CURRENT GRADING STANDARDS AND IMPACT ON THE HOBBY - INPUT WANTED
OcTrAdInG
Posts: 176 ✭✭
This weekend I spent several hours pouring through my collection of high-end 1952 Bowman baseball cards, and a few thoughts occurred to me. While I already have new posts related to some of these things, I wanted to put a post together to gather current thoughts and feelings from members of the collecting community who have had recent PSA submissions. I guess my goal is to receive more general answers about the state of the hobby and third-party graders on a thread not directed towards results from my last disappointing PSA submission...So here goes nothing, and please understand that this thread is in no way meant to bash anyone/anything. Fill in the blanks where I am ignorant. Your feedback is appreciated, and I hope the thread is not redundant. I can honestly say that posts from this Board have been extremely helpful to me in my collecting pursuits, and I look forward to your comments.
1. How strict are the current PSA grading standards?
My personal belief is that current grading standards are more strict than they have ever been. This belief is based primarily on recent 1952 Bowman submission experience in comparison to the many cards already purchased in PSA holders over the years. If this is true, we may no longer see sales listings praising the opportunity for the half-point bump. In fact, we may see folks re-holdering old, overgraded cards, and this could, in fact, lead to more market chaos, especially for those who buy holders and not cards. How many folks will willingly accept a grade move the wrong way? This is just one more potential problem with consistency.
2. Were standards uniform in the past? Were the published standards exactly equivalent to today?
Having been out of the hobby for an extended period, I have no first-hand knowledge of submission experience for quite some time. I'm just wanting to know if customers have experienced long periods of under/overgrading from the likes of PSA/SGC/BVG. When I get around to it, I will post scans from my collection to illustrate.
3. Do collectors continually upgrade the same cards in their collections?
I know that I am personally reluctant to shell out more money for the same card even when I feel that my card is overgraded. Of course, we may try to buy the best, but without a doubt, photos in today's day and age can be very deceiving. If we assume grading standards have changed or improved over time, does that jeopardize the great collections of Merkel, Spence, Fogel, etc. or my own for that matter? At some point, you are undoubtedly buying a holder and not a card. With what I will call the recent shift towards focus on surface flaws, I would question more than a few old holders in my own collection. In fact, I've not bought several old-label PSA 9's because I felt my PSA 8.5's were superior.
Thanks.
1. How strict are the current PSA grading standards?
My personal belief is that current grading standards are more strict than they have ever been. This belief is based primarily on recent 1952 Bowman submission experience in comparison to the many cards already purchased in PSA holders over the years. If this is true, we may no longer see sales listings praising the opportunity for the half-point bump. In fact, we may see folks re-holdering old, overgraded cards, and this could, in fact, lead to more market chaos, especially for those who buy holders and not cards. How many folks will willingly accept a grade move the wrong way? This is just one more potential problem with consistency.
2. Were standards uniform in the past? Were the published standards exactly equivalent to today?
Having been out of the hobby for an extended period, I have no first-hand knowledge of submission experience for quite some time. I'm just wanting to know if customers have experienced long periods of under/overgrading from the likes of PSA/SGC/BVG. When I get around to it, I will post scans from my collection to illustrate.
3. Do collectors continually upgrade the same cards in their collections?
I know that I am personally reluctant to shell out more money for the same card even when I feel that my card is overgraded. Of course, we may try to buy the best, but without a doubt, photos in today's day and age can be very deceiving. If we assume grading standards have changed or improved over time, does that jeopardize the great collections of Merkel, Spence, Fogel, etc. or my own for that matter? At some point, you are undoubtedly buying a holder and not a card. With what I will call the recent shift towards focus on surface flaws, I would question more than a few old holders in my own collection. In fact, I've not bought several old-label PSA 9's because I felt my PSA 8.5's were superior.
Thanks.
0
Comments
During that time, I feel that grading has been relatively consistent but tough nonetheless for my submissions.
If anything has really bothered me, it is the Evidence of Trim (EOT) designation, but I think that PSA is just very cautious with the crossover service (for valuable cards, especially). In my opinion, to really evaluate a card, you must examine outside of the holder.
All of them were originally 8's. One I didn't bother re-submitting because it was clearly OC (though it was an unqualified 8 before cracking). Of the three others, one came back a 6, one came back a 7, and one came back an 8.5.
It's clear to me that standards have tightened, and I'm actually happy because I'm pleased with the tighter standards. Often in the past I'd be terribly disappointed with 8's I purchased from ebay. I always felt ebay was filled with the poorest examples of a given grade, and I think tighter standards will improve that situation.
So overall, I'm pleased with the current state of affairs, and I'll be even more pleased when I feel I understand the current standards completely enough to avoid submitting cards that will underperform.
<< <i>For the last decade, I purchased on and off PSA graded cards from a non-sports set I collect. For most of that period I cracked the cards out to combine them with my overall raw set. I recently decided to pursue that set in all-graded form, and so I submitted a few of the cracked out cards, all of which had been originally graded over five years ago.
All of them were originally 8's. One I didn't bother re-submitting because it was clearly OC (though it was an unqualified 8 before cracking). Of the three others, one came back a 6, one came back a 7, and one came back an 8.5.
It's clear to me that standards have tightened, and I'm actually happy because I'm pleased with the tighter standards. Often in the past I'd be terribly disappointed with 8's I purchased from ebay. I always felt ebay was filled with the poorest examples of a given grade, and I think tighter standards will improve that situation.
So overall, I'm pleased with the current state of affairs, and I'll be even more pleased when I feel I understand the current standards completely enough to avoid submitting cards that will underperform. >>
Thank you for your comment. Your experience was exactly that which I'm interested in, and my experience echoes in large part with your comments concerning ebay purchases. In asking the 3rd question, I tend to think ebay is the perfect vehicle for getting rid of the overgraded, unwanted duplicate material, but with that that said, I will say that I've been pleasantly surprised with many PSA new-label ebay purchases. With ebay especially, I think the old flips for sale generally represent the bottom of the grade rather than the top. Trying to sell someone on the "bump" dream may become a thing of the past.
I saw ASA emerge - tho there were also a few - can't remember names - one was called Superlative? I'm thinking SGC came on board and left - and re-emerged? And - of course PSA.
I - generally - accept good TPGs as a help to the hobby.
I - also - accept that it's just an opinion based on a list of standards which appear scientific but - in the end - totally subjective.
Many believe older flips are not as strictly graded as newer. In many cases appear to be right.
Beyond this? I've dropped out. Life's just too darn short.
Trite but true statement of the century: "buy the CARD, NOT the holder."
OcTrAdInG - good luck with the completion of your set.
Somewhere along the way - I became a curmudgeon about centering - the Prince of Proportions, The Duke of Dimensions, the Emir of Edges, the Count of Corners, the Prince of Perfection, the Baron of Borders, the Rajah of Registration...
So, I'm constantly working on a 63F BB set with the best centering I can find - and that's quite a task! Been working on it since Jan 04 and only at 87% and still upgrading the centering due to the change in direction.
If this whole thing were to implode - and everything I've purchased turned to dust? I'd still have the memories of all the fun I had - the people I've met along the way - and the invaluable experience I had with my son during "his" collecting era - unfortunately gone - for now - but ya never know?
<< <i>There were no TPGs when I got back into collecting.
I saw ASA emerge - tho there were also a few - can't remember names - one was called Superlative? I'm thinking SGC came on board and left - and re-emerged? And - of course PSA.
I - generally - accept good TPGs as a help to the hobby.
I - also - accept that it's just an opinion based on a list of standards which appear scientific but - in the end - totally subjective.
Many believe older flips are not as strictly graded as newer. In many cases appear to be right.
Beyond this? I've dropped out. Life's just too darn short.
Trite but true statement of the century: "buy the CARD, NOT the holder."
OcTrAdInG - good luck with the completion of your set.
Somewhere along the way - I became a curmudgeon about centering - the Prince of Proportions, The Duke of Dimensions, the Emir of Edges, the Count of Corners, the Prince of Perfection, the Baron of Borders, the Rajah of Registration...
So, I'm constantly working on a 63F BB set with the best centering I can find - and that's quite a task! Been working on it since Jan 04 and only at 87% and still upgrading the centering due to the change in direction.
If this whole thing were to implode - and everything I've purchased turned to dust? I'd still have the memories of all the fun I had - the people I've met along the way - and the invaluable experience I had with my son during "his" collecting era - unfortunately gone - for now - but ya never know? >>
Oh, what a difference a day makes...however that song goes.
I started collecting in the late 80's and stopped cold-turkey in the mid '90's. TPGs were just not that important then. Everyone could recognize a mint card, right?
Here's a funny story about centering though, since you got me started...When I finally submitted cards to PSA for grading way back when, all of my good cards came back with the OC designation. I'm talking about GOOD, VALUABLE cards on which centering had been overlooked by me for years...hence the name "o.c.trading" or "OFF CENTER TRADING" as you see on the registry and my ebay username for years.
Anyway, I appreciate the encouragement, as I'm approximately 50% complete now, adjusting my set goals as we speak. I no longer collect off center cards, and I admit that I am now comfortable with a PSA 7.5, specifically those that were previously SGC 96's. lmao.
Good luck to you as well. May all your cards be cut with 50/50 centering.
<< <i>I do think the standards have got a little tougher though I have no sceintific evidence to support it. Regardless, I am comfortable collecting within in a certain grade and have become better at buying the card and not the holder. Especially for the more expensive cards in my collection. It gets really tough when buying grade 5's which can be all over the place. I have never upgraded any cards in my collection just because I am not a seller by nature. However, I am sure many collectors do. >>
I myself am not a seller either, and that helps to explain my reluctance in upgrading/replacing cards.
What I will say is...Man, do I get a kick out of seeing a PSA 5 that is 110% perfect all the way around, except for the surface wrinkle only obvious with extra light and magnification!!! I guess the standards must start somewhere.
I try to upgrade copies of cards that I have. I prefer PSA 8's in my personal collection for 1960's and earlier. I try and buy raw and sub alot to get deals, so I have alot to sell off sometimes. I will gladly sell off all of my PSA 5's for one really nice copy of a card I want in high grade. If it is modern I will not keep it unless it is a PSA 10.
Ultimately I like tough grading standards and I think the education of the consumer as well as the graders is demanding this. Everyone owns that PSA 8 that looks better than a PSA 9 on ebay right now. I just hate the people that think all of there PSA 8's are PSA 9's and all PSA 9's on ebay are overgraded. It isn't a perfect system, but that is kind of what makes it fun. You win some you lose some.
T222's PSA 1 or better
<< <i>The biggest change in grading, I have noticed, seems to be in the area of centering. I attribute this to the collecting community as much as I do to the graders themselves. Premiums are definately paid for well-centered copies of certain grades and I think that might have influenced the grading companies.
I try to upgrade copies of cards that I have. I prefer PSA 8's in my personal collection for 1960's and earlier. I try and buy raw and sub alot to get deals, so I have alot to sell off sometimes. I will gladly sell off all of my PSA 5's for one really nice copy of a card I want in high grade. If it is modern I will not keep it unless it is a PSA 10.
Ultimately I like tough grading standards and I think the education of the consumer as well as the graders is demanding this. Everyone owns that PSA 8 that looks better than a PSA 9 on ebay right now. I just hate the people that think all of there PSA 8's are PSA 9's and all PSA 9's on ebay are overgraded. It isn't a perfect system, but that is kind of what makes it fun. You win some you lose some. >>
On the importance of centering, I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did collectors care about it initially, or was it the third-party graders? As I stated before, in a joking way, centering just was not that important when I began in the hobby. When I became active in the hobby again, it was all about the centering.
With respect to the premiums paid for well-centered cards, allow me to copy and paste from the PSA website concerning half-point grades:
"Half-Point Grades:
Cards that exhibit high-end qualities within each particular grade, between PSA Good 2 and PSA Mint 9, may achieve a half-point increase. While PSA graders will evaluate all of the attributes possessed by a card in order to determine if the card may be eligible, there will be a clear focus on centering."
I think the fact that PSA acknowledges a "focus on centering" clearly translates to a monetary premium, especially when there is always the possibility of the half-point bump. Centering, in my opinion, is the one card quality that can't really be disputed. PSA can criticize my corners and the degree or type of wear under magnification, but they must accept and acknowledge a well-centered card.
I understand that people will always have some bias towards their own cards, but... if you have an overgraded PSA 9, do you try to replace it with a better PSA 9, knowing you may have to spend more money for the better card? How many people continuously upgrade within the same PSA grade? Are you collecting more for the set registry or more for the cards inside the holders?
<< <i>I think eye appeal has always been important; ever since I began collecting in the 60s. Centering, of course, is part of eye appeal. I think the TPGs lessened the emphasis on centering, especially to those that collect the holder and not the card. >>
...And the half-point grade was a way to emphasize centering again? Or are you saying the TPG's standards for centering have fallen lately?
<< <i>
<< <i>I think eye appeal has always been important; ever since I began collecting in the 60s. Centering, of course, is part of eye appeal. I think the TPGs lessened the emphasis on centering, especially to those that collect the holder and not the card. >>
...And the half-point grade was a way to emphasize centering again? Or are you saying the TPG's standards for centering have fallen lately? >>
I'm saying the TPGs lowered the standards in regard to centering... the .5 point grade was an eye-appeal correction, similar to what PCGS did with their "plus" grades. There should be a 9.5 grade for supposed 10s that don't have perfect centering and reserve the 10s for cards that have perfect centering. Of course a correction now is pointless. You'd almost have to start a new grading company with consistent standards or introduce a new holder at PSA that shows the new, consistent standard.
A consistent (or at least more consistent) standard could be introduced and followed... three graders should look at a card, enter x number of issues: 3 rounded corners, 2 surface defects, 65/35 t/b, 60/40 l/r front... 90/10 t/b, 85/15 l/r back, 1 print defect, 1 large stain, 2 small stains, etc. and the computer could then give a consistent grade average. If a variance is too great, then three more graders could look at the card.
Edited to add: A computer could actually be programmed to grade cards. Take an image of the front and back of the card and let the computer do it's job; it can determine tilt, centering, corners, edges, printer defects and staining instantly... it can then spit out a grade and the graders can agree/disagree with the grade. The photos could be attached to the cert #. It's a win-win for both submitter and TPG.
<< <i>First post - I see some PSA 10's with 60/40 centering which is allowed for cards with great eye appeal otherwise. Gretzky rookie for example. I never noticed centering until I started collecting TPG cards so I think they set the standard on that for most collectors. I used to think any card with 4 sharp corners was mint. Now that I have been "educated" by TPGs I consider a 10 with 60/40 centering a 9 that slipped through. >>
Registered 16 months ago... and this is your first post! WOW!!!!!
I looked through some of my older certs in hockey and found that the cards often looked better than the new ones so I'm not sure that PSA standards are increasing, at least not in hockey. I have a lot of newly graded PSA 10's that are tilts. Apparently that's allowed only for OPC hockey due to poor factory standards. None of my older PSA certs are tilts.
Really, I think my expectations of a 10 are increasing. I'm okay with my 9's being tilted and off center. In fact, I'm suspicious of centered 9's since there must be something which stops the card from being a 10.
1 In general it seems that high grades are harder to get than in the past. I have been buying cards from the late 1950's through the mid 1970's since well before TPG came into being. I always tried to purchase high grade cards. I chose PSA to grade my cards and to this day think it was the best decision. My first submissions yielded mostly 8's a few 9's a few 7's and an ocassional 10. I now look the cards over even more closely and I am getting mostly 7's a few 8's and rarely a 9. My experience says that PSA is getting tougher.
2. A little tougher question to answer. In itself the half grade has changed the standards. It seems that the years with colored borders, '62,'63,'75 are judged tougher than the all white bordered cards, but that is changing. Seems that it's getting tougher on the white bordered cards lately.
3. I am always looking to upgrade if the price is right. Once I get in the 8 range, I feel more comfortable, especially when 9's and especially 10's sell at a premium and don't impact your set rating if you belong to the registry. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your opinion) I have many "oddball" issues that are lower grade, so I focus more on upgrading them.
Joe
With resubmissions and other factors a lot of cards will eventually make it into the highest possible holder, so you do have some grade inflation.
Years ago I cracked a card that got a 6, and I knew it was a 7. Came back a 3. Then a 3. Then a 3, and I was on a mission. Next time a 7.
Same card, didn't do a thing to it. Grading is subjective, with a human factor. There will always be variances.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>From my experience in grading cards over the last decade, I think standards are a sawtooth- they go up and down all the time, within a relatively narrow range.
With resubmissions and other factors a lot of cards will eventually make it into the highest possible holder, so you do have some grade inflation.
Years ago I cracked a card that got a 6, and I knew it was a 7. Came back a 3. Then a 3. Then a 3, and I was on a mission. Next time a 7.
Same card, didn't do a thing to it. Grading is subjective, with a human factor. There will always be variances. >>
There must be a surface issue for it to come back a 3 three times?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think eye appeal has always been important; ever since I began collecting in the 60s. Centering, of course, is part of eye appeal. I think the TPGs lessened the emphasis on centering, especially to those that collect the holder and not the card. >>
...And the half-point grade was a way to emphasize centering again? Or are you saying the TPG's standards for centering have fallen lately? >>
I'm saying the TPGs lowered the standards in regard to centering... the .5 point grade was an eye-appeal correction, similar to what PCGS did with their "plus" grades. There should be a 9.5 grade for supposed 10s that don't have perfect centering and reserve the 10s for cards that have perfect centering. Of course a correction now is pointless. You'd almost have to start a new grading company with consistent standards or introduce a new holder at PSA that shows the new, consistent standard.
A consistent (or at least more consistent) standard could be introduced and followed... three graders should look at a card, enter x number of issues: 3 rounded corners, 2 surface defects, 65/35 t/b, 60/40 l/r front... 90/10 t/b, 85/15 l/r back, 1 print defect, 1 large stain, 2 small stains, etc. and the computer could then give a consistent grade average. If a variance is too great, then three more graders could look at the card.
Edited to add: A computer could actually be programmed to grade cards. Take an image of the front and back of the card and let the computer do it's job; it can determine tilt, centering, corners, edges, printer defects and staining instantly... it can then spit out a grade and the graders can agree/disagree with the grade. The photos could be attached to the cert #. It's a win-win for both submitter and TPG. >>
Thank you for the clarification, and your explanation makes sense. Having been away from the hobby for quite some time, I'm still just trying to understand how collecting has evolved since I've been away.
You would think so, however (and I have asked this before with no one willing to respond) how does a card graded a 6 that appears better, come back as miscut?
The card was again resubmitted and got a 7.
Seems like I spent a lot of money on grading and shipping on that one.
Joe
When I went to a show in 1989, my first in years and years, I carried zero "weapons" with me - relied strictly on my eye.
If I were to go today? I would have a loupe and black light. And who knows? An electron microscope?
<< <i>First post - I see some PSA 10's with 60/40 centering which is allowed for cards with great eye appeal otherwise. Gretzky rookie for example. I never noticed centering until I started collecting TPG cards so I think they set the standard on that for most collectors. I used to think any card with 4 sharp corners was mint. Now that I have been "educated" by TPGs I consider a 10 with 60/40 centering a 9 that slipped through. >>
For that reason, even though I collect some of the highest of high-end cards (1952 Bowman baseball), I don't really even look at PSA 10's for my set of interest. Outside of the obvious premium a gem mint designation may command, the slight difference between a nice PSA 9 and PSA 10 is tough for me to justify and too hard for me to identify.
<< <i>Yeah, I've lurked a bit but decided to become more involved with the hobby. Plus I collect hockey which narrows down the number of posts that I read.
I looked through some of my older certs in hockey and found that the cards often looked better than the new ones so I'm not sure that PSA standards are increasing, at least not in hockey. I have a lot of newly graded PSA 10's that are tilts. Apparently that's allowed only for OPC hockey due to poor factory standards. None of my older PSA certs are tilts.
Really, I think my expectations of a 10 are increasing. I'm okay with my 9's being tilted and off center. In fact, I'm suspicious of centered 9's since there must be something which stops the card from being a 10. >>
About the tilt on hockey cards, I am certainly no expert, but I do believe PSA currently overlooks some condition issues specific to cards/sets.
In regard to your older certs, are they PSA 9's and PSA 10's that you reference? Or do you have a wide range of grades in your collection?
I must admit though that I look for 10's once in the 80's era.
I only buy centered cards... whether they're PSA7s, 8s, 9s or 10s. Eye appeal is the ONLY thing that matters to me!
I talked to an old guy that was at the OPC factory around 1972. He told me that the sheets were dropped into a box, then hand fed into the cutters. The guides were set up with a 1/4" play on each side so it was up to whoever was doing the hand feeding to make sure the sheet was straight. We all know how that worked out.
<< <i>Hello, very good post! Here are my thoughts;
1 In general it seems that high grades are harder to get than in the past. I have been buying cards from the late 1950's through the mid 1970's since well before TPG came into being. I always tried to purchase high grade cards. I chose PSA to grade my cards and to this day think it was the best decision. My first submissions yielded mostly 8's a few 9's a few 7's and an ocassional 10. I now look the cards over even more closely and I am getting mostly 7's a few 8's and rarely a 9. My experience says that PSA is getting tougher.
2. A little tougher question to answer. In itself the half grade has changed the standards. It seems that the years with colored borders, '62,'63,'75 are judged tougher than the all white bordered cards, but that is changing. Seems that it's getting tougher on the white bordered cards lately.
3. I am always looking to upgrade if the price is right. Once I get in the 8 range, I feel more comfortable, especially when 9's and especially 10's sell at a premium and don't impact your set rating if you belong to the registry. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your opinion) I have many "oddball" issues that are lower grade, so I focus more on upgrading them.
Joe >>
Thank you, Joe. Your experience is similar to my own and, I'm sure, a lot of other collectors.
<< <i>I called PSA about the tilt issue since it was showing up a lot in my OPC hockey. Their head grader confirmed that they do allow it, even on 10's but only for OPC.
I talked to an old guy that was at the OPC factory around 1972. He told me that the sheets were dropped into a box, then hand fed into the cutters. The guides were set up with a 1/4" play on each side so it was up to whoever was doing the hand feeding to make sure the sheet was straight. We all know how that worked out. >>
Thank you for the added comment. My reply was more speculation, based on my experience, but it is great to get confirmation through someone's first-hand experience with the head grader.
<< <i>From my experience in grading cards over the last decade, I think standards are a sawtooth- they go up and down all the time, within a relatively narrow range.
With resubmissions and other factors a lot of cards will eventually make it into the highest possible holder, so you do have some grade inflation.
Years ago I cracked a card that got a 6, and I knew it was a 7. Came back a 3. Then a 3. Then a 3, and I was on a mission. Next time a 7.
Same card, didn't do a thing to it. Grading is subjective, with a human factor. There will always be variances. >>
I just love to hear stories like this, and I too would love to see a scan (if you have one available) for that card. It certainly gives hope to all those who remain determined even after a bad submission.
<< <i>Back when I looked at cards in the 70s and 80s - I wasn't any where near as fussy about centering as I am today.
When I went to a show in 1989, my first in years and years, I carried zero "weapons" with me - relied strictly on my eye.
If I were to go today? I would have a loupe and black light. And who knows? An electron microscope? >>
Just curious as to how many folks actually do possess the extra tools? Are they common to see at shows nowadays?
I myself have not been on the show scene since the early 90's. While I am quite active on the auction scene, my physical presence in the hobby is pretty much non-existent.
Bosox1976
I never saw the original thread, and I hate to make you repeat the story...but how did you go about getting the grade bump? It had to be a crack and submit???
I know "right holder" can be misconstrued to mean highest possible, but there a lots of members who grade the same issues over and over - so the right holder is meant as a reflection of where the card should grade based on a first-hand familiarity with past results.
The idea that standards change, when guys have lots of money tied up in the registry (and cards graded under different standards) is my second biggest beef. I don't think the published guidelines change... so how can standards? More likely that new graders do it their own way, I guess -- but I would greatly prefer continuity and adherence to quality control vis a vis the posted grading guidelines.
Bosox1976
I agree with your comment about familiarity with a particular issue, in my case the '52 Bowman set. Sometimes I just hate to look at the undergraded cards when I have enough overgraded cards on hand for proper comparison. I can only shake my head.
In the last week, I had an email conversation with a serious collector who crossed over much of his large PSA collection to SGC, to get another professional opinion more than anything else. He was nice enough to provide rough success %'s, and the results were interesting to me to say the least. Since this is not a crossover thread, I will reserve further comment, but I do want to say that I've thought about submitting my entire set for regrading upon its completion...just to see how it honestly and truly grades out.
<< <i>
<< <i>Back when I looked at cards in the 70s and 80s - I wasn't any where near as fussy about centering as I am today.
When I went to a show in 1989, my first in years and years, I carried zero "weapons" with me - relied strictly on my eye.
If I were to go today? I would have a loupe and black light. And who knows? An electron microscope? >>
Just curious as to how many folks actually do possess the extra tools? Are they common to see at shows nowadays?
I myself have not been on the show scene since the early 90's. While I am quite active on the auction scene, my physical presence in the hobby is pretty much non-existent. >>
Good question.
Went to a Tri-Star in Houston - did nothing for me. Didn't pay mind - it was about 8 yrs ago. Ebay has turned me into a slug.
<< <i>OcTrAdInG turn on your PM's >>
Done.