Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

First PSA Sub, Hockey - Results Update Second Sub in (UGLY)

japhijaphi Posts: 223
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
1 1 21306171 MINT 9 1983 O-PEE-CHEE 376 SCOTT STEVENS Card
2 1 21306172 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1974 O-PEE-CHEE 280 LARRY ROBINSON Card
3 1 21306173 NEAR MINT 7 1974 O-PEE-CHEE 304 RICK MIDDLETON Card
4 1 21306174 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 O-PEE-CHEE 129 PAT LaFONTAINE Card
5 1 21306175 NEAR MINT 7 1981 O-PEE-CHEE 108 GLENN ANDERSON Card
6 1 21306176 NEAR MINT 7 1980 O-PEE-CHEE 289 MARK MESSIER Card

I think all the grades are fair. All for personal collection so no worries on being off a bit on any of them.

Really wanted an 8 on the Messier, the centering is great. Bought the card raw with no back scan so still OK with the result. Has to be one of the better 7's out there.

I think centering on the Anderson killed me. Need to see it again.

The Stevens had a minor issue with the bottom edge, was hoping it would slide through as a ten due to acceptable rough cut. Also had slight tilt so 9 sees fair.

The Robinson is a strong 8, I'm cool with that grade.

Overall first impression of PSA is positive, the sub popped 5 biz days from loggage (so 12 days from delivery confirmation).

Comments

  • rabbitpunchrabbitpunch Posts: 169
    Good stuff and all tough cards. Were these your freebies?
  • ChiefsFan1stChiefsFan1st Posts: 845 ✭✭✭
    Thats a lot better than my first sub! Congrats. Sounds like they were pretty close to what you were thinkingimage
    I dont wanna grow up, Im a Toys-R-Us kid!
  • japhijaphi Posts: 223
    Yes, all free subs. I have another 15 in for grading, will post those results as they come in.
  • japhijaphi Posts: 223


    << <i>Thats a lot better than my first sub! Congrats. Sounds like they were pretty close to what you were thinkingimage >>



    They were. I though the Mess would get an 8 due to centering. Neither here nor there as I would have submitted them all (except for the Anderson) even if I knew those would be the grades in advance. I really just want my collection slabbed and am happy with anything over a 7 for 70s/80s cards.
  • japhijaphi Posts: 223
    Second sub popped, this one is bad, real bad. Must have missed a surface wrinkle on the gretz. The Clarke is a suprise, it looks like a PSA 9 Trottier I have from the same year. The min size are strange on the bossy and the Clarke, bought as mid grade sets so no reason for them to be trimmed. Wasn't expecting anything over an 8 anyways.

    Overall not the end of the world, will still enjoy these cards in my collection.

    Will be buying all my cards slabbed going forward, this was generally a waste of time and money.

    1 1 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1987 O-PEE-CHEE 243 VIN DAMPHOUSSE Card
    2 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1986 O-PEE-CHEE 149 WENDEL CLARK Card
    3 1 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1986 O-PEE-CHEE 53 PATRICK ROY Card
    4 1 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1981 O-PEE-CHEE 198 MIKE BOSSY Card
    5 1 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1987 O-PEE-CHEE 42 LUC ROBITAILLE Card
    6 1 EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1978 O-PEE-CHEE 215 BOBBY CLARKE Card
    7 1 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1983 O-PEE-CHEE 167 BRIAN BELLOWS Card
    8 1 N8: MISCUT 1984 O-PEE-CHEE 121 PAT VERBEEK Card
    9 1 N8: MISCUT 1981 O-PEE-CHEE 269 PETER STASTNY Card
    10 1 N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1978 TOPPS 115 MIKE BOSSY Card
    11 1 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1977 O-PEE-CHEE 30 LARRY ROBINSON Card
    12 1 EXCELLENT 5 1979 O-PEE-CHEE 50 LARRY ROBINSON Card
    13 1 NEAR MINT 7 1977 O-PEE-CHEE 10 DENIS POTVIN Card
    14 1 VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1981 O-PEE-CHEE 106 WAYNE GRETZKY Card
    15 1 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1984 O-PEE-CHEE 327 CAM NEELY Card
  • EagleEyeKidEagleEyeKid Posts: 4,496 ✭✭
    Ouch!
  • Dpeck100Dpeck100 Posts: 10,912 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just an FYI, MIN SIZE is not a trimmed card. It is just short from the factory.

    When you get the cards back measure it up against the others and see if it appears to be smaller.

  • Bosox1976Bosox1976 Posts: 8,558 ✭✭✭✭✭
    a lot more good than bad there. a couple of klunkers, but couple of hits image
    Mike
    Bosox1976
  • japhijaphi Posts: 223
    Thanks Dpeck, didn't know that. Assumed they were saying trimming.

    Bososx - appreciate the positivity, your right there are some good cards in the mix. I actually thought the Roy might grade lower, and the Neely in an 8 is decent.
  • Big80sBig80s Posts: 2,758 ✭✭✭
    Those first several submissions make up the learning curve we all had to go through at some point. They'll help you hone your grading eye. And honestly - you didn't do that bad for a first time PSA submitter. Those PSA graders are tough!
    Let's Rip It: PackGeek.com
    Jeff
  • EagleEyeKidEagleEyeKid Posts: 4,496 ✭✭
    Don't get too discourage about your 2nd sub. You basically jumped into a swamp trying to swim and
    those 80s OPC are tough. With time and practice you'll get better. Glad to see another hockey guy on here image
  • MapleleafMapleleaf Posts: 506 ✭
    Any idea on why the miscut of the Verbeek and Stastny rookies?
  • japhijaphi Posts: 223


    << <i>Any idea on why the miscut of the Verbeek and Stastny rookies? >>



    No idea, and very curious to get the cards back. I had no qualifiers so maybe that's why they weren't slabbed. Thought both looked decent.
Sign In or Register to comment.