The Clammy Controversy
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,889 ✭✭✭✭✭
This post has to do with a Wacky Packages card, but the larger question should be of interest to all.
There is a Wacky sticker called Clammy Soap. One of the titles adjacent to it on the uncut sheet is Baby Runt Candy Bar. Baby Runt was placed on the sheet in such a way that it infringes on the white space of the Clammy border. As a result, when Clammy is properly centered, there is a piece of Baby Runt visible on the card. The only way the Clammy card is free of Baby Runt is if it is O/C approximately 65/35.
As a result, there has never been a PSA 9 Clammy graded by PSA. That is until a dealer I'm acquainted with convinced PSA that the "centered" Clammy (showing part of Baby Runt) should potentially be worthy of a PSA 9 or 10 because that is the way the card would always occur (see picture below).
I personally feel this is a mistake, because such a card has the appearance of being miscut even if it is not, and is not aesthetically what I would want out of a PSA 9. I would much rather have the 65/35 PSA 8 with no trace of Baby Runt.
I'm wondering what other collectors think about this issue.
Comments
This is the same exact problem there is with the Frank Thomas 1987 Pan Am Games Olympic card. The back has printing that is off center. There are several graded 10 with the back wording showing from an adjacent card, but if you send it in, it is likely to comeback with an OC designation. I have argued with PSA multiple times and have shown them examples of PSA 10 with the wording and you cannot convince them of anything. Its pot luck, but I am not going to crack and submit a dozen times to get a card into the holder it should have been in the first place
What you describe with the Frank Thomas is why I feel accommodating such errors is a slippery slope. We all know there are cards with notoriously bad back centering like the 1973 All-Time HR Leaders, etc. Are we now going to say "that's the way they all are, so we won't penalize it?" I don't understand that logic.
thats different. never seen one before but it is different
As long as PSA grades them consistently, then I don't think it really makes any difference.
What I don't understand is how these phenomena are different from cards that are always off center. Should the centering on 1972 Bob Barton IA cards or 1972 Expos Team Cards be ignored just because those cards are naturally OC based on their sheet positions?
And I think grading an aesthetically ugly card like the Clammy above a 9 or 10 does make a difference, because a grading system at the end of the day is supposed to reflect a consensus on a card's desirability and aesthetics.
But what if there is no consensus? What if 50% of collectors think it should be a 9, and 50% don't?
I totally misread Baby Runt Candy Bar the first time. Whew.
In the case of the 72 Topps cards you cited, are all examples of those cards OC? If even a tiny percentage of those cards are centered well enough for a Mint 9 grade, then that comparison is invalid.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You're right, the Clammy cannot be found well centered without the infringement. I guess I just don't understand why that means the infringement should be ignored. I'm perfectly OK with the idea that a sheet layout error means that card cannot exist in a given top grade.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I agree, although I think the decision lies in the hands of PSA. It's ultimately up to them to define what the meaning of a PSA 9/10 is... is a PSA 10 the absolutely best looking card meeting the top thresholds for all characteristics or is it the best a particular card could ever look in it's natural state from the factory? Since the Clammy can't be found perfectly centered without the infringement, I would say it's part of the card itself and would not detract from the grade (if all other characteristics were within the range for that grade). But I'm with you personally, I'd much rather have a slightly OC one without the infringement.
Personally, I don't think they should make exceptions to the grading standards for every one-off issue of card placement on a sheet; it's a slippery slope down to BVG standards. Unfortunately, not every grader would be aware that this card should be an exception and it leads to further inconsistency in applying the standards. Sounds like a 9(MC) or straight 8 should be the top grade possible for this card and those who collect the set should be aware. 9(MC) would be preferred among those that value centering above all else and 8 would be preferred by those that value maximizing their registry standings more.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I would prefer the PSA 9 which a tad showing of the Baby Runt card. There are a couple of issues like this in some of the sets that I have collected over the years and an experienced collector of that set would recognize the "common flaw" and perhaps over look it. If you asked 100 collectors from this set which they would prefer, I believe you would find a pretty close split down the middle. To each his own.
Fair enough, I disagree with PSA's decision but I'm still free to aspire to the nicest card I can find without the infringement, and whatever minor effect it has on the registry numbers doesn't really matter to me anyway.
Great suggestion, I'd be much happier with that plan.
If a card has to be off-center or miscut to be considered Mint or better, that in and of itself is quite the paradox, considering centering and cut is used to determine grade.
The issue with the Clammy is that it ISN'T miscut. If I subbed that 9 and it came back with a MC qualifier, I would expect the flip to be corrected at no charge. We tend to associate seeing part of another card as a miscut card, and in most cases that's true. But in this case, the Clammy can be perfectly cut and still show the infringement. I could see there never being a 10 of this card for that reason. It can be perfect in all aspects except for eye appeal (isn't that the main difference between a 9 and 10?)... and therefore capping it at a 9.
That was my point. It needs to be miscut for them to find it Mint? lol Weird.
By definition of the MC grading standard, it's miscut if it contains portions of more than one card. I don't see how anyone can argue that doesn't apply with a centered Clammy. I'm assuming a centered Baby Runt is missing part of the right edge? Technically, that should still be able to get a 10 if there's no portion of another card showing.
I was thinking about that this afternoon. Strangely, Baby Runt has six 9s and three 10s. My 9 does seem generous based on the apparent centering. I think the Baby Runt must have some extra space on the left edge.
i say this w the sincerest intentions. this is your set and your baby. and since you posed the question and to avoid conflict of interest, i gotta throw your opinion right out the window. again, respectfully.
dont know much about the set, but i do like the little additional footnote that these two cards add to the lore of the set.
i also like the runt inclusion on the clammy card for another reason. knowing that it was a manuf flaw and being a centering nut, my eye would automatically look for the inclusion in a time saving manner. didn't see it, auto skip. again, this is only based on the info provided that the card couldnt be considered centered unless the inclusion was present. and conversely, it would bug me knowing my card was uncentered if it werent there.
so, gotta take psa's stance and agree w the call on the 9 if and only if the playing field was consistent after this card was graded and cards that didnt have it were designated oc. as others mentioned, consistency is the key issue.
furthermore, if it were my baby, id have to have 2 copies of each card, honestly. inclusion and inclusion-free examples.
one question for ya though...
is there an example of the runt card graded an 8.5 or 9 that does not have the full candy bar on the card?
bc conversely for that clammy to be graded a 9 would mean the only way for the runt card to recieve a non-qualified grade, it would have to have a piece of that border missing, right?
Finally! I thread on this forum that represents what is fun about this great hobby. I love it.
I am a collector of over 40 years and my opinion changed twice while reading the posts of others.
Count me as "still undecided." But I know oif cards I collect for which I have wrestled with this question for years, without fully realizing what was going on. Thank you to all who weighed in with their knowledge.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
so i definitely feel the clammy 9 w runt inclusion is correct and conversely a runt should only recieve a 9 if it were actually missing the border. a lil' wacky, indeed.
I see two issues being discussed. First the position of the card on a sheet making it "difficult" for good centering and second a printing issue where every single example has bad back centering or as in the wacky card, part of another card showing.
I would give no "help" with the first problem of sheet position, a 10 could be achieved, even if there are few (or none) that qualify.
On the Wacky example a 9 is certainly as high as I would go, and I would (if I ran PSA) note that a 10 was not possible. Kind of making a 9 a 10 without actually giving one out.
OR you could call the "CLAMMY" card an uncorrected error and give a perfectly centered one a 10?!?!?!?
Production issues (I used to work in printing) are interesting, some people actually like the "rough cut" on some cards, (especially OPC cards), in my opinion card edges should be smooth, even if the cutting process made this almost (but not completely) impossible. Same could be said of a card where the film didn't line up top to bottom, and the back and front can NEVER be in alignment.
I would not give a card with a rough cut or imperfect centering a 10 no matter what, but I would be ok with a 9.
Good discussion!