Considering Grading 1974 Topps - Shooting for 9's

mygotta

I have some questions concerning having some 1974 Topps baseball being graded. I have about 500 or so cards that I am examining for grading purposes and going crazy by the moment. However, I also am checking out the criteria for various grades. For 1974, at least, it seems that anything less than a 9 does not really warrant a submission (IMO - despite those that may collect 8's). However, dollar for dollar, you can buy commons all day long for less than $5. So my aim is minimally a 9 on these cards so any little imperfection I am dismissing as an 8. Ok, so I look on eBay and see some that are graded 9 and 10 and wonder if I am being way too picky, or these people lucked out - or if there is another factor. A 10, in my opinion should be perfect. Right?

So this Lou Pinella below has printing that is off register and a fish eye in the yellow border at the top. There is also a big purple fish eye on his elbow. And a few other very small black areas that are missing printing. Centering is very nice, and whiteness is bright. So in general its a very nice card. Aesthetically, however, I would think its a 9.

1974 Lou Pinella

The Darrel Johnson Manager card is also graded a 10. Along the top look like roller marks from the black screen. The black field where team name appears is not solid, and black spots appear in the yellow/gold field where the coaches heads are. Again, it looks well centered with nice edges and corners.

1974 Darrel Johnson

Lastly, for the 10's is Mike Lum. Around the left and right edges appears very light chipping. And the 'L' in Lum looks like something got in the way of the printing as its been snipped.

Mike Lum

So following are 2 examples of a Dave Winfield rookie.

This card looks very nice. Save for that big fish eye smack right over the 'P' in Padres. And its centered slightly high. This is a 9?

1974 Dave Winfield PSA 9

And finally, this Winfield has me shaking my head. The front has a smudge on the right border and a fish eye down on his jersey. Now on the back side, it is terribly off center, almost miscut, and it even looks slightly tilted. Cant tell if its the angle of the photo or not.

Dave Sinfield SCG 96 (PSA 9)

Anyway, after some comparisons to have a gauge from which to determine what is gradable or not, it seems I am either being way too hard on the cards, or I am exercising a certain level of futility? Am I approaching this the right way? I know there is the X-factor that makes or breaks a 10, and I am just assuming that if I get one, then its just a gift from the card grading gods. But a 9 should be aesthetically perfect before one determines if it shines like the heavens making it a 10. I will say most cards that I have have slight or overt off centering, so to me those are out. Anything with a bumped corner is out. Cards that are light on ink is out. A faded look - out. Soft or weak corners - out.

My hope is to get some high grade cards for resell, then take the rest (as I think they are easily 7's and 8's) and make a set out of them. I have few star cards that are gradable from this year, but mostly just a collection of commons that are in particularly nice shape.

Boopotts

<< <i>I have some questions concerning having some 1974 Topps baseball being graded. I have about 500 or so cards that I am examining for grading purposes and going crazy by the moment. However, I also am checking out the criteria for various grades. For 1974, at least, it seems that anything less than a 9 does not really warrant a submission (IMO - despite those that may collect 8's). However, dollar for dollar, you can buy commons all day long for less than $5. So my aim is minimally a 9 on these cards so any little imperfection I am dismissing as an 8. Ok, so I look on eBay and see some that are graded 9 and 10 and wonder if I am being way too picky, or these people lucked out - or if there is another factor. A 10, in my opinion should be perfect. Right?

So this Lou Pinella below has printing that is off register and a fish eye in the yellow border at the top. There is also a big purple fish eye on his elbow. And a few other very small black areas that are missing printing. Centering is very nice, and whiteness is bright. So in general its a very nice card. Aesthetically, however, I would think its a 9.

1974 Lou Pinella

The Darrel Johnson Manager card is also graded a 10. Along the top look like roller marks from the black screen. The black field where team name appears is not solid, and black spots appear in the yellow/gold field where the coaches heads are. Again, it looks well centered with nice edges and corners.

1974 Darrel Johnson

Lastly, for the 10's is Mike Lum. Around the left and right edges appears very light chipping. And the 'L' in Lum looks like something got in the way of the printing as its been snipped.

Mike Lum

So following are 2 examples of a Dave Winfield rookie.

This card looks very nice. Save for that big fish eye smack right over the 'P' in Padres. And its centered slightly high. This is a 9?

1974 Dave Winfield PSA 9

And finally, this Winfield has me shaking my head. The front has a smudge on the right border and a fish eye down on his jersey. Now on the back side, it is terribly off center, almost miscut, and it even looks slightly tilted. Cant tell if its the angle of the photo or not.

Dave Sinfield SCG 96 (PSA 9)

Anyway, after some comparisons to have a gauge from which to determine what is gradable or not, it seems I am either being way too hard on the cards, or I am exercising a certain level of futility? Am I approaching this the right way? I know there is the X-factor that makes or breaks a 10, and I am just assuming that if I get one, then its just a gift from the card grading gods. But a 9 should be aesthetically perfect before one determines if it shines like the heavens making it a 10. I will say most cards that I have have slight or overt off centering, so to me those are out. Anything with a bumped corner is out. Cards that are light on ink is out. A faded look - out. Soft or weak corners - out.

My hope is to get some high grade cards for resell, then take the rest (as I think they are easily 7's and 8's) and make a set out of them. I have few star cards that are gradable from this year, but mostly just a collection of commons that are in particularly nice shape. >>



I can completely understand why you would want to grade some of these cards you have, but I can assure you with near certainty that you will end up losing money if all you decide to submit everything that you feel will grade a '9' or higher. My advice would be to go to VCP, see what cards carry a significant premium in a PSA 9 slab, and then only submit those cards. Submitting 1974T cards that sell for $7 in PSA 9 is a losing money proposition.

mygotta

<< <i>

I can completely understand why you would want to grade some of these cards you have, but I can assure you with near certainty that you will end up losing money if all you decide to submit everything that you feel will grade a '9' or higher. My advice would be to go to VCP, see what cards carry a significant premium in a PSA 9 slab, and then only submit those cards. Submitting 1974T cards that sell for $7 in PSA 9 is a losing money proposition. >>



Gotcha...So its a crapshoot in other words unless the card has more intrinsic value of the player? The population report shows, of the 146,000 1974 cards submitted, only 2500 received a 10 grade, which is about 2% of the entire population. While there are 42,000 graded at a 9, which is about 29% of the population, and nearly half are 8's.

That said, I dont have an account over at VCP, but they do have a 24-hour option which, I can use when I have sorted through what looks good.

packCollector

you should never make a decision about your own card based on what you see on ebay. You look at a card and say how is that a 9, well the grader says it is so I am going to send in my cards that look like that.

what usually happens is you get a bunch of 8's and take a beating on grading fees.

mygotta

<< <i>you should never make a decision about your own card based on what you see on ebay. You look at a card and say how is that a 9, well the grader says it is so I am going to send in my cards that look like that.

what usually happens is you get a bunch of 8's and take a beating on grading fees. >>



Yes, this already happened once, which is why I am asking the question. I am not averse to submitting for grading, however, I also dont want to send in junk, or get back stuff that is equal or less to the amount I spent - unless its for me personally.

These are from before I knew what I was getting myself into...

Mefer

If I have learned anything with grading submission it is to err on the side of being overly critical of your cards (especially if you are shooting for 9s or 10s). Such is especially true with the 74s. While I do not profess to be an expert on this issue, they are rife with "fisheyes" and I personally automatically reject any card with a fisheye. I would suggest that even though some of the examples you provided do have fisheyes (most glaring to me is the Winfield; in my opinion, that card does not warrant a 9 holder for that blemish alone).

This is how I review cards for submission with a goal of 9 or higher and while I am sure others have there own techniques, this may prove helpful:

1. Centering is generally the easiest thing to first check. Immediately reject any card that does not present "eyeball" 50/50 centering all the way around. I would invest in a measuring device to check centering as well (I have one I bought many years ago that simply lays over a card; it is a big help).

2. For cards that meet centering criteria, carefully examine each corner with the naked eye. If you can visibly pick up any push or softness on a single corner, reject that card.

3. For the cards that are left standing, check the surface for any surface wrinkles and the like. Review the borders as well. Borders, however, are the one area you can be a bit more lenient as PSA, generally speaking and in my opinion, is not as hard on. To that end, rough cuts, fuzz and the like will most likely pass my inspection. Some very moderate chipping may also pass my inspection.

4. Once you have an even smaller pile, review the cards under magnification. Any slight push in corner you can see under magnification, reject.

5. Submit what is left standing.

Undoubtedly, you will probably reject some cards that would grade out at 9. However, those will be the exception; you will be ahead in the long run as you are culling out most likely 8 and lower cards. Even going through that process you will still get 8s (in my opinion, it is human nature for a grader, reviewing a number of cards, to simply give 8s as "all cards cannot be 9 or better quality"; the grader simply is unaware of the sorting process you may have gone through). Also you cannot go into the submission thinking a card will garner a 10. Differences between a 9 and a 10 are generally very minute and what might be a 10 one day to one grader may be a 9 another day to the next.

So again, my advise is to exercise caution and be ultra critical of your own cards. That is harder than it sounds as we all like to think the cards we have and plan to admit are "sure fire 10s."

Mickey71

Mefer and PackCollector said it perfectly.

jeff8877

Mefer...great advice and write up. This will save people a lot of money if they follow.

Jeff

EchoCanyon

<< <i>
Gotcha...So its a crapshoot in other words ....... >>



BINGO

halosfan

Cool Stabler!

MiniDuff

I HATE grading 74s. they are a money sink. Very good advice was posted above. Save for key cards, I only grade if I feel a card has a shot at a 10. The Piniella above is a case in point. expect a 9 which will at least pay for itself and hope for a 10 or two to turn a profit.

mygotta

<< <i>Cool Stabler! >>



Yeah, I am learning more to appreciate the good and the bad of what I have graded. I undersold the Mikita and wish I was not as impatient with it. But it is what it is.

I still have the Stabler if you are interested. Oddly, I had 4 of them graded at 5, 7, 8 (OC) and 8 and all the others sold except the 8.

Otherwise what everyone has said has been great. I went through all my cards and basically discarded what was obvious. Then eye balled the corners. Now I am looking at the centering, suface and printing of each card. Then I will go through them again and determine if the final grade, and finally if they are worth grading.

I have modern cards I was considering grading. And even at a 10, I am seeing some cards are not even worth grading. I bought today a 1988 Score Glossy Dale Murphy for 5.99. So even some cards at a 10 are not worth grading for profit. But that was for me so I am happy with that.

On the topic of centering and modern cards, how does one determine centering with cards with full bleed printing? For instance the Stadium Club cards. I know there are extremes, but cards without borders it would seem harder to determine the center point.

mygotta

<< <i>If I have learned anything with grading submission it is to err on the side of being overly critical of your cards (especially if you are shooting for 9s or 10s). Such is especially true with the 74s. While I do not profess to be an expert on this issue, they are rife with "fisheyes" and I personally automatically reject any card with a fisheye. >>



I agree. There are tons with fisheyes. Some, like Yankees cards because they have black fields, look like they are riddled with bullet holes.

ShreveBo

Eventus Stultorum Magister......

Dboneesq

<< <i>Eventus Stultorum Magister...... >>


Hmmm ... to call the OP a "fool" for asking is not called for.

ShreveBo

Someone needs to brush up on their Latin.....

mygotta

<< <i>Someone needs to brush up on their Latin..... >>



Clearly you want to say something, so just spit it out. Otherwise your snobbery is wasted.

itzagoner

it's Friday. let's all get wasted.