set by population reports. For example, I'd weight a Claudell and other notorious tough commons much higher than other commons. Yet to do this would mean periodic/constant updating of the set composition. So while I understand why that may not be feasible, it does leave it up to the individual connoisseur to evaluate every set and card based on his own taste. I mean, it's kind of crazy that MM's PSA 9 Claudell is weighted the same as a high pop common in the same grade. There are myriad other examples one can cite as well. The bottom line is that, at present, there is a critical disconnect between price/rarity and weight, especially with commons.
If that CW grades an 8.5 or 9, I have a bunch of PSA 9PDs ready to resubmit, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
How about the first Tommy Davis at 8.5 or better? I cropped a bit of the right side when straightening the picture, but it truly is 55/45 centering (left-right, top-bottom, front and back). Sharp corners, full sized, extremely limited snow in his afro. There are a couple of items that will prevent any consideration of a 10 and will likely keep it from being the first graded 9: light edge scuff and some stray yellow ink.
This will be going to Newport Beach sometime later this month.
How about the first Tommy Davis at 8.5 or better? I cropped a bit of the right side when straightening the picture, but it truly is 55/45 centering (left-right, top-bottom, front and back). Sharp corners, full sized, extremely limited snow in his afro. There are a couple of items that will prevent any consideration of a 10 and will likely keep it from being the first graded 9: light edge scuff and some stray yellow ink.
This will be going to Newport Beach sometime later this month.
That card looks pretty good...it's always hard to tell for sure from a scan, but snow is less present than on your other 2 cards or the CW, so if corners and edges are smooth and sharp, I think you're looking at a definite 8. possibly an 8.5, though the half grades seem to be seldom used, and I don't think that card is a straight 9, but it's worth subbing, definitely. Does it measure up?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Solid 57mm x 80mm; and if it wasn't such a hassle, I would re-scan it to show the true centering.
This was one of three green/yellow cards that I just picked up from a hobby store, all full size, centered and without the yellow horizontal band at the top. The others are #31 Rader (this one is just gorgeous) and a #233 Grabarkewitz (actually measures 81mm).
I believe the other two have a better shot at a clean 9. I'll hope, but I think the Tommy D PSA 9 will continue to elude us all; I would be happy with an 8(NQ).
Looking forward to adding all three to my next sub.
Good luck with your sub! If the David does grade 8.5, I'd definitely make you a strong offer for it!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Since we lost the old thread, I thought I'd post and in some cases repost a few scans. The first is a pair of Twitchells I pulled from the original Conlon lot: Matty is the current owner of the 9.
If we ease off of the tight print requirements, every one of those is a 9. Honestly, I think the Heidemann is right now, but it didnt bump on a review. I will probably try again. Lastly, is my latest acquisition and one I am very happy about. This was the first full sized Carew 9 I have seen for sale in many years and it is gorgeous (Thank you Calinick):
BinLaden..... after looking at the scans of Jim's cards with all those print marks (especially the Bando) all grading 8 or better. Even the #326 Twitchell with that obvious print mark and still receiving a PSA 9 no qualifier. All very nice looking cards Jim (don't take my remarks wrong...only using them to make a point to this yahoo!)
Bin whatever your name is? Your opinion of my ablility to see is remarkably obtuse. The white print mark as I look at the card (in hand) is barely noticeable and most eye's would not even see it upon first glance. The snow you see on the scan is (sadly for the seller of the card) far from what is normally seen on this card. Being critical, you'd have to call it faint at worst! It would appear his scanner could use a cleaning
As in most cases with this card (for those that are familiar and lack your myopic view) it is plagued with numerous flaws. For this card to show up looking as my PSA 9 (which by the way has a faint blue print mark on the upper left and the classic faint scuff look to the right of A's, and still acheived PSA 9 no qualifier. Mainly because of it's lack of snow, and it's consistant centering front and back. Of course the sharp corners/edges/color didn't hurt.
The PSA 9 PD's print mark is less noticeable, the snow far less noticeable than the scan on the Bay indicated, and no scuff look to the right of the A's and the face of the card is one of the best centered examples I've seen. Corners/Edges/Color match the 9 no qualifier easily! Other qualified collectors have already commented on some of these points.
So despite what you think based on your view of the scan..... I'll partially repeat what I said about the grade offered for this example..... I'll agree to disagree with your remarkably obtuse and myopic opinion of my vision and the card. I'm happy to own it because after all the years of collecting this graded set....with all the trials we've all had to endure from suspect dealers and people like yourself. I or should I say we (the positive, trying to have fun collectors) have a pretty good grasp of what to look for in a 1975 Topps Mini baseball card You try and have yourself a Happy New Year
Kindly avoid making unprovoked negative remarks about someones vision on this thread! It's one of the few reasons the original thread was taken down. Unprovoked personal comments are not acceptable on the PSA message board. Of course you provoked me....so you deserved (sadly you probably wanted) my few comments.
I'm considering sending these back to PSA as I though for sure I'd hit 8's on at least 2 of 3. Opinions welcome. The backs are centered almost 50/50 both ways. Full size cards as well.
I just can't see how I hit 7's on them. The snow if any is very minimal on all of them. Here's an 8 for comparison( I think it's worse, taking away being short also)
Those are some tough 7s there. I think you got hit for the snow. That said, any one of those cards can bump to an 8 on any given day and are worth resubmitting. It's tough to even get a red/yellow into a holder these days. The Borgmann looks especially nice.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The Wise seems to have a downward ding to the UL corner.
---------------------- 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
I don't think you'll get the bump on those red/yellow 7's. Although I think those examples look great for those particular cards, the overall haziness across the entire card faces in combination with the faint yellow horizontal lines and rough cut edges and corners (typical for red/yellows) will likely keep them at no higher than a 7. The difference between the Gibson and the others is that although the Gibson has a thin, funky mix of colors along the top edge, it's boldly colored, clear (i.e., no faint ink haziness), and relatively sharply cut.
With that said, if I were going to crack and resub any of them, it would be the Borgmann. I think it has the best chance. The upper right corner of the Miller and upper left corner of the Wise are too rough (unfortunately, due to the rough cut of the edges, which again is very typical for the red/yellows) to get an 8.
Amongst the list of the worst red/yellow offenders -- Wise, Miller, Borgmann, Driessen, Gibson, Tovar, Burleson and McEnaney -- there is only one PSA 10, a Gibson, which is likely the result of the fact that there have been 2-3x the number of submittals compared to the rest of the list.
However, there are a handful of PSA 9's without qualifiers. I was wondering if the "crackle finish" look (the yellow print lines bleeding into the red) at the top of the card is evident on any of those 9's? The only evidence I can offer is my recent pop of a Borgmann 9 (PD) - it did not have the crackle, but was more than likely cited for snow or too much red ink within the black letters of the team name.
Some of you own the limited 9's of these...what is the scoop?
Several years back a collector offered me a PSA 9 Gibson #150. Of course I asked to see a scan of the card. It filled the holder but to my surprise it had these faint yellow lines going through the top as indicated in these scans. No qualifier? Sadly this seller had 2 Gibson PSA 9's like this. It all depends on how experienced a grader is. I'd have to assume the PSA grader was relatively new? Normally cards with these types of print defects do not receive PSA 9 no qualifier grades. I think the Borgmann, Wise, and Miller cards are very nice looking cards. If you look at PSA 8 and 9 guidlines you'll see that they both allow for one or even 2 slight hints of white at corners. I believe that would be without other flaws. In this case the other flaws are there, and for that reason the cards were probably graded fairly. Though I think if ever there were times the half grade should come into play, it would be with cards that are like these, very rare to find that fill the holder, and are otherwise on the fence of a given grade. Resubmissions of these 3 cards is not a bad idea. Ironically the Gibson is short and the top of the card looks pretty bad, and it received an 8? If the Gibson can get an 8 then the others most definitely could get 8's. I especially like the centering of these 3 cards. The Gibson also has an ugly print mark between the N and A in Cardinals. Good luck if you decide to crack and resub
The Borgmann resub will also have to overcome that print mark within the player position ball.
Honestly, we are being a little nitpicky, if accurate, to justify PSA grades in this case. You can find a reason to downgrade almost any card if you talk yourself into it. The truth is that we all own or have owned 8s that are inferior to those 7s and even some crappy 9s. It all comes down to the person grading on a particular day, which makes this so frustrating at times.
It all comes down to how badly we want that next grade and/or if it makes financial sense to crack and resub. There is a LOT of variation in graders preferences. Enough that if you feel strongly about your card, you should never take one graders opinion as the final word.
As I had mentioned it all depends on the grader of a given submission. I completely agree with you Jim. No doubt there are dogs at every grade level and there are many that are unmistakeably better than the grade given. We see it all the time on the Bay and the numerous Auctions that go on.
Considering we are submitting these cards to a "Professional Grading Company", I would expect consistancy that would make it difficult for the skilled collector to question a given grade to no less than 1/2 a grade. Taking on the responsibility of being a "Professional Grader" shouldn't be taken lightly. The "human error" excuse should be an extremely rare occurance. Not something you'd see many times while buying cards on the Bay or from any other auction sale. There is far to much technology available in todays world for human error to be much of a factor. Grades should be spot on 99.5% of the time.
Beautiful Carew Indy. Looks about as nice as the 9. How is the reverse?
Agree completely MM, but I guess at whatever cut rate the bulk submitters are paying, individual commons just dont get the same time spent. I kid you not when I say that I have literally taken a card that I felt was misgraded and sent it back with a cut and paste of their definition. It is hard to argue one graders preference for bold and what is vivid enough for a 9 for example, but I can easily argue whether a card is 60/40 or better. Graders eyeball centering, bottom line and they will make mistakes in both directions. It is the areas of more human judgment, like snow. Here is the definition for a 9, which amazingly can have a wax stain on the reverse and get no qualifier, though I have never seen it:
MINT 9: Mint A PSA Mint 9 is a superb condition card that exhibits only one of the following minor flaws: a very slight wax stain on reverse, a minor printing imperfection or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.
It's not uncommon for a full grade (or on rarer occasions even two full grades) variance on a given card depending on the grader and when it is graded. Grading is subjective and though there are certain grading standards in place, the interpretation of those standards is going to vary by individual. I think in large part the grading is consistent, but 99.5% consistency is very unrealistic as long as human beings are doing the grading. Even we mini collectors often disagree on the grade potential of a given card, and with graders it's no different. I've seen the same phenomenon with coins, as well, though with cards the nuances are even greater and with more likelihood of fluctuation.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Thanks MD. It's funny, when you asked about centering on back, I drew a complete blank. I never checked it. Here's the scan. The centering is about 10/90 at the narrowest point I could measure it.
I also picked up this #408 Clyde Wright along with the Carew. In pursuit of examples to grade, this card always came up for me off-centered or just looking plain splotchy, for lack of a better term. I can't believe this card has a relatively high pop. of 16 in PSA 9. Anyway, I'm generally not into upgrading 8's to 9 at this point, but I couldn't pass it up for the price ($18), or at least my opinion of its low price based on my perception of the difficulty of finding a 9 example of this card.
Thanks for the reverse scan of your Carew card Indy.... now I don't need to scan the back of my claudell PSA 9PD. That is exactly the centering of the Claudell 9PD. Must have come from the same case.
I actually agree with the allowable hint of wax on the back of a PSA 9. As long as it's only a hint. It's a shame when you get a really nice looking card and you find it's the card with wax on the back. Wax on the front is easily dealt with. It's the wax on the back that seems impossible to remove. Anyone have any special hints on how to deal with wax on the back of a card?
>>Anyone have any special hints on how to deal with wax on the back of a card?
This is going back a few years...1987 to be exact. The subject cards were '85-87 Topps regular issues. We used lighter fluid on a polyester rag to remove wax from the backs only (the more egregious offenders), but never touched the fronts. Its been a while, and this was way before PSA but, if done correctly, there was no residue/evidence. Just a small amount of fluid on a rag stretched over your finger; make delicate swipes at the area; wait several minutes for it to evaporate.
As a teenager, we would try anything...besides a damaged, high pop common, I'm not so sure I would be willing to attempt it now.
Comments
After looking at the posted list of included cards, I think $3477 was a pretty good deal for someone who wants to jump into a set but, after factoring in the Paypal and ebay juice, its only a borderline deal if the plan is to flip them individually or in small lots.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
I am BADLY needing the following cards in any grade, though preferably PSA 9, 8.5, or 8...
42
65
84
306
487
580 - HOFer
601
612
If anyone has any of these they can sell me for a fair price, please let me know. Thanks!
Best,
Matt
Here is my beef: The standard size of a 1975 Topps Mini is 2.25" x 3.125" (or 54mm x 79.4mm). I think we all accept 80mm as "standard", but it would stand to reason that IF a card was a hair short, you should be OK.
I had 22 cards returned with a MinSizeRq flip. Sure, some of these were known shorts that were 78-79mm...the regular offenders like Driessen, Lis, Carroll and Tovar.
Also included, however, were some others that are not known for being short. Indy asked that I measure these to see what was going on. Here are the results:
#58 Taylor 79.5+ mm
#64 Chalk 80mm (It could be argued that its actually a hair over 80, but who cares?)
#96 Cosgrove ~80mm (so close to 80 that its negligible)
#146 Padres Team 79+mm
#149 Foli 79.75mm
So what gives? They will certainly be sprinkled into future subs, but the mystery will remain.
The Kobel has a wax stain on the reverse...the front is absolutely pristine. I believe the PD on Borgmann is in the 'NS' area of TWINS. As for Claudell, I'm pretty sure its just the classic snow to the right of "A'S".
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yep. White flecks on photo = PD or PSA 7 max if one requests no qualifiers.
I'm stumped on the Chalk and Cosgrove especially. Do the widths on those two measure precisely 57 mm? If it's even a hair less I suspect that is what led to the min size on those. If there's is anything consistent about mini's across color combos, it's that the width is consistently dead-on 57 mm. I recall maybe 2 that I've seen under 57 mm, and I have my suspicions on their authenticity.
On width, there is not even a hint of difference. All returned cards, even the short green/yellows, are a solid 57mm wide.
On the Borgmann, I've submitted two of those, and each time was knocked down for the white snow in the photo. I sold one of them and the other sits in my set as a PSA 7. I really like the card I kept and thought for sure the snow was subtle enough for the card to receive a PSA 8.
I recently picked up the Claudell Washington PSA 9 PD card that was on the bay. It was so nicely centered and without the snow. I was able to get a better deal than the B it N price. Still paying much more than a normal 7 or 9 OC would obviously sell for. But it was so nicely centered and clean that I had to buy it. The back is not so nicely centered..... the front is the nicest centered example I've seen filling the holder. Better centered than my 9 no qualifier. After receiving the card and having a better look, I'd have to agree to disagree with the PD qualifier. I'm very happy to have this example regardless of the grade. Buying the card and not the grade definitely worked out this time!
Are there any signs of wax or gum stains on the back when you tilt the card in the light? If not, you might want to crack and resub that one. If it's a 9PD, the risk/reward is in your favor for that card.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
And then sell it.
To me.
Is this the card you're referring to? If so, I doubt you will get an upgrade as there is noticable snow on the surface and the white print defect on left border will likely keep this card with a PD qualifier.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There's a lot that the Registry "formula" leaves to be desired. I mean, I personally think the Brett RC is worth more than ten commons, with all being the same grade. I'd also rather have a #3 Gibson HL in PSA 10 before I'd want five commons in PSA 10, let alone three.
The GPAs generated by The Registry are by no means The Truth. It's really up to each collector/buyer/seller to evaluate every set on his own, as opposed to blindly and solely using The Registry to rank cards/sets.
And then there's the years of precedent set by population reports. For example, I'd weight a Claudell and other notorious tough commons much higher than other commons. Yet to do this would mean periodic/constant updating of the set composition. So while I understand why that may not be feasible, it does leave it up to the individual connoisseur to evaluate every set and card based on his own taste. I mean, it's kind of crazy that MM's PSA 9 Claudell is weighted the same as a high pop common in the same grade. There are myriad other examples one can cite as well. The bottom line is that, at present, there is a critical disconnect between price/rarity and weight, especially with commons.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
This will be going to Newport Beach sometime later this month.
This will be going to Newport Beach sometime later this month.
That card looks pretty good...it's always hard to tell for sure from a scan, but snow is less present than on your other 2 cards or the CW, so if corners and edges are smooth and sharp, I think you're looking at a definite 8. possibly an 8.5, though the half grades seem to be seldom used, and I don't think that card is a straight 9, but it's worth subbing, definitely. Does it measure up?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
This was one of three green/yellow cards that I just picked up from a hobby store, all full size, centered and without the yellow horizontal band at the top. The others are #31 Rader (this one is just gorgeous) and a #233 Grabarkewitz (actually measures 81mm).
I believe the other two have a better shot at a clean 9. I'll hope, but I think the Tommy D PSA 9 will continue to elude us all; I would be happy with an 8(NQ).
Looking forward to adding all three to my next sub.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Matty is the current owner of the 9.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Bin whatever your name is? Your opinion of my ablility to see is remarkably obtuse. The white print mark as I look at the card (in hand) is barely noticeable and most eye's would not even see it upon first glance. The snow you see on the scan is (sadly for the seller of the card) far from what is normally seen on this card. Being critical, you'd have to call it faint at worst! It would appear his scanner could use a cleaning
As in most cases with this card (for those that are familiar and lack your myopic view) it is plagued with numerous flaws. For this card to show up looking as my PSA 9 (which by the way has a faint blue print mark on the upper left and the classic faint scuff look to the right of A's, and still acheived PSA 9 no qualifier. Mainly because of it's lack of snow, and it's consistant centering front and back. Of course the sharp corners/edges/color didn't hurt.
The PSA 9 PD's print mark is less noticeable, the snow far less noticeable than the scan on the Bay indicated, and no scuff look to the right of the A's and the face of the card is one of the best centered examples I've seen. Corners/Edges/Color match the 9 no qualifier easily! Other qualified collectors have already commented on some of these points.
So despite what you think based on your view of the scan..... I'll partially repeat what I said about the grade offered for this example..... I'll agree to disagree with your remarkably obtuse and myopic opinion of my vision and the card. I'm happy to own it because after all the years of collecting this graded set....with all the trials we've all had to endure from suspect dealers and people like yourself. I or should I say we (the positive, trying to have fun collectors) have a pretty good grasp of what to look for in a 1975 Topps Mini baseball card
Kindly avoid making unprovoked negative remarks about someones vision on this thread! It's one of the few reasons the original thread was taken down. Unprovoked personal comments are not acceptable on the PSA message board. Of course you provoked me....so you deserved (sadly you probably wanted) my few comments.
I just can't see how I hit 7's on them. The snow if any is very minimal on all of them. Here's an 8 for comparison( I think it's worse, taking away being short also)
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
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
With that said, if I were going to crack and resub any of them, it would be the Borgmann. I think it has the best chance. The upper right corner of the Miller and upper left corner of the Wise are too rough (unfortunately, due to the rough cut of the edges, which again is very typical for the red/yellows) to get an 8.
<< <i>The Wise seems to have a downward ding to the UL corner. >>
Good eye, didn't see that. Thanks for the input guys.
However, there are a handful of PSA 9's without qualifiers. I was wondering if the "crackle finish" look (the yellow print lines bleeding into the red) at the top of the card is evident on any of those 9's? The only evidence I can offer is my recent pop of a Borgmann 9 (PD) - it did not have the crackle, but was more than likely cited for snow or too much red ink within the black letters of the team name.
Some of you own the limited 9's of these...what is the scoop?
The Borgmann resub will also have to overcome that print mark within the player position ball.
It all comes down to how badly we want that next grade and/or if it makes financial sense to crack and resub. There is a LOT of variation in graders preferences. Enough that if you feel strongly about your card, you should never take one graders opinion as the final word.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Considering we are submitting these cards to a "Professional Grading Company", I would expect consistancy that would make it difficult for the skilled collector to question a given grade to no less than 1/2 a grade. Taking on the responsibility of being a "Professional Grader" shouldn't be taken lightly. The "human error" excuse should be an extremely rare occurance. Not something you'd see many times while buying cards on the Bay or from any other auction sale. There is far to much technology available in todays world for human error to be much of a factor. Grades should be spot on 99.5% of the time.
Agree completely MM, but I guess at whatever cut rate the bulk submitters are paying, individual commons just dont get the same time spent. I kid you not when I say that I have literally taken a card that I felt was misgraded and sent it back with a cut and paste of their definition. It is hard to argue one graders preference for bold and what is vivid enough for a 9 for example, but I can easily argue whether a card is 60/40 or better. Graders eyeball centering, bottom line and they will make mistakes in both directions. It is the areas of more human judgment, like snow. Here is the definition for a 9, which amazingly can have a wax stain on the reverse and get no qualifier, though I have never seen it:
MINT 9: Mint
A PSA Mint 9 is a superb condition card that exhibits only one of the following minor flaws: a very slight wax stain on reverse, a minor printing imperfection or slightly off-white borders. Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the reverse.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
i am looking for 8.5 or possibly 9s of
Carter
Hernandez
Munson
Nettles
What should i be expecting to pay for these?
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
I actually agree with the allowable hint of wax on the back of a PSA 9. As long as it's only a hint. It's a shame when you get a really nice looking card and you find it's the card with wax on the back. Wax on the front is easily dealt with. It's the wax on the back that seems impossible to remove. Anyone have any special hints on how to deal with wax on the back of a card?
This is going back a few years...1987 to be exact. The subject cards were '85-87 Topps regular issues. We used lighter fluid on a polyester rag to remove wax from the backs only (the more egregious offenders), but never touched the fronts. Its been a while, and this was way before PSA but, if done correctly, there was no residue/evidence. Just a small amount of fluid on a rag stretched over your finger; make delicate swipes at the area; wait several minutes for it to evaporate.
As a teenager, we would try anything...besides a damaged, high pop common, I'm not so sure I would be willing to attempt it now.