Undergraded??????? I was not too happy.
Mickey71
Posts: 4,259 ✭✭✭✭
Did not like the recent grades at all. I don't think the 5's are incorrect.....I think they are absurd.
0
Comments
As for the Mays, the overall wear around the edges along with the top left corner touch probably did it.
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
How r u feeling? I hope better each day.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
eyebone
koufax 6.5
clemente 7.5
ryan 6
imo
<< <i>Nice looking Koufax and Clemente. I agree the Ryan is undergraded, I'm not sure about Willie. >>
+1
I would say the Willie is a 5 and the Ryan should be about a 6 IMO
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
Koufax has 4 touches, so you can't get the 7, but the centering is dynamite.
The 71 Ryan looks a little skinny to me, and the right edge looks off. I could see a 6 based on the corners though.
The Clemente could easily be a 7.5. Probably could have been an 8 years ago. I just cracked out the same card from an old PSA 8 (st) holder and scrubbed it off and got a 6.5. Yours is a little nicer overall, but mine had three sharp (8-ish) corners so I thought they might throw me a bone.
The joy of dark-bordered cards!
How about this one -- bottom edge too rough for a PSA 7?
Bosox1976
collecting 1977 topps baseball in psa 9 and psa 10
The chipping on the right side of the Clemente is consistent with many other 7's I've seen, and the Ryan has three weak corners (looks like the upper right is the only crisp corner). Sucks when you have high hopes, and these sets are downright impossible.
I have a 1971 Killebrew 8.5 that should be a 9 and had a 1962 that should have also been a 9 that came back a 7 three times before I gave up. You will have better luck submitting 66's and 67's.
Good luck
Joe
In the past few days, I spent a lot of time going through my collection, and I must say that I see a trend towards strict PSA grading (a good thing). Many times, I think we may look at old holders in terms of opportunity for the half-point bump, not realizing the full potential for a downgrade. From personal experience, I can tell you that I rarely get the extra half-point. If anything, I do have a lot of PSA 8.5's that are nicer than old PSA 9's. If your reference point is old, overgraded material, you may be in for a surprise, as I was (UNFORTUNATELY).
Consistency is key, without a doubt, but I can tell you, based on my last submission and current apparent grading standards, that I have more than a few cards that belong in PSA 7.5 holders, not PSA 8 plastic...Buy the card not the holder philosophy should always prevail.
The one thing I would add to the discussion without having the cards in hand, of course, is the existence of surface imperfections on these examples. I realize you are not looking for PSA 9's on these cards, but I currently own a handful of PSA 5's that appear to be PSA 9's were it not for surface/print problems. I certainly am no expert on '62s or '71s, but just take that as food for thought.
Just out of curiosity, were these the only cards from your submission? What grading level were they submitted at?
<< <i>After getting grades from my last submission (the 1952 Bowman SGC 96 submission that got massacred, as has been discussed recently on this board, at length), those grades really don't surprise me all that much.
In the past few days, I spent a lot of time going through my collection, and I must say that I see a trend towards strict PSA grading (a good thing). Many times, I think we may look at old holders in terms of opportunity for the half-point bump, not realizing the full potential for a downgrade. From personal experience, I can tell you that I rarely get the extra half-point. If anything, I do have a lot of PSA 8.5's that are nicer than old PSA 9's. If your reference point is old, overgraded material, you may be in for a surprise, as I was (UNFORTUNATELY).
Consistency is key, without a doubt, but I can tell you, based on my last submission and current apparent grading standards, that I have more than a few cards that belong in PSA 7.5 holders, not PSA 8 plastic...Buy the card not the holder philosophy should always prevail.
The one thing I would add to the discussion without having the cards in hand, of course, is the existence of surface imperfections on these examples. I realize you are not looking for PSA 9's on these cards, but I currently own a handful of PSA 5's that appear to be PSA 9's were it not for surface/print problems. I certainly am no expert on '62s or '71s, but just take that as food for thought.
Just out of curiosity, were these the only cards from your submission? What grading level were they submitted at? >>
+1 this is a great post and very in line with my recent sub experience. Psa getting tougher on 8's and 9's and graded cards +5 years ago are not a good proxy for your submissions today.
75 is another year that they are very tough with. I sent 60 or so 75 in that all I felt would be 8.5 or 9, some low pop contenders. Result was 7, 8, and a few 9s on the few higher pop 9 cards. I do get the sense that preservation of the pop report a consideration in that a card really has to be better than a predecessor in the same grade to make the same grad ( an 8 yesterday may only be a 7 today).
Great point on surface too. Not only creases, surface veins or even scuffs, depending on issue general luster and smoothness are just as relevant as corners...
Nice Clemente though. All great cards that present well.
<< <i>After getting grades from my last submission (the 1952 Bowman SGC 96 submission that got massacred, as has been discussed recently on this board, at length), those grades really don't surprise me all that much.
In the past few days, I spent a lot of time going through my collection, and I must say that I see a trend towards strict PSA grading (a good thing). Many times, I think we may look at old holders in terms of opportunity for the half-point bump, not realizing the full potential for a downgrade. From personal experience, I can tell you that I rarely get the extra half-point. If anything, I do have a lot of PSA 8.5's that are nicer than old PSA 9's. If your reference point is old, overgraded material, you may be in for a surprise, as I was (UNFORTUNATELY).
Consistency is key, without a doubt, but I can tell you, based on my last submission and current apparent grading standards, that I have more than a few cards that belong in PSA 7.5 holders, not PSA 8 plastic...Buy the card not the holder philosophy should always prevail.
The one thing I would add to the discussion without having the cards in hand, of course, is the existence of surface imperfections on these examples. I realize you are not looking for PSA 9's on these cards, but I currently own a handful of PSA 5's that appear to be PSA 9's were it not for surface/print problems. I certainly am no expert on '62s or '71s, but just take that as food for thought.
Just out of curiosity, were these the only cards from your submission? What grading level were they submitted at? >>
Not to bore you with technicalities and standards not relevant to the cards at hand, but I also found something pretty interesting to me in my collecting endeavors, that being the current definition of "PSA 9":
MINT 9: Mint
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.
Nowhere does this definition allow for corner wear. While there is undoubtedly (and expressedly on half of PSA) emphasis on centering for half-point grades, I now view the half-point as an extremely critical look at corners for this high end of the spectrum (Yes, magnify them, and see how they look, knowing all-well centering is 50/50; if the corners exhibit a touch of wear, centering is near perfect, and gloss surface is fine, you may get the 8.5). Unfortunately or fortunately, with an abundance of cards on the market and a very popular set registry/pop report, collectors should now get used to strict grading. I'm not saying PSA is perfect, and I can only hope the standards are being applied uniformly.
I agree with the point above about preservation of the pop report and the idea about previously submitted cards (as you may tell from my previous post). At the end of the day, we are relying on PSA for an "opinion". They evaluate more cards than I have or ever will, and it is always nice to get an "opinion" even when I don't agree with it.
With that said, you still have some fine cards (with grades that seem appropriate to me, if indeed, a determining factor is surface wear)...I'm not saying you couldn't get a bump, but just let the cards speak for themselves.
<< <i>Based on comparing my recent submission to older graded material I see on ebay, I see a trend toward much stricter focus on centering and eye appeal. The PSA grading standards may say that PSA 8 requires centering at worst between 65/35 and 70/30, but I think the chances of getting an 8 these days with this kind of marginal centering are slim to none. The centering really has to be around 60/40 to avoid getting an "eye appeal" -based grade of 7 or even 6. 6's on very nice looking cards with nice corners seem way more common than they used to be. >>
+1
...And one final comment about the "eye appeal" factor.
PSA and I obviously have a different set of eyes, meaning their eyes are evidently a lot better than mine. Seriously, I guess what I mean is that "eye appeal" for me is seeing the good (What makes this card better, just seeing it in person?); it seems that "eye appeal" for them has more of a critical aspect (How does this card compare to others of the same make/model/etc.?), and rightly so.
In my opinion, the idea of "eye appeal" is still just a bit of CYA mentality, but as much as the concept is a safeguard for certain grades (and perhaps expert knowledge), the real "eye appeal" of PSA still sees flaws through magnification and objectivity.
I have been shocked with grades, but I have also been pleasantly surprised.
they are definitely getting tougher on sliders and have been for quite some time.
if a card is indisputably MINT or better, most of the time there's little room for argument.
PSA 5 to 8 range is a whirlpool.
Now as far as the cards on EBAY....there are alot of these examples. So the sample set is fairly large to make a comparison. If anyone has a 5 on the Mays that looks that clean then let me know- I will pay VCP no doubt. Also, I will buy Koufax's that look like that for VCP. Thanks for all the comments. This is exactly why grading is an opinion.
Mickey71
This one ends in 2 hours and looks very nice for the grade like yours.
All are very nice cards. The koufax is very nice no matter what case it gets put in.
The card has a crease on the bottom left corner. You can see it on the back....then when you look on the front it is visible.
Danny
<< <i>I was expecting a 7 on the Koufax, a 6 on the Ryan, a 6 on the Mays and a 7.5 on the Clemente. I'm not saying that this is the determining factor; but look at these cards in these grades on EBAY and you will find that the Koufax would easily be the best 7 on the bay.....look at 6's on the bay of the Mays card and you will see that most present weakly....and I just don't agree with the Ryan at all.
Now as far as the cards on EBAY....there are alot of these examples. So the sample set is fairly large to make a comparison. If anyone has a 5 on the Mays that looks that clean then let me know- I will pay VCP no doubt. Also, I will buy Koufax's that look like that for VCP. Thanks for all the comments. This is exactly why grading is an opinion.
Mickey71 >>
FYI, I posted the following thread today to address your submission results and others like it (including my own):
CURRENT GRADING STANDARDS AND IMPACT ON THE HOBBY - INPUT WANTED
You may find some of the comments relevant to your situation (especially the ones concerning ebay listings), but in any event, I'd be anxious to see your own experience-based answers.
I've hinted at this aspect before, but in ALL instances where my anticipated results were at least a full grade off, surface wear and printing issues came into play. There have been a few good posts about this in the past.
One suggestion that I have for you is to evaluate critically your cards versus even higher PSA grades (specifically 8's and 9's with new flips). You may notice surface and print defects not obvious to you previously, and an abundance of issues could be a determining factor in your final PSA grades. For the 1952 Bowman set I collect, I can tell you that some print defects are just not obvious to the eye until you know where and how to spot them. A stray color here or there can definitely influence the PSA result, and this is just one reason we rely on the "expert, professional" opinions of PSA; alternatively, correct color and registration sometimes make the cards appear to be overgraded...Grading is not always about just corners and centering. While strong corners and centering help, the "eye appeal" of the card may come into play.
There is nothing wrong with having a really nice card for the grade, and I for one know that I'm always willing to pay a premium for a card that presents better than the holder designation states.
<< <i>they actually look about right to me, to be honest.
agreed
This was in reference to PCGS coin grading but the same can be said for PSA and card grading.
http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=2957
The first post sums it up pretty well.