PWCC high end designation '55 Jackie Robinson psa-8.5

mintonlypls

Here is an example where both parties have it wrong. The distracting TILT takes away from what otherwise would be a beautiful high end card. I wish PSA would account for a distracting feature like tilt...just as is done for off centering which is another production flaw taking the eyes away from the subject. It is like hanging a masterpiece work of art crooked on the wall...not distracting right?

I understand PSA takes two grades away for off centering...PSA-9 OC = PSA-7 (straight)...then why not take at least a full grade away for tilt (especially when it is easily noticeable). Assuming then no deduction was made for tilt on the '55 Jackie Robinson...the "true" grade would then be a PSA-7.5.

Agree or disagree...the PWCC high end /PSA-8.5 Jackie Robinson is overgraded and not high end?

PaulMaul

I agree that tilt is one of the ugliest defects in terms of eye appeal. I believe the problem in factoring it into the grade is that, unlike centering, it's very difficult to quantify. Tilt can be anywhere from extremely minor to horribly severe, and PSA would need to decide how to measure it and how to deduct for it.

The Robinson card you refer to has what I would call moderate tilt. It bothers me, I wouldn't call it high end, but since we're getting PWCC's opinion (and nothing more) I guess the tilt doesn't bother them. It's a good example of the high end certification's meaninglessness. Can't we all assess the tilt and the rest of the eye appeal and decide for ourselves whether we like the card?

'55 Robinson PWCC

MULLINS5

Looks like the card was scanned at a tilt to make it appear better than it is.

mattyc_collection

While I concur with their assessment of the 1933 Goudey Ruth, I strongly disagree with their high-end designations of that Jackie and their 51B Mick. Goes to show it's all opinions all around.