The Orr was definitely way better than a 6. I'd grade it a high-end 8, maybe 8.5. A 9 is generous. Congrats on the bump!
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>The Orr was definitely way better than a 6. I'd grade it a high-end 8, maybe 8.5. A 9 is generous. Congrats on the bump! >>
I agree with you 100% that the card is a solid 8/8.5, my point is simply....wow. I cannot understand how that card ended up in 3 different slabs, 3 full grades apart, from the same grading company. I might need to try my luck at the PSA casino, and give the ol' slot machine a couple of cranks.
Absolutely no offense intended towards the OP, sweet cards, just wrong IMO.
curious why you guys think the 9 on the orr is generous? based on the scan I am not sure what the issue is. maybe focus I guess but I would need to look at others to see how sharp it should be.
what bugs me about these statements is that if we didn't see the 8 and 6 holder , the statements would read , awesome card , amazing , etc....
edited to add: I don;t think the flip had anything to do with it. we see this all the time with all flip codes
what bugs me about these statements is that if we didn't see the 8 and 6 holder , the statements would read , awesome card , amazing , etc.... >>
no. the Orr card is NOT amazing. i don't care what number they put on it.
first of all, i predicate my comments by saying that i have no axe to grind with the OP, don't even know him........but, i can assume that it took a little bit more than a gentle nudge to get that card in it's MINT 9 holder.
this is a great thread. anyone who ever asked the question "Should I resubmit?", well boys and girls your answer is right here. YES. abso-freekin-lutely!! YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!
the card still has TWO fisheyes and terrible focus. the nature of the card in its manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the grade. if Topps screwed up every single card in the printing process, then it would be quite safe to believe that no mint cards exist.....but, our eyes are trained to see things differently, even from minute to minute.....
seriously, will someone please step forward and tell me HTF that card is a 9, because if the facts are the facts, i've got a hoard of 6's and 7's ready for banknotes.
what bugs me about these statements is that if we didn't see the 8 and 6 holder , the statements would read , awesome card , amazing , etc.... >>
no. the Orr card is NOT amazing. i don't care what number they put on it.
first of all, i predicate my comments by saying that i have no axe to grind with the OP, don't even know him........but, i can assume that it took a little bit more than a gentle nudge to get that card in it's MINT 9 holder.
this is a great thread. anyone who ever asked the question "Should I resubmit?", well boys and girls your answer is right here. YES. abso-freekin-lutely!! YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!
the card still has TWO fisheyes and terrible focus. the nature of the card in its manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the grade. if Topps screwed up every single card in the printing process, then it would be quite safe to believe that no mint cards exist.....but, our eyes are trained to see things differently, even from minute to minute.....
seriously, will someone please step forward and tell me HTF that card is a 9, because if the facts are the facts, i've got a hoard of 6's and 7's ready for banknotes. >>
Cuz da corner and da centerin and i got uh distracted cuz i didnt see dem fish eyez
<< <i>the close up scans really exacerbate your point...
somebody had a thread similar to this the other day, but the scans looked like four sharp corner scans...
like the OP said - resub and better results will come...
GOOD LUCK!!!
or try the other companies... >>
I think that was me I felt like I was given a hit by grader 185 when I submitted a 1951 football bowman set.I never seen so much inconsistency in grading in all my experience was PSA.
I used to get really upset when I would read these stories. I does boggle the mind on how a card can grade so far apart three times. Instead of fighting the system I have decided to join in.
I sent in a sub on Saturday with my first two PSA crackouts. After seeing so many examples of cards improving I am definately going to go through my hoard and do some more cracking and resubbing and try my luck at the casino too.
<< <i>the card still has TWO fisheyes and terrible focus. the nature of the card in its manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the grade. >>
It doesn't have poor focus if no others exist with better focus. I'm not sure if that is the case or not, but I don't see any on ebay with better focus. Maybe the card was made using an out-of-focus photo?
<< <i>the card still has TWO fisheyes and terrible focus. the nature of the card in its manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the grade. >>
It doesn't have poor focus if no others exist with better focus. I'm not sure if that is the case or not, but I don't see any on ebay with better focus. Maybe the card was made using an out-of-focus photo? >>
again, no disrespect intended to the OP, and this is indeed a good debate and cause for further examination....i enjoy the learning experience and i hope others do too.
so, just for fun let's look at a small group of 1970 O-Pee-Chee hockey cards and make a comparison....i keep these laying around for discussions such as these.
now, detach yourself for just a moment from all other aspects except the picture....each of these 6 pictures has at least a recognizable image, or to put it in simpler terms, FOCUS.....and no fisheyes, either.
the company presumably had varying degrees of success in printing these cards.
should that be taken into account when grading? if the assumption is that the best available Orr card is one with murky focus at best, does that deserve consideration according to the guidelines of PSA grading?
I'm not sure what those cards of other players has to do with this. No matter how great those other cards look, it doesn't mean that the Orr photo wasn't out of focus right from the start.
If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor.
<< <i>If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor. >>
this is not part of the criteria for grading. the focus is poor regardless of whether or not ANY other example exists with better focus.
if they all have poor focus, then none are mint. >>
Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10?
The 1966 mantle can be a frustrating card because some samples can be cut a little odd. I have seen quite a few and have noticed this, although a small percentage of the time. I have a really nice one that came back from PSA as miscut. In looking closely at it, one would notice that the bottom right corner was cut so that it slightly tailed off to the right. The bottom left corner tailed slightly inward to the right and this was obviously what the grader saw. In my opinion the "miscut" was a really close call so I resubmitted and got an 8 which is what it appears to be if you don't really scrutinize the cut of the card. Obviously, the second grader didn't believe this issue was significant enough to warrant the "miscut" label. The sample from this posting that got a 6.5 looks like the bottom right corner might also tail out to the right a little. I'd resubmit. I am certainly not an expert grader but I have had very good luck in resubmitting cards that I thought deserved better. The biggest issue to immediately check when you get a lower than expected grade is the surface. More times than not, it is a small surface wrinkle that that I had earlier missed that caused a grade (2-3 times lower) lower than expected.
I do agree with some of the concerns with the Orr card. It certainly has many attributes of a 9. But the focus isn't the best even if it is common for the card. You don't see a lot of PSA grades that use the OF "Out of Focus" qualifier. I think that they might often just lower the grade rather than use this qualifier unless the focus is really bad. Just my opinion.
Thanks for sharing and taking your lumps for this. I think the card is an 8.5 or 9. Fish eyes were on most but not all Orr cards from 1970, so that would be the factor that might pull it below a 9.
Not sure I can wrap my head around an argument that if the original photo used to create a card was unfocused then no card could ever be mint that was made using that original photo. OPC used a crappy out of focus photo with a line in it as the basis for their card in 1970. Essentially, this particular Orr card seems out of focus, but the out of focus card IS in focus, and therefore qualifies as a mint card. I for one am glad that PSA would consider this when grading.
To put it in baseball terms, isn't there a 1970 Seaver Topps card that has a smudge on it that has nothing to do with the printing process? Can no 1970 Topps Seaver cards be mint because the picture used to create the card had a defect?
<< <i>If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor. >>
this is not part of the criteria for grading. the focus is poor regardless of whether or not ANY other example exists with better focus.
if they all have poor focus, then none are mint. >>
Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10? >>
yes. it is part of the standards which have been set for grading......as was mentioned by jimrad, the exception in this case would be a qualifier, which as we all know, can sometimes be the kiss of death.
if the standards are varied from case to case, then what are we supposed to believe?
<< <i>Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10? >>
<< <i>yes. it is part of the standards which have been set for grading >>
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where it says that a card made using an imperfect photo is considered a flaw.
Maybe PSA can clarify, but, to me when PSA says "out of focus", they mean a printing flaw, not a photo flaw.
<< <i>Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10? >>
<< <i>yes. it is part of the standards which have been set for grading >>
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where it says that a card made using an imperfect photo is considered a flaw.
Maybe PSA can clarify, but, to me when PSA says "out of focus", they mean a printing flaw, not a photo flaw. >>
That's my understanding as well. If a given card always exhibits a manufacturing/source flaw, then that is not considered grounds for a downgrade. Isn't that basically the cause for many of the variations out there? They don't downgrade 62's because the printer messed up the tinting on some cards, do they?
---------------------- 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>Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10? >>
<< <i>yes. it is part of the standards which have been set for grading >>
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where it says that a card made using an imperfect photo is considered a flaw.
Maybe PSA can clarify, but, to me when PSA says "out of focus", they mean a printing flaw, not a photo flaw. >>
NM 7: Near Mint A PSA NM 7 is a card with just a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.
at no level higher than NEAR MINT 7, is this feature included.....to me, that means at any level higher than NEAR MINT 7, poor focus is more likely to deduct from than add to the grade.
again, you need to forget about the way the card was made.....the simple fact is, it's out of focus, or in PSA terms, out-of-register.
call it what you want.
i call it hypocrisy. but, in a nice, pleasant tone of voice.
You guys are really just arguing over whether or not the PSA grading guidelines are relative or absolute. In all likelihood, they are a combination of both. It is easy to assign an absolute standard for grading something measurable, like centering, but not as easy to assign such a standard for more subjective criteria like corners, focus or eye appeal. I would imagine that these more subjective criteria are analyzed using a relative standard to compare the card being graded to its peers. For example, a card that was produced with rounded corners can be graded a PSA 10. Using an absolute standard, a card that was made with rounded corners should receive no higher than a PSA 3 or PSA 2. Obviously that is not the case.
I understand it is a bit top-to bottom o/c but seriously? >>
For that one to get a 6, it must have a tiny surface wrinkle. I don't see how centering cost you a higher grade.
---------------------- 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
[qNM 7: Near Mint A PSA NM 7 is a card with just a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.
at no level higher than NEAR MINT 7, is this feature included.....to me, that means at any level higher than NEAR MINT 7, poor focus is more likely to deduct from than add to the grade.
again, you need to forget about the way the card was made.....the simple fact is, it's out of focus, or in PSA terms, out-of-register.
call it what you want.
i call it hypocrisy. but, in a nice, pleasant tone of voice. >>
Out of register implies to me that the various color layers are out of sync a bit., not that the pic is fuzzy.
---------------------- 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>If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor. >>
this is not part of the criteria for grading. the focus is poor regardless of whether or not ANY other example exists with better focus.
if they all have poor focus, then none are mint.
i believe this analysis might belong on a college entrance exam. >>
By this criteria, every card with an autograph should get an MK qualifier:
"Cards with writing, ink marks, pencil marks, etc. or evidence of the impression left from the act of writing will be designated "MK." " >>
fine. if it makes you happy. everyone knows the cards are marked. you can see the autograph right there in front of you. if it's a pretty sig, everyone is happy.
you can't compare it to the mark which may have happened because somebody's baby sister got ahold of it and was holding a Crayola.
apples and oranges.
we've seen plenty of nice MINT 9's posted here recently. member thunderdan posted his 1962 Topps Clemente PSA 9 and got the usual responses to a card so deserving.
compare the two. Orr vs. Clemente. explain it to me. there is very thin price difference up there in investment land.
<< <i>I am going to scour it for a wrinkle once it arrives. I hope there isn't because there was certainly none when I sent it to PSA. >>
Tiny wrinkles, bubbles and dents can be easily missed. Use a high-power light (some suggest a black light) and be sure to tilt the card back and forth. They show up better that way.
---------------------- 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
Another example of allowances is with 70s OPC cards as they will not downgrade for rough cut because that's how they were cut in factory. PSA will usually straight grade an OC card two grades lower so an 8oc will grade a 6.
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.
to clarify, once again, were the consideration based solely on the quality of the card as it was made, then there would be a reason such a card would be in very low population.
there would be a reason such a card could be priced at $5000 OBO.
you can see a hazy, but apparent indication that Orr has eyes in the above example....if that is the best this card has to offer, as has been pointed out by others, i am in agreement.
the above example has nothing in the way of notable surface defects when compared to the OP's card.
if i were the owner of the above example, i'd be kind of curious about how the pop report for 9's just took a +1 jump.
to clarify, once again, were the consideration based solely on the quality of the card as it was made, then there would be a reason such a card would be in very low population.
there would be a reason such a card could be priced at $5000 OBO.
you can see a hazy, but apparent indication that Orr has eyes in the above example....if that is the best this card has to offer, as has been pointed out by others, i am in agreement.
the above example has nothing in the way of notable surface defects when compared to the OP's card.
if i were the owner of the above example, i'd be kind of curious about how the pop report for 9's just took a +1 jump. >>
Wait, so are you now saying that a fuzzy-photo Orr should get a 9 if it's otherwise mint?
This is one of the reasons I walked away from collecting registry sets, too many inconsistent grades.
I am totally making an assumption here, but I think these things happen when a grader isn't fully educated on a particular year/run.
I think graders shouldn't apply the standards to every card without taking into consideration the minor flaws (fish eye, for example vs MC or OC) that may plague a particular card in a particular series.
For instance, 1979 OPC Gretzky #18. Most have the fish-eye over the shoulder, many have the blue line on the back, all have the printing error 'dot' on the other shoulder.
Same year/issue, different card, Mike Bossy #161 RB: 99.5% are terribly OC.
The Gretzky defects pass and the Bossy card gets shot down, every time. Eerily similar to their careers.
<< <i>Wait, so are you now saying that a fuzzy-photo Orr should get a 9 if it's otherwise mint? >>
no. not at all. simply compare the quality of the image in the above example and the one posted by the OP.
a couple things are quite clear.
if you look closely, you can see a fairly clear and consistent image on the example currently being offered on eBay, including his eyes. the same cannot be said for the image posted here, where the eyes are blotted out completely, which to me clearly indicates a focusing or registration flaw. combine that with the fisheyes and you have your answer.
there are standards which have been put in place to identify and separate the best from the rest.
those standards are not being followed 100% of the time. period.
Wow I just got this dog in the mail today and I can't even begin to imagine this was given a PSA 8. The light brown you see at the bottom is actually staining. The small white line about a 1/4 inch in is a problem, the lower right corner has a lot of white and the upper left and lower right have a slight amount of corner wear.
I would give this card a PSA 5 if that. I thought I was getting a deal and no wonder it sold so low.
I spoke to a guy recently who used to work for PSA as a grader and he said the first three numbers have nothing to do with who grades the card.
That being said this is one terrible looking card to be in an 8 holder and my other 8's should be 12's if this is one. This is the first PSA graded card I own that just looks brutal for the grade.
A 6,8,9 on the same card is just another reason why PSA grading is a joke. >>
Disagree. A PSA 8 is very close to a PSA 9. Many 8's can be 9's, and many 9's can be 8's. There sometimes is no difference between the two.
Also, a tough grader can give a nice card a 6 due to a minor imperfection he/she sees. The next grader may miss that tiny imperfection, and give it an 8.
I once had a card that had a very little ripple on the top border. It received a PSA 6. The card was an absolute blazer besides this tiny imperfection. I resubmitted and it got a PSA 9. I was understanding of both grades.
this orr has better centering than the one on ebay . if you are citing the fisheyes , I have consistently seen fisheyes on all kinds of psa 9's , even psa 10's. I think this 9 is a great card and stand behind my statement that if this was in another thread the reactions would be much different but we will never know.
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.
Comments
now the Orr has been permed and Mick is homeless.
l-m-a-o.
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>The Orr was definitely way better than a 6. I'd grade it a high-end 8, maybe 8.5. A 9 is generous. Congrats on the bump! >>
I agree with you 100% that the card is a solid 8/8.5, my point is simply....wow. I cannot understand how that card ended up in 3 different slabs, 3 full grades apart, from the same grading company. I might need to try my luck at the PSA casino, and give the ol' slot machine a couple of cranks.
Absolutely no offense intended towards the OP, sweet cards, just wrong IMO.
<< <i>I dare you to send the Orr card again. Try to get the first 9.5. >>
what bugs me about these statements is that if we didn't see the 8 and 6 holder , the statements would read , awesome card , amazing , etc....
edited to add: I don;t think the flip had anything to do with it. we see this all the time with all flip codes
<< <i>
what bugs me about these statements is that if we didn't see the 8 and 6 holder , the statements would read , awesome card , amazing , etc.... >>
no. the Orr card is NOT amazing. i don't care what number they put on it.
first of all, i predicate my comments by saying that i have no axe to grind with the OP, don't even know him........but, i can assume that it took a little bit more than a gentle nudge to get that card in it's MINT 9 holder.
this is a great thread. anyone who ever asked the question "Should I resubmit?", well boys and girls your answer is right here. YES. abso-freekin-lutely!! YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!
the card still has TWO fisheyes and terrible focus. the nature of the card in its manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the grade. if Topps screwed up every single card in the printing process, then it would be quite safe to believe that no mint cards exist.....but, our eyes are trained to see things differently, even from minute to minute.....
seriously, will someone please step forward and tell me HTF that card is a 9, because if the facts are the facts, i've got a hoard of 6's and 7's ready for banknotes.
<< <i>
<< <i>
what bugs me about these statements is that if we didn't see the 8 and 6 holder , the statements would read , awesome card , amazing , etc.... >>
no. the Orr card is NOT amazing. i don't care what number they put on it.
first of all, i predicate my comments by saying that i have no axe to grind with the OP, don't even know him........but, i can assume that it took a little bit more than a gentle nudge to get that card in it's MINT 9 holder.
this is a great thread. anyone who ever asked the question "Should I resubmit?", well boys and girls your answer is right here. YES. abso-freekin-lutely!! YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!
the card still has TWO fisheyes and terrible focus. the nature of the card in its manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the grade. if Topps screwed up every single card in the printing process, then it would be quite safe to believe that no mint cards exist.....but, our eyes are trained to see things differently, even from minute to minute.....
seriously, will someone please step forward and tell me HTF that card is a 9, because if the facts are the facts, i've got a hoard of 6's and 7's ready for banknotes. >>
Cuz da corner and da centerin and i got uh distracted cuz i didnt see dem fish eyez
<< <i>the close up scans really exacerbate your point...
somebody had a thread similar to this the other day, but the scans looked like four sharp corner scans...
like the OP said - resub and better results will come...
GOOD LUCK!!!
or try the other companies... >>
I think that was me I felt like I was given a hit by grader 185 when I submitted a 1951 football bowman set.I never seen so much inconsistency in grading in all my experience was PSA.
I sent in a sub on Saturday with my first two PSA crackouts. After seeing so many examples of cards improving I am definately going to go through my hoard and do some more cracking and resubbing and try my luck at the casino too.
51 bowman
<< <i>the card still has TWO fisheyes and terrible focus. the nature of the card in its manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the grade.
>>
It doesn't have poor focus if no others exist with better focus. I'm not sure if that is the case or not, but I don't see any on ebay with better focus. Maybe the card was made using an out-of-focus photo?
<< <i>
<< <i>the card still has TWO fisheyes and terrible focus. the nature of the card in its manufacturing has NOTHING to do with the grade.
>>
It doesn't have poor focus if no others exist with better focus. I'm not sure if that is the case or not, but I don't see any on ebay with better focus. Maybe the card was made using an out-of-focus photo? >>
again, no disrespect intended to the OP, and this is indeed a good debate and cause for further examination....i enjoy the learning experience and i hope others do too.
so, just for fun let's look at a small group of 1970 O-Pee-Chee hockey cards and make a comparison....i keep these laying around for discussions such as these.
now, detach yourself for just a moment from all other aspects except the picture....each of these 6 pictures has at least a recognizable image, or to put it in simpler terms, FOCUS.....and no fisheyes, either.
the company presumably had varying degrees of success in printing these cards.
should that be taken into account when grading? if the assumption is that the best available Orr card is one with murky focus at best, does that deserve consideration according to the guidelines of PSA grading?
i think the answer is obvious.
I'm not sure what those cards of other players has to do with this. No matter how great those other cards look, it doesn't mean that the Orr photo wasn't out of focus right from the start.
If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor.
<< <i>If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor. >>
this is not part of the criteria for grading. the focus is poor regardless of whether or not ANY other example exists with better focus.
if they all have poor focus, then none are mint.
i believe this analysis might belong on a college entrance exam.
<< <i>
<< <i>If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor. >>
this is not part of the criteria for grading. the focus is poor regardless of whether or not ANY other example exists with better focus.
if they all have poor focus, then none are mint.
>>
Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10?
I do agree with some of the concerns with the Orr card. It certainly has many attributes of a 9. But the focus isn't the best even if it is common for the card. You don't see a lot of PSA grades that use the OF "Out of Focus" qualifier. I think that they might often just lower the grade rather than use this qualifier unless the focus is really bad. Just my opinion.
PSA has the qualifier:
OF (Out of Focus):
Cards with focus below the minimum standards for the grade will be designated "OF."
MULLINS5,1966CUDA,nam812,nightcrawler,OAKESY25,PowderedH2O,relaxed,RonBurgundy,samsgirl214,shagrotn77,swartz1,slantycouch,Statman,Wabittwax
Thanks for sharing and taking your lumps for this. I think the card is an 8.5 or 9. Fish eyes were on most but not all Orr cards from 1970, so that would be the factor that might pull it below a 9.
Not sure I can wrap my head around an argument that if the original photo used to create a card was unfocused then no card could ever be mint that was made using that original photo. OPC used a crappy out of focus photo with a line in it as the basis for their card in 1970. Essentially, this particular Orr card seems out of focus, but the out of focus card IS in focus, and therefore qualifies as a mint card. I for one am glad that PSA would consider this when grading.
To put it in baseball terms, isn't there a 1970 Seaver Topps card that has a smudge on it that has nothing to do with the printing process? Can no 1970 Topps Seaver cards be mint because the picture used to create the card had a defect?
-Nathanael
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor. >>
this is not part of the criteria for grading. the focus is poor regardless of whether or not ANY other example exists with better focus.
if they all have poor focus, then none are mint.
>>
Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10? >>
yes. it is part of the standards which have been set for grading......as was mentioned by jimrad, the exception in this case would be a qualifier, which as we all know, can sometimes be the kiss of death.
if the standards are varied from case to case, then what are we supposed to believe?
<< <i>Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10? >>
<< <i>yes. it is part of the standards which have been set for grading >>
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where it says that a card made using an imperfect photo is considered a flaw.
Maybe PSA can clarify, but, to me when PSA says "out of focus", they mean a printing flaw, not a photo flaw.
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10? >>
<< <i>yes. it is part of the standards which have been set for grading >>
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where it says that a card made using an imperfect photo is considered a flaw.
Maybe PSA can clarify, but, to me when PSA says "out of focus", they mean a printing flaw, not a photo flaw. >>
That's my understanding as well. If a given card always exhibits a manufacturing/source flaw, then that is not considered grounds for a downgrade. Isn't that basically the cause for many of the variations out there? They don't downgrade 62's because the printer messed up the tinting on some cards, do they?
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
EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1970 TOPPS 654 N.L. ROOKIES O.GAMBLE/B.DAY/A.MANGUAL
I understand it is a bit top-to bottom o/c but seriously?
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's pretend for a second that only one photo of Cy Young existed, and it was quite blurry. Are you saying that a baseball card that was made using that photo (whether it was made in 1910 or 2010) shouldn't/couldn't be graded a PSA 9 or 10? >>
<< <i>yes. it is part of the standards which have been set for grading >>
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where it says that a card made using an imperfect photo is considered a flaw.
Maybe PSA can clarify, but, to me when PSA says "out of focus", they mean a printing flaw, not a photo flaw. >>
NM 7: Near Mint
A PSA NM 7 is a card with just a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.
at no level higher than NEAR MINT 7, is this feature included.....to me, that means at any level higher than NEAR MINT 7, poor focus is more likely to deduct from than add to the grade.
again, you need to forget about the way the card was made.....the simple fact is, it's out of focus, or in PSA terms, out-of-register.
call it what you want.
i call it hypocrisy. but, in a nice, pleasant tone of voice.
the eye appeal for that card is off the charts.
my bad.
<< <i>
<< <i>If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor. >>
this is not part of the criteria for grading. the focus is poor regardless of whether or not ANY other example exists with better focus.
if they all have poor focus, then none are mint.
i believe this analysis might belong on a college entrance exam.
By these criteria, every card with an autograph should get an MK qualifier:
"Cards with writing, ink marks, pencil marks, etc. or evidence of the impression left from the act of writing will be designated "MK." "
<< <i>While we are on this subject, can someone explain this to me?
EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1970 TOPPS 654 N.L. ROOKIES O.GAMBLE/B.DAY/A.MANGUAL
I understand it is a bit top-to bottom o/c but seriously? >>
For that one to get a 6, it must have a tiny surface wrinkle. I don't see how centering cost you a higher grade.
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
A PSA NM 7 is a card with just a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.
at no level higher than NEAR MINT 7, is this feature included.....to me, that means at any level higher than NEAR MINT 7, poor focus is more likely to deduct from than add to the grade.
again, you need to forget about the way the card was made.....the simple fact is, it's out of focus, or in PSA terms, out-of-register.
call it what you want.
i call it hypocrisy. but, in a nice, pleasant tone of voice.
Out of register implies to me that the various color layers are out of sync a bit., not that the pic is fuzzy.
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>
<< <i>
<< <i>If someone has an Orr with noticeably better focus, then I would agree that the focus is poor. >>
this is not part of the criteria for grading. the focus is poor regardless of whether or not ANY other example exists with better focus.
if they all have poor focus, then none are mint.
i believe this analysis might belong on a college entrance exam.
By this criteria, every card with an autograph should get an MK qualifier:
"Cards with writing, ink marks, pencil marks, etc. or evidence of the impression left from the act of writing will be designated "MK." " >>
fine. if it makes you happy. everyone knows the cards are marked. you can see the autograph right there in front of you. if it's a pretty sig, everyone is happy.
you can't compare it to the mark which may have happened because somebody's baby sister got ahold of it and was holding a Crayola.
apples and oranges.
we've seen plenty of nice MINT 9's posted here recently. member thunderdan posted his 1962 Topps Clemente PSA 9 and got the usual responses to a card so deserving.
compare the two. Orr vs. Clemente. explain it to me. there is very thin price difference up there in investment land.
please. EXPLAIN. IT. TO. ME.
<< <i>I am going to scour it for a wrinkle once it arrives. I hope there isn't because there was certainly none when I sent it to PSA. >>
Tiny wrinkles, bubbles and dents can be easily missed. Use a high-power light (some suggest a black light) and be sure to tilt the card back and forth. They show up better that way.
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
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.
can you see me now?
to clarify, once again, were the consideration based solely on the quality of the card as it was made, then there would be a reason such a card would be in very low population.
there would be a reason such a card could be priced at $5000 OBO.
you can see a hazy, but apparent indication that Orr has eyes in the above example....if that is the best this card has to offer, as has been pointed out by others, i am in agreement.
the above example has nothing in the way of notable surface defects when compared to the OP's card.
if i were the owner of the above example, i'd be kind of curious about how the pop report for 9's just took a +1 jump.
<< <i>one more thing to consider:
can you see me now?
to clarify, once again, were the consideration based solely on the quality of the card as it was made, then there would be a reason such a card would be in very low population.
there would be a reason such a card could be priced at $5000 OBO.
you can see a hazy, but apparent indication that Orr has eyes in the above example....if that is the best this card has to offer, as has been pointed out by others, i am in agreement.
the above example has nothing in the way of notable surface defects when compared to the OP's card.
if i were the owner of the above example, i'd be kind of curious about how the pop report for 9's just took a +1 jump. >>
Wait, so are you now saying that a fuzzy-photo Orr should get a 9 if it's otherwise mint?
I am totally making an assumption here, but I think these things happen when a grader isn't fully educated on a particular year/run.
I think graders shouldn't apply the standards to every card without taking into consideration the minor flaws (fish eye, for example vs MC or OC) that may plague a particular card in a particular series.
For instance, 1979 OPC Gretzky #18. Most have the fish-eye over the shoulder, many have the blue line on the back, all have the printing error 'dot' on the other shoulder.
Same year/issue, different card, Mike Bossy #161 RB: 99.5% are terribly OC.
The Gretzky defects pass and the Bossy card gets shot down, every time. Eerily similar to their careers.
<< <i>Wait, so are you now saying that a fuzzy-photo Orr should get a 9 if it's otherwise mint? >>
no. not at all. simply compare the quality of the image in the above example and the one posted by the OP.
a couple things are quite clear.
if you look closely, you can see a fairly clear and consistent image on the example currently being offered on eBay, including his eyes. the same cannot be said for the image posted here, where the eyes are blotted out completely, which to me clearly indicates a focusing or registration flaw. combine that with the fisheyes and you have your answer.
there are standards which have been put in place to identify and separate the best from the rest.
those standards are not being followed 100% of the time. period.
<< <i>OK. I'm curious. How many of you don't have day jobs ?
Wow I just got this dog in the mail today and I can't even begin to imagine this was given a PSA 8. The light brown you see at the bottom is actually staining. The small white line about a 1/4 inch in is a problem, the lower right corner has a lot of white and the upper left and lower right have a slight amount of corner wear.
I would give this card a PSA 5 if that. I thought I was getting a deal and no wonder it sold so low.
I spoke to a guy recently who used to work for PSA as a grader and he said the first three numbers have nothing to do with who grades the card.
That being said this is one terrible looking card to be in an 8 holder and my other 8's should be 12's if this is one. This is the first PSA graded card I own that just looks brutal for the grade.
<< <i>The Orr was definitely way better than a 6. I'd grade it a high-end 8, maybe 8.5. A 9 is generous. Congrats on the bump! >>
Congrats on the bump as well....
A 6,8,9 on the same card is just another reason why PSA grading is a joke.
<< <i>
A 6,8,9 on the same card is just another reason why PSA grading is a joke. >>
Disagree. A PSA 8 is very close to a PSA 9. Many 8's can be 9's, and many 9's can be 8's. There sometimes is no difference
between the two.
Also, a tough grader can give a nice card a 6 due to a minor imperfection he/she sees. The next grader may miss
that tiny imperfection, and give it an 8.
I once had a card that had a very little ripple on the top border. It received a PSA 6. The card was an absolute blazer besides
this tiny imperfection. I resubmitted and it got a PSA 9. I was understanding of both grades.
Doesn't the PSA 9 start with 185 ????
So did the "grader of death" gives this a nine, or not ?
we are all entitled to our opinions. that's what makes this a beautiful place.
nice to see we got this far without any personal bashing or threats.
no fights, no locks.
peace.
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.