Here's an interesting story. About 10 years ago my favorite card, a 1956 Mantle was in a SGC 92 NM-MINT+ holder. I cracked it open, sure that it was closer to a 9 than an 8.5, and sent it to PSA. It was returned as "evidence of trimming". I was shocked since the card had slight rough cuts on two sides and the other two sides, although not like the others, were certainly not trimmed in my opinion. Plus I had owned the card for twenty years after buying a friend's uncle's collection way back in the late 1980s. Fortunately, I had taken a scan of the card in the SGC holder, front and back, and took it to the SGC booth at the next National Convention. I told them my story, gave them the scans (to prove they had previously graded it as 92), paid $50 and hoped for the best. A couple hours later I picked it up back in a SGC 92 (8.5) holder. The person I dealt with said several of their people thoroughly evaluated the card and in their opinion it was not trimmed and they concurred with the earlier grade it was given. Relieved!
So to continue, I really wanted it in a PSA holder so I submitted it as a crossover a few years ago. There was no way I was going to risk getting a lower grade or qualifier this time. Well, it came back in a PSA 8.5 holder. So to finally get it in the holder I wanted, I spent close to $200 in grading fees. But I am happy as can be as to how everything turned out and learned a lot about my level of risk-taking. I will never crack open a high value card again. Crossovers only!
So to Mintonlypis, all I can say is that you are one heck of a gambler and I hope you get the grades you desire!!!
Still no change in the pop report for 9's and 10's. I echo what Donato said, I'm checking this thread more than I click to see if my grades have popped.
@Dpeck100 said:
Sdub I am not certain what you mean by others don't understand the risk. Most don't have the guts to try this understandably so. The OP said he is a gambler. If the card comes back an 8 at the present time it loses half its value. If it comes back a 9 it increases by at least five times its value. This has a 1:8 risk reward ratio. A very well placed bet. Not to mention if it comes back in a lower grade it can be re submitted and he can try again or send it back to SGC and see what they say.
With all due respect, your risk assesment is flawed. Missing from your formula was this particular card was bought and sold three times since 2008 by wealthy collectors. None of them submitted to PSA; or maybe they did; which would make your risk ratio even worse.
I'm hoping for the best outcome here also.
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
@saucywombat said:
Must have been bad news or we would have heard by now
I'm afraid this may be correct. If the card did grade a 6, it is likely due to a surface wrinkle or defect, if it graded at all.
In either case, a very disappointing result.
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.
There is nothing flawed about it. Money is money. There are countless examples of cards being reviewed in the holder and being declined and then cracked out and recieving the desired grade. There are also countless examples of seasoned collectors selling cards to other collectors that have bumped on review. This guy is a big boy and if he loses he loses. There are plenty of people who will gamble this sum on hands of cards, penny stocks, options and so on and he made an educated guess and went with it.
In theory yes. I have paid for cards to crossover using this same logic only to have them fail and then crack them out and cross. I can't speak for him but perhaps he wanted to go with the highest probability option first.
@PSARich said:
Here's an interesting story. About 10 years ago my favorite card, a 1956 Mantle was in a SGC 92 NM-MINT+ holder. I cracked it open, sure that it was closer to a 9 than an 8.5, and sent it to PSA. It was returned as "evidence of trimming". I was shocked since the card had slight rough cuts on two sides and the other two sides, although not like the others, were certainly not trimmed in my opinion. Plus I had owned the card for twenty years after buying a friend's uncle's collection way back in the late 1980s. Fortunately, I had taken a scan of the card in the SGC holder, front and back, and took it to the SGC booth at the next National Convention. I told them my story, gave them the scans (to prove they had previously graded it as 92), paid $50 and hoped for the best. A couple hours later I picked it up back in a SGC 92 (8.5) holder. The person I dealt with said several of their people thoroughly evaluated the card and in their opinion it was not trimmed and they concurred with the earlier grade it was given. Relieved!
So to continue, I really wanted it in a PSA holder so I submitted it as a crossover a few years ago. There was no way I was going to risk getting a lower grade or qualifier this time. Well, it came back in a PSA 8.5 holder. So to finally get it in the holder I wanted, I spent close to $200 in grading fees. But I am happy as can be as to how everything turned out and learned a lot about my level of risk-taking. I will never crack open a high value card again. Crossovers only!
So to Mintonlypis, all I can say is that you are one heck of a gambler and I hope you get the grades you desire!!!
We have heard this story time and time again. What I want to know is what changes at PSA to allow a card to go from "evidence of trimming to an 8.5 holder? This just can't keep happening but it does over and over again. We have become conditioned to accept this as reasonable. Just look at the replies to this or any similar threads and you will see multiple posts saying oh just submit again next year, or crack and re submit.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@PSARich said:
Here's an interesting story. About 10 years ago my favorite card, a 1956 Mantle was in a SGC 92 NM-MINT+ holder. I cracked it open, sure that it was closer to a 9 than an 8.5, and sent it to PSA. It was returned as "evidence of trimming". I was shocked since the card had slight rough cuts on two sides and the other two sides, although not like the others, were certainly not trimmed in my opinion. Plus I had owned the card for twenty years after buying a friend's uncle's collection way back in the late 1980s. Fortunately, I had taken a scan of the card in the SGC holder, front and back, and took it to the SGC booth at the next National Convention. I told them my story, gave them the scans (to prove they had previously graded it as 92), paid $50 and hoped for the best. A couple hours later I picked it up back in a SGC 92 (8.5) holder. The person I dealt with said several of their people thoroughly evaluated the card and in their opinion it was not trimmed and they concurred with the earlier grade it was given. Relieved!
So to continue, I really wanted it in a PSA holder so I submitted it as a crossover a few years ago. There was no way I was going to risk getting a lower grade or qualifier this time. Well, it came back in a PSA 8.5 holder. So to finally get it in the holder I wanted, I spent close to $200 in grading fees. But I am happy as can be as to how everything turned out and learned a lot about my level of risk-taking. I will never crack open a high value card again. Crossovers only!
So to Mintonlypis, all I can say is that you are one heck of a gambler and I hope you get the grades you desire!!!
We have heard this story time and time again. What I want to know is what changes at PSA to allow a card to go from "evidence of trimming to an 8.5 holder? This just can't keep happening but it does over and over again. We have become conditioned to accept this as reasonable. Just look at the replies to this or any similar threads and you will see multiple posts saying oh just submit again next year, or crack and re submit.
I think in many cases the assessment is based on the opinion of the grader. There are certainly cases in which the evidence of trimming is cut and dried, but in many other cases, there is some gray area involved. Opinions in any professional field or service frequently vary from person to person or even, in some cases, with the same person, over time. As long as human beings are doing the grading, this kind of variance or subjectivity will be found.
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.
@Dpeck100 said:
In theory yes. I have paid for cards to crossover using this same logic only to have them fail and then crack them out and cross. I can't speak for him but perhaps he wanted to go with the highest probability option first.
What about submitting for crossover with min of 8 (essentially a realistic crossover grade from SGC mint). If approved, asking PSA to send card back in original SGC holder. Then cracking it out and submitting looking for 9. At least then he knows where his bottom is; and he also knows min size and small hidden creases are off the table. Most of the risk essentially eliminated on the crack out.
I think we all agree asking for a 9 on a SGC Mint crossover is not going to happen on a competitors slab. I'm suggesting asking for an 8 or 7.5, which flushes our your risk. But not reslabbing it.
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
Cannot see that card getting a 6. Either it will grade 8 or higher or not grade at all. Betting the 6 was a different card. Also curious to see how it went with the '67 Rose.
@brad31 said:
Cannot see that card getting a 6. Either it will grade 8 or higher or not grade at all. Betting the 6 was a different card. Also curious to see how it went with the '67 Rose.
One thing that is not evident or apparent in a scan is a surface issue or defect which could pull the technical grade down to a 6 or 6.5 on an otherwise mint or gem mint card. Not saying necessarily that this particular card had one, but it happens all the time.
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.
Anyone know how to look at the pop report on the Rose and Maris to see if they changed too? If all three changed then I would bet the Munson was the 6. Otherwise holding out hope for the OP that it has not popped yet.
@brad31 said:
Cannot see that card getting a 6. Either it will grade 8 or higher or not grade at all. Betting the 6 was a different card. Also curious to see how it went with the '67 Rose.
One thing that is not evident or apparent in a scan is a surface issue or defect which could pull the technical grade down to a 6 or 6.5 on an otherwise mint or gem mint card. Not saying necessarily that this particular card had one, but it happens all the time.
If it is a PSA 6, there will be a lot of buyers for that puppy.
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
@brad31 said:
Cannot see that card getting a 6. Either it will grade 8 or higher or not grade at all. Betting the 6 was a different card. Also curious to see how it went with the '67 Rose.
One thing that is not evident or apparent in a scan is a surface issue or defect which could pull the technical grade down to a 6 or 6.5 on an otherwise mint or gem mint card. Not saying necessarily that this particular card had one, but it happens all the time.
If it is a PSA 6, there will be a lot of buyers for that puppy.
No doubt bout that. That card would immediately vault into the upper echelon of lower grade cards with maximum eye appeal.
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.
@brad31 said:
Cannot see that card getting a 6. Either it will grade 8 or higher or not grade at all. Betting the 6 was a different card. Also curious to see how it went with the '67 Rose.
One thing that is not evident or apparent in a scan is a surface issue or defect which could pull the technical grade down to a 6 or 6.5 on an otherwise mint or gem mint card. Not saying necessarily that this particular card had one, but it happens all the time.
If it is a PSA 6, there will be a lot of buyers for that puppy.
No doubt bout that. That card would immediately vault into the upper echelon of lower grade cards with maximum eye appeal.
PWCC Hi-End maybe
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
No doubt bout that. That card would immediately vault into the upper echelon of lower grade cards with maximum eye appeal.
I still think this card should be an 8, but I don't have the stomach to crack it right now....
David,
I would try reviewing it first. No downside with potential upside and it's already in a PSA holder. Worth a shot, imo.
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.
@travis t said:
Anyone who thinks the Munson will spend more than an afternoon siesta in a 6 or 6.5 holder needs to put down the hookah.
Perhaps it is being reviewed after being graded as we speak. That may explain why the OP hasn't updated this thread.
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.
@Dpeck100 said:
This guy is a big boy and if he loses he loses. There are plenty of people who will gamble this sum on hands of cards, penny stocks, options and so on and he made an educated guess and went with it.
@Dpeck100 said:
This guy is a big boy and if he loses he loses. There are plenty of people who will gamble this sum on hands of cards, penny stocks, options and so on and he made an educated guess and went with it.
...what he said
I'm on board with this mindset as well.
The stupid bet is to throw darts in the dark. If your going to trust anything, would you rather trust your own judgement, the judgment of others, or luck?
thought I'd throw up some '71 eye candy. Love this year. Probably my most favorite cards to buy in the 70's. I'm happy with my Munson.
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
@Dpeck100 said:
I agree those are great looking cards.
No change in the 8, 8.5 and 9 population totals. Hopefully for the OP it is still being reviewed.
At one point in time were there a lot of uncut sheets from this set? Perhaps it was sheet cut if so.
If it was sheet cut, PSA shouldn't grade it period. They definitely shouldn't assign it a 6.5. Should be an altered/trimmed type of return. It sounds like he is going to have to crack it out of PSA to send back to its original holder. Only worry is do they holder it the same or has the black edge chipping gotten worse over two recent crackouts, not counting what PSA did with it on their end... I hope the previous grade was undergraded before which was OP's hope and ours from beginning when he cracked it out.
I sure hope for his sake that it was coincidental that another card hit the population report at the same time. I am obviously a PSA guy but it isn't like a vintage card graded by SGC is garbage. Matter of fact it is my understanding that years ago SGC had a very good grading staff and for a card to go from a Mint grade to EXMT+ would be very unfortunate.
This thread is like a classic Seinfeld episode. A bunch of people talking about a whole bunch of stuff which somehow relates to the actual plot, however, the essential theme is that nothing is happening. It's a show about NOTHING!
I think it has all the ingredients for a nice thread: cracking out a high dollar card, the love for Munson, and the love for the black bordered 71 Topps Baseball.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@garnettstyle said:
I can't believe the op posted this thread before the pop. Talk about stupid.
Looking at those 71's never gets old.
Mullins5 said:
The real gamble is posting this for the graders / PSA to see prior to them receiving it.
The above comments just don't jive well with me. Are you suggesting what someone posts on a message board would affect the grading of their cards? I trust that PSA has enough integrity and ethics to not let a post affect how they judge a piece of cardboard.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Comments
Good luck!!
FINGERS CROSSED!!!
WTB: PSA 1 - PSA 3 Centered, High Eye Appeal 1950's Mantle
No results yet?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The suspense is killing me and it's not my card!!!
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
Here's an interesting story. About 10 years ago my favorite card, a 1956 Mantle was in a SGC 92 NM-MINT+ holder. I cracked it open, sure that it was closer to a 9 than an 8.5, and sent it to PSA. It was returned as "evidence of trimming". I was shocked since the card had slight rough cuts on two sides and the other two sides, although not like the others, were certainly not trimmed in my opinion. Plus I had owned the card for twenty years after buying a friend's uncle's collection way back in the late 1980s. Fortunately, I had taken a scan of the card in the SGC holder, front and back, and took it to the SGC booth at the next National Convention. I told them my story, gave them the scans (to prove they had previously graded it as 92), paid $50 and hoped for the best. A couple hours later I picked it up back in a SGC 92 (8.5) holder. The person I dealt with said several of their people thoroughly evaluated the card and in their opinion it was not trimmed and they concurred with the earlier grade it was given. Relieved!
So to continue, I really wanted it in a PSA holder so I submitted it as a crossover a few years ago. There was no way I was going to risk getting a lower grade or qualifier this time. Well, it came back in a PSA 8.5 holder. So to finally get it in the holder I wanted, I spent close to $200 in grading fees. But I am happy as can be as to how everything turned out and learned a lot about my level of risk-taking. I will never crack open a high value card again. Crossovers only!
So to Mintonlypis, all I can say is that you are one heck of a gambler and I hope you get the grades you desire!!!
Still no change in the pop report for 9's and 10's. I echo what Donato said, I'm checking this thread more than I click to see if my grades have popped.
There was a new 6 grade added to the pop.
Must have been bad news or we would have heard by now
saucywombat@hotmail.com
With all due respect, your risk assesment is flawed. Missing from your formula was this particular card was bought and sold three times since 2008 by wealthy collectors. None of them submitted to PSA; or maybe they did; which would make your risk ratio even worse.
I'm hoping for the best outcome here also.
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
I'm afraid this may be correct. If the card did grade a 6, it is likely due to a surface wrinkle or defect, if it graded at all.
In either case, a very disappointing result.
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.
'twas a 6.5
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
There is nothing flawed about it. Money is money. There are countless examples of cards being reviewed in the holder and being declined and then cracked out and recieving the desired grade. There are also countless examples of seasoned collectors selling cards to other collectors that have bumped on review. This guy is a big boy and if he loses he loses. There are plenty of people who will gamble this sum on hands of cards, penny stocks, options and so on and he made an educated guess and went with it.
isnt it safer to do it in the case first as a review ? then maybe pop out ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
In theory yes. I have paid for cards to crossover using this same logic only to have them fail and then crack them out and cross. I can't speak for him but perhaps he wanted to go with the highest probability option first.
Psa 6
Chaz
We have heard this story time and time again. What I want to know is what changes at PSA to allow a card to go from "evidence of trimming to an 8.5 holder? This just can't keep happening but it does over and over again. We have become conditioned to accept this as reasonable. Just look at the replies to this or any similar threads and you will see multiple posts saying oh just submit again next year, or crack and re submit.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I think in many cases the assessment is based on the opinion of the grader. There are certainly cases in which the evidence of trimming is cut and dried, but in many other cases, there is some gray area involved. Opinions in any professional field or service frequently vary from person to person or even, in some cases, with the same person, over time. As long as human beings are doing the grading, this kind of variance or subjectivity will be found.
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.
What about submitting for crossover with min of 8 (essentially a realistic crossover grade from SGC mint). If approved, asking PSA to send card back in original SGC holder. Then cracking it out and submitting looking for 9. At least then he knows where his bottom is; and he also knows min size and small hidden creases are off the table. Most of the risk essentially eliminated on the crack out.
I think we all agree asking for a 9 on a SGC Mint crossover is not going to happen on a competitors slab. I'm suggesting asking for an 8 or 7.5, which flushes our your risk. But not reslabbing it.
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
Cannot see that card getting a 6. Either it will grade 8 or higher or not grade at all. Betting the 6 was a different card. Also curious to see how it went with the '67 Rose.
One thing that is not evident or apparent in a scan is a surface issue or defect which could pull the technical grade down to a 6 or 6.5 on an otherwise mint or gem mint card. Not saying necessarily that this particular card had one, but it happens all the time.
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.
Maybe it was reviewed by the same graded that reviewed it the last three times.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
Anyone know how to look at the pop report on the Rose and Maris to see if they changed too? If all three changed then I would bet the Munson was the 6. Otherwise holding out hope for the OP that it has not popped yet.
Now there is a blast from the past!!
If it is a PSA 6, there will be a lot of buyers for that puppy.
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
No doubt bout that. That card would immediately vault into the upper echelon of lower grade cards with maximum eye appeal.
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.
PWCC Hi-End maybe
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
If that card is in a 6 hold there is 0 chance it's gonna stay there.
I still think this card should be an 8, but I don't have the stomach to crack it right now....
I'm interested in it if it is a six but my guess the line goes around the block for that one!
The view count on this thread has ballooned over the past day! I guess there are a few waiting with baited breath.
eBay Store
Greg Maddux #1 Master SetGreg Maddux #2 Basic Set
David,
I would try reviewing it first. No downside with potential upside and it's already in a PSA holder. Worth a shot, imo.
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.
Anyone who thinks the Munson will spend more than an afternoon siesta in a 6 or 6.5 holder needs to put down the hookah.
Perhaps it is being reviewed after being graded as we speak. That may explain why the OP hasn't updated this thread.
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.
Always a fan of thickening plots.
The real gamble is posting this for the graders / PSA to see prior to them receiving it.
...what he said
I'm on board with this mindset as well.
The stupid bet is to throw darts in the dark. If your going to trust anything, would you rather trust your own judgement, the judgment of others, or luck?
Kevin
Kevin
thought I'd throw up some '71 eye candy. Love this year. Probably my most favorite cards to buy in the 70's. I'm happy with my Munson.
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
"These go to eleven."
Where's OddRodz when you need him.
Kevin
I can't believe the op posted this thread before the pop. Talk about stupid.
Looking at those 71's never gets old.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I agree those are great looking cards.
No change in the 8, 8.5 and 9 population totals. Hopefully for the OP it is still being reviewed.
At one point in time were there a lot of uncut sheets from this set? Perhaps it was sheet cut if so.
If it was sheet cut, PSA shouldn't grade it period. They definitely shouldn't assign it a 6.5. Should be an altered/trimmed type of return. It sounds like he is going to have to crack it out of PSA to send back to its original holder. Only worry is do they holder it the same or has the black edge chipping gotten worse over two recent crackouts, not counting what PSA did with it on their end... I hope the previous grade was undergraded before which was OP's hope and ours from beginning when he cracked it out.
I sure hope for his sake that it was coincidental that another card hit the population report at the same time. I am obviously a PSA guy but it isn't like a vintage card graded by SGC is garbage. Matter of fact it is my understanding that years ago SGC had a very good grading staff and for a card to go from a Mint grade to EXMT+ would be very unfortunate.
This thread is like a classic Seinfeld episode. A bunch of people talking about a whole bunch of stuff which somehow relates to the actual plot, however, the essential theme is that nothing is happening. It's a show about NOTHING!
BTW, no soup for any of you!
A
Thanks
LMAO.
I think we are all this person right now.
I think it has all the ingredients for a nice thread: cracking out a high dollar card, the love for Munson, and the love for the black bordered 71 Topps Baseball.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
The above comments just don't jive well with me. Are you suggesting what someone posts on a message board would affect the grading of their cards? I trust that PSA has enough integrity and ethics to not let a post affect how they judge a piece of cardboard.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.