Question about PSA (PD)'s
MyDaughtersNameIsMattingly
Posts: 541 ✭✭✭
I'm wondering what makes a card earn the qualifier (PD)... I've read the PSA guidelines and they seem kind of vague to me. Below is a card that sold on ebay not too long ago. It seems to me that with the 3 white circles above New York, and the spot above the N in Yankees, that this card could have been given a (PD) qualifier. I'm hoping one of you guys who knows, could school me on this. Should it have been given a (PD)? If no then why not? Are different years held to different standards when it comes to thing like this?
I may soon be in the market for one of these, and am trying to do a little research. The pop is somewhat high (138 in PSA 9), and these cards come up often enough, and are cheap enough that I can afford to be selective when choosing one. To me the spots on the card do take away from the overall appeal, and I would pass on one that looked similar to this.
ebay link
I may soon be in the market for one of these, and am trying to do a little research. The pop is somewhat high (138 in PSA 9), and these cards come up often enough, and are cheap enough that I can afford to be selective when choosing one. To me the spots on the card do take away from the overall appeal, and I would pass on one that looked similar to this.
ebay link
0
Comments
<< <i>PSA error sir >>
So this should have been given a qualifier, Yes?
<< <i>no doubt in my mind . . . you'll see cards with a PD qualifier on the other hand that you look at and just say
OK, I thought so too, but I'm by no means an expert on the topic.....Thanks for your help.
Perhaps PSA grades this card accordingly. I don't agree that would be right, but perhaps this is what's happening.
Joe
<< <i>I looked at several listings for this card and it seems that almost all of them had print flaws in the black areas either in the "New York" or the "Yankees".
Perhaps PSA grades this card accordingly. I don't agree that would be right, but perhaps this is what's happening.
Joe >>
Yeah Joe maybe thats the case. I searched on ebay and looked at 1974 Topps PSA 9 listings for several different players, from several different sellers. A lot of them looked good.... one minor PD at the most, but IMO a handful of them are as bad, even one or two that is worse than the Munson pictured above.
Does anyone know if PSA grades differently depending on the year for things like PD, OC, MC, etc....?
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. Text
There seems to be a wide variation on what constitute minor. I've seen 8s with skid marks running down the front, no PD and I've seen two snowflakes cause a PD. As a collector, a hint of snow bothers me a whole lot less than a lot of what gets by with no qualifier. JMHO.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
The ones I saw at a quick glance didn't have the print defect, but I didn't see too many PSA's. Did see a BCCG 9 that looked horrible.
BCCG 9
Some companies obviously ignore them.
Joe
<< <i>Let's discuss a different card. Doesn't the Molitor rookie commonly have a print problem? This is a pretty high profile card.
The ones I saw at a quick glance didn't have the print defect, but I didn't see too many PSA's. Did see a BCCG 9 that looked horrible.
BCCG 9
Some companies obviously ignore them.
Joe >>
Wow that BCCG is bad...I don't know much about the Molitor card, or BCCG's standards.
IYO what would that same card get in a PSA flip?
"Live everyday, don't throw it away"
Jeff