Mini's are tough when it comes to getting decent grades. I've felt your frustration many times with them.
Judging by the scans you provided in the thread, it looks to me that the Rose might be short across its width along the bottom half of the card. The right edge looks relatively straight, but the left edge looks like it turns inward slightly, probably due to movement of the sheet when the card was cut. Unfortunately, I see this cut a lot with the Mini's, and especially with the Ryan #500. Anyway, the width should measure 57 mm dead on at all points across the card width. You can check it using a clear plastic metric ruler. If that's not it, then check the height of the card. It should be no shorter than 80 mm. Sometimes, they'll let a few tenths short of 80 mm slide by, maybe 20-30% of the time.
The Yount probably has a very tiny surface wrinkle or other surface issue. What you and I may identify as a tiny paper chip, the grader may identify as a wrinkle.
Unfortunately, the Schmidt looks like the correct grade due to the severe tilt.
Indy - Thanks for the info especially regarding the size requirements. I had some cards that were obviously short that I did not send.
One other thing I was surpirsed at: No OC's on the whole sub. I had thought that PSA used qualifiers unless you request they do not. I was expecting 8 OC on the Yount. It is definitely off center so if it's a 6, it got knocked down due to centering. I also sent a '57 Campanella that got a 6. Beautiful card but OC and I was expecting the OC qualifier.
I was expecting 8 OC on the Yount. It is definitely off center so if it's a 6, it got knocked down due to centering.
Yes, I definitely hear you; an 8OC seems appropriate for that card as shown by the scan. But, in looking at the card again, it does look like there is enough space below the player's name to warrant a 7 with a no qualifiers request. This makes me think that there may be a tiny surface wrinkle, which may have trumped the OC qualifier with a straight grade largely defined by the wrinkle. I'm just guessing though. I think it's worth checking the surface again for a wrinkle or other blemish when you get the card back. I'd be curious to hear either way, as it would be helpful to know for future submission decisions.
I will say that the card does present nicely for a 6 and would be a great addition to a raw set.
Comments
Judging by the scans you provided in the thread, it looks to me that the Rose might be short across its width along the bottom half of the card. The right edge looks relatively straight, but the left edge looks like it turns inward slightly, probably due to movement of the sheet when the card was cut. Unfortunately, I see this cut a lot with the Mini's, and especially with the Ryan #500. Anyway, the width should measure 57 mm dead on at all points across the card width. You can check it using a clear plastic metric ruler. If that's not it, then check the height of the card. It should be no shorter than 80 mm. Sometimes, they'll let a few tenths short of 80 mm slide by, maybe 20-30% of the time.
The Yount probably has a very tiny surface wrinkle or other surface issue. What you and I may identify as a tiny paper chip, the grader may identify as a wrinkle.
Unfortunately, the Schmidt looks like the correct grade due to the severe tilt.
One other thing I was surpirsed at: No OC's on the whole sub. I had thought that PSA used qualifiers unless you request they do not. I was expecting 8 OC on the Yount. It is definitely off center so if it's a 6, it got knocked down due to centering. I also sent a '57 Campanella that got a 6. Beautiful card but OC and I was expecting the OC qualifier.
Yes, I definitely hear you; an 8OC seems appropriate for that card as shown by the scan. But, in looking at the card again, it does look like there is enough space below the player's name to warrant a 7 with a no qualifiers request. This makes me think that there may be a tiny surface wrinkle, which may have trumped the OC qualifier with a straight grade largely defined by the wrinkle. I'm just guessing though. I think it's worth checking the surface again for a wrinkle or other blemish when you get the card back. I'd be curious to hear either way, as it would be helpful to know for future submission decisions.
I will say that the card does present nicely for a 6 and would be a great addition to a raw set.