How is this a 4?? 53 satchel

shu4040

Ebay item id 111433530955

Am I losing my mind or is this the worst 4 ever? It looks like someone ate one corner

Dpeck100

Link

mattyc_collection

Wow. Why can't I get that grader

Lampy

NO WAY IN HELL...LOL!!!!!

angelenocarddude

don't these always turn out to be scammer crack open case job?

mattyc_collection

I don't see frosting or popped pins. Moreove the card is so egregiously out of synch with the grade; I would imagine a scammer with even a modicum of intelligence would try and fool us all by using a card that somewhat jives with the grade? A head-scratcher for sure, this one.

bounce

<< <i> Something is off. PSA should research this situation. >>



thats exactly what i was thinking

otwcards

I think you guys are being a bit too critical. The card, while having flaws and not being the prettiest example, meets the criteria for a PSA 4...

MikeyP

It's not. It should not have been graded any higher than PSA VG 3.

otwcards

Some other PSA 4's from the same issue:

Dpeck100

This is where I will never understand the surface wrinkle knocking a card down to a 5.

I have had a few that could have easily graded Mint and perhaps Gem Mint with a tiny wrinkle and down she goes.

To think a minor wrinkle that you have to work to find and it grades one point higher. Makes no since to me.

MikeyP

<< <i>I have had a few that could have easily graded Mint and perhaps Gem Mint with a tiny wrinkle and down she goes. >>



My 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr. RC was graded SGC 80 EX/NM 6 for that very reason. A tiny minuscule wrinkle that I did not even notice until I placed it under a bright light. I nearly turned into a gremlin while examining it upon its return.

otwcards

<< <i>This is where I will never understand the surface wrinkle knocking a card down to a 5.

I have had a few that could have easily graded Mint and perhaps Gem Mint with a tiny wrinkle and down she goes.

To think a minor wrinkle that you have to work to find and it grades one point higher. Makes no since to me. >>



Eye appeal... Give me a smoking card with a minor back wrinkle and I'll live with the technical grade.

I've got some vintage and prewar cards that have tape or album mounts on the back that would otherwise grade NM/MT or better, but would be in PSA 2 holders at best. I'll take them over an evenly worn EX card any day of the week!

Dpeck100

<< <i>

<< <i>This is where I will never understand the surface wrinkle knocking a card down to a 5.

I have had a few that could have easily graded Mint and perhaps Gem Mint with a tiny wrinkle and down she goes.

To think a minor wrinkle that you have to work to find and it grades one point higher. Makes no since to me. >>



Eye appeal... Give me a smoking card with a minor back wrinkle and I'll live with the technical grade.

I've got some vintage and prewar cards that have tape or album mounts on the back that would otherwise grade NM/MT or better, but would be in PSA 2 holders at best. I'll take them over an evenly worn EX card any day of the week! >>




I am waiting to get a trimmed card in the mail that looks great. I will take it over a 1 that appears a car has driven over it.

mattyc_collection

This is where the arbitrary grading definitions just really make the grading game go haywire. If that is a 4, that means it is 250% better than my Ruth M101.
So if that is a 4 then what are these? Some are not mine, just illustrating. Cards like that Paige "4" are why I will never let the stickers brainwash me and tell me what is "better." PSA should buy that card and put it in a 2 holder, because if the definitions can make that card the same as the 51 Mantle 4 below (which is not mine) then something is wrong and needs to be fixed.





















And so this Mantle is just .5 "better" than that Paige?

Dboneesq

I agree that there is NO WAY that card should be in a "4" holder. A tiny pin hole gets an automatic "1" but those two left corners are good enough to get a '4"?

mattyc_collection

Right on, Doug. I love looking at that card, by the way.

I don't know when the "founding fathers" of baseball card grading assembled at the card version of The Constitutional Convention and decided things like, "A pinhole or paper loss mean automatic 1," and, "Any crease means automatic 4." I sure would have liked to have the floor for a moment at that gathering.

It's a shame that laws can be rectified and changed (Prohibition, slavery, women's right to vote, various drugs' legality, to name a few), yet such baseball card grading guidelines are apparently sacrosanct.

Stingray

<< <i>Some other PSA 4's from the same issue:

>>



How are these from the same issue?? Not the same year.?

otwcards

<< <i>How are these from the same issue?? Not the same year.? >>



They're not. I screwed up...

vintagefun

When I subbed this card my thoughts were 10% chance 3.5, 75% chance at a 4, and a 15% chance I sneak a 4.5

Of course I got the 3.5, which I felt was their way of getting my review money.

Seeing this Paige irks me to the nth degree...especially because there appears to be a big wrinkle on back from TCG thru under the ERA.

mattyc_collection

If that Paige is a 4 your Mays is a 5.5.

I don't know why a card can be stained or written on and it gets docked less points than a speck of paper loss or a pinhole or a wrinkle. A micro wrinkle makes a card a max under 5 I think, and yet a card can be a 9ST which is a 7.