First Submission Ever - Bummer

Materhead

Something compelled me a few weeks back to pull out boxes and boxes of well organized football and baseball cards that I collected back in the mid-70's. I had not looked at them in 30 years. I researched and read the boards, reviewed the cards and selected a few to send in for grading. Had no idea but to me, they were crisp, sharp, four square corners. That is the extent of my knowledge. They all came back in the 5,6 & 7 range with a few 8's. Not what I expected but not surprised since I am clearly not an expert. I do have one question, if they have a slight curvature, meaning they do not lay perfectly flat, will that hurt their grading? If so, can you put them in a sleeve and press them in a book for some time to flatten them back out. Sorry if this is a stupid question.

I do have a stack of cards from my dad that include a 49' Bowman Jackie Robinson Rookie and a bunch of early 50's Topps but no big names I recognize. Even though they look good to me I'll bet they are 3's.......

Anyway, back to the closet they go.........

MULLINS5

Happens to all of us!

Regardless of the grade, I'd get the Jackie holdered by PSA.

I've had curved cards get 10s...so I don't think it matters unless the curvature caused a light surface wrinkle, or something else.

Materhead

Thanks for the input. My wife is telling me the same on some of my dads cards. Curvature is not nearly enough to cause any surface wrinkles so I guess they have other imperfections.

I tried to post a photo of the Robinson rookie but I just got a long line of characters like:

Materhead

Here is back:

Beck6

Sub that Jackie for sure. Gorgeous card

MarsAttacks

Welcome to the boards! That is a really nice Robinson - Looks like a solid 3-4, and presents beautifully!

Brick

Hi, hello, how are ya? welcome

ElvisP

Definitely sub the Robinson. Looks like a 4 to me. Presents very well. Curvature should not effect grade. Basically all cards that com from vending are curved.

Materhead

OK, thanks all. Will probably sub some of my older cards. Debating on the better cards from the mid 70's through 1980 / 81 if they do not have a chance for a solid 8+.

I will say I certainly enjoyed getting them back out and looking through all of them. Not a very sentimental type of person but I was absolutely transported back to the day I got the card on a few of them. Weird how some of those memories stay in your head after 40+ years.

LarkinCollector

I would recommend posting some scans/pics here of what you think are solid 8s prior to submission and any cards you can't determine why they graded what they did. I think most of us were disappointed in out first subs, and feedback from others here will help determine what you are missing to attain the grades you desire.

I think this hobby transports many of us back to simpler times and memories. Thanks for sharing!

Materhead

OK, here are pictures of a few. Didn't mean to imply I thought they were 8's or better, just saying that I cannot imagine there would be a return on the investment of submission if they did not at least grade that high.

Now that I start taking close up photos, I can certainly see flaws here and there.

Have at them, won't hurt my feelings.

Dboneesq

Welcome to the boards. As has already been said, post your cards here before sending in and you will probably get a good idea of what they would grade.
DEFINITELY send in that Jackie. In a "3" it's a $750.00 card .... If it gets in a "4" holder ... A GRAND! Best of luck.

Piggs

I would put Rickey and Dorsett into the 4-5 grade range. Congrats on the Robinson card.

divecchia

Welcome!!!

That is a bummer on the sub, but you will get better with time. Good luck with your future subs.

I would grade the Jackie.

Donato

robert67

.

Dboneesq

I agree with Doug (Piggs) ... those cards probably get graded no higher than a "5".

dontippet

Before I started grading, I had a card that looked like a 10 to me, and thought about joining PSA for that card alone. Years later, I did start subbing but forgot about that original card. Years later, when I looked at that card, I couldn't believe that I thought it was a ten. It was probably a 7 and it was now obvious to me since I had been in the grading game for the past few years. I couldn't believe it was even the same card that I originally thought was perfect. It was black border and had white showing, but for some reason it originally looked perfect to me.

dennis07

The corners on the cards you posted would make them no better than a 6 IMO. Cards I've submitted first have to be well centered and second I have looked at the corners under magnification. If I see signs of wear I can be almost certain that they wont get an 8. If steps 1& 2 look good I check the surface for imperfections These 3 steps normally eliminate 99 out of 100 cards (for my 1970 Topps) from an 8 possibility. Most important for me is to not fall in love with a card at first sight. What I mean is that at first glance the card looks mint but after examination the flaws become obvious. I have to tendency to want to overlook the flaws in these cases.

Materhead

Thanks, I can see all that you guys talk about in how I first viewed the cards. I am definitely going to submit the Jackie and a few of my other 49' Bowman's as well as the 52' & 53' Topps. If nothing else, they will make a nice addition to my other sports paraphernalia I have collected over the years.

Materhead

OK, I have another questions before I submit. I noticed that some of the back of my 52' Topps cards appear to be Gray rather than white. I did a little research and it appears the gray cards are rarer than the rest. But, I also notice when I go to submit that the (4) I have with a gray background are not ones previously recognized by PSA. So, am I just confused on what a "gray" 52' Topps is or do I have a few cards that nobody else has seen yet?

Materhead

Any ideas / guidance on the question above?

DerekD

The grey backs that matter are #131 to 190. The common of these are the white back, like you have. All the other in the set that are grey back are always grey back.

LarkinCollector

More info on the 52 set: http://www.psacard.com/articles/articleview/5541/psa-set-registry-1952-topps-baseball-cards-much-more-than-meets-eye

divecchia

I don't collect the 52 set, but that was a good read.

Thanks for the link.

Donato

LarkinCollector

@divecchia said:
I don't collect the 52 set, but that was a good read.

Thanks for the link.

Donato

I don't collect it either, but found the articles for other sets that I do very informative and enjoyed this one as well.

KbKards

The Jackie Robinson 1949 has numerous creases visible front and back. It will grade 2-3 at best, but because of the great look of the card it will be worth more in the range of a 3-4 grade card. On your 1952 149, a card like that will receive a MC-Miscut grade qualifier, which will greatly decrease the value and interest level of the card to collectors.

53BKid

Hey Materhead, welcome!

Your Jackie looks like a very appealing card. The fuzziness on the corners and surface wear will hold the grade back. Not sure from the photos what KbKards is referencing in regard to observed creasing. My guess is it comes back a 4. Follow up on this thread and let us know how you fare!

divecchia

@53BKid said:
Hey Materhead, welcome!

Your Jackie looks like a very appealing card. The fuzziness on the corners and surface wear will hold the grade back. Not sure from the photos what KbKards is referencing in regard to observed creasing. My guess is it comes back a 4. Follow up on this thread and let us know how you fare!

If you click on the photo, it allows you to enlarge the card significantly and you can see some creasing especially on the back.

Donato

Materhead

Mailed them all off today and will update when they come back. Thanks!

Cakes

@LarkinCollector said:
More info on the 52 set: http://www.psacard.com/articles/articleview/5541/psa-set-registry-1952-topps-baseball-cards-much-more-than-meets-eye

Lark, amazing link, thank you.

Here is a link to the main article section:

http://www.psacard.com/articles