Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Printing Blemishes and Maximum Grade

PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
I've been trying to pin down what kinds of blemish defects are allowable for different PSA grades. Referring to the PSA grading standards, both PSA 8 and PSA 9 allow for a "minor printing imperfection." PSA 7 allows for a "minor printing blemish." My only problem is: what's the difference between an imperfection and a blemish?

For example, I guess a fish-eye like this is only an imperfection:

image

On the other hand, I picked up this raw 1971 Lee Maye at the last Westchester show for $8:

image

It appears to be a solid 8, only there is a minor "pimple" (raised blemish) in the background sky (upper right, barely visible in scan). Would this keep it out of an 8 holder? To me it's way less offensive than a white fish-eye on the black border.

Interested in opinions.
My 1972 Baseball and Wacky Pack Registry Sets

Comments

  • bkingbking Posts: 3,095 ✭✭


    << <i>Interested in opinions. >>



    If your saying that the "raised dimple" is where the card surface is raised, then that's gonna hurt the card more than a fisheye in my experience. I think that's a stupid thing, but I have a small but growing stack of gorgeous cards that I bought raw only to find they have a VERY minor dent or pimple that is only noticeable when held at an angle. Why a visible PD is more accepted than that is beyond me.
    ----------------------
    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
  • bobbybakerivbobbybakeriv Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭✭
    I've cards like that come back a 5 on many occasions. It seems ridiculous to me as well.
  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No one has any firm information clarifying PSA's grading practices in this regard? Or is it one of those things where it depends on the day and the grader's mood?
    My 1972 Baseball and Wacky Pack Registry Sets
  • shu4040shu4040 Posts: 982 ✭✭✭
    How are you guys using the term fish eyed? what does that mean exactly?
  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think "fish eye" is a printing term for an error like the one on the '71 Tony Taylor shown above. If not, it's something similar to that.
    My 1972 Baseball and Wacky Pack Registry Sets
  • bkingbking Posts: 3,095 ✭✭


    << <i>I think "fish eye" is a printing term for an error like the one on the '71 Tony Taylor shown above. If not, it's something similar to that. >>



    Correct - located on the right border near the red stripe in his pants. It's a circle of missing or improper color, making it look like an eye.
    ----------------------
    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
Sign In or Register to comment.