Can a PSA 10 have a "fish eye"?
steel75
Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭✭
By the M in Mel there is a bad one. Never mind the tilt as well. Too bad because I would have been going for this one.
1970's Steelers, Vintage Indians
0
Comments
Not familiar with 77 football cards but the black (where all pro is) is snow filled. Maybe that is standard. Not a good looking 10 to me.
I've seen 10s in the past with a fisheye.
Not familiar with the '77 Blount, but I think that's one ugly looking TEN!
Edited to add: I just looked at a "9" that is currently on eBay and the black area is not covered with snow ... it's pretty clean.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
It likely was a 4sc submission originally...send in 7s and 8s and pull 9s and 10s
I have seen PSA 10 cards with a fisheye before, BUT with all the snow it is a terrible looking PSA 10.
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)
By definition of the PSA grading standards it should NOT have a fisheye. Send it back to PSA and have them get it into a slab with the correct grade and ask them to reimburse you for the difference between what you paid and what smr is for the lower grades slab as per their guarantee.
Dave
And on top of all that, the t/l corner is touched
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Yes, many 10s do, though they are usually fairly small or faint like that one. A PSA 10 is not a perfect card and I doubt they will downgrade for that. Snow is much more impacful on the grade than a lone fisheye.
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.
yes.
Agree with those who surmised that a seagull pooped in his beard.
Let's see.....1 fish eye...snowy background....and tilted.
A classic case of buying the flip not the card. My 9 looks better.
Not if it wants to be in my collection!
Steve
I agree wholeheartedly. Psa 10 does not equal perfect.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
When submitting cards that only pay to hit a 10, I automatically reject any fisheye cards. Nothing but bad things have happened in my experience with fisheyes. I can only speculate it was missed or the grader felt the card was strong overall. I agree it does not look like a typical 10.
The graders look at thousands and thousands of cards a year. So to me a good way to begin grading (after determining authenticity), would be to take centering into affect first. If it doesn't look like a 10 centering, the card would be bumped to a 9 instantly. This procedure would eliminate thousand of 10's. For most cards 1980 and up and commons from 1972 and up (not 70's and back HOF), a 9 or lower doesn't really matter. So, I would review the card visually and place a grade on the card. Does it really matter if my 1978 common topps card is a 8 or 6, not really, the card has the same value. And in some cases why even encapsulate it. How do you store a bunch of 1984 topps PSA 7 cards. I would rather not have it graded in some cases.
If a card has perfect centering, you would put in a 10 category. It then would get the full treatment. And in my opinion would cut down on overlooking "fish eyes", etc on 10 cards.
As per the PSA standard for grade 10:
An allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card.
Sorry, but I cannot see how a fisheye does NOT impair the overall appeal of the card.
I've submitted some outrageous PSA 9s for review without fisheyes and no visible printing imperfection and been rejected because of "printing imperfections". Perhaps it's because they were star cards, not commons, and got extra scrutiny (which should not make a difference...standards should be the same no matter who is on the card)??? The point is that a fisheye is always something that stands out relative to the area of the card where it appears. It's a different color than the portion of the image it sits on and is noticeable. Even if it sits over the name or in a border and is not over the player image, it makes the appearance noticeably different than was intended and takes away from the appearance that was intended.
Gem Mint 10 should be reserved for the true rare and flawless card that has been perfectly preserved. Allowing a fisheye into a PSA slab is cheapening the meaning of the grade. That's what PSA 9 is for (something close to perfect but not 100% perfect).
Unlike other elements of grading, that are admittedly subjective in nature, this one is much more absolute. Unless every example of that card ever produced has the exact same imperfection, then if you can see it the card is a 9 and not a 10. If they all have it, then some could be 10s because for that card there is no better possible.
When it comes to fisheyes, I believe that this is not an imperfection that is the same on every example of the card in question. Therefore I feel strongly that fisheyed cards should never get a 10.
Dave
David, I think it's also important to note that all fisheyes are not created equal. For an egregious or prominent fisheye, I would agree with your assessment, but I don't agree that a smaller fisheye should preclude a card from attaining a gem mint grade if all other attributes are consistent with the PSA 10 criteria. In fact, a slight printing imperfection, as defined in the grading standard you posted above, would seem to pertain specifically to cases like that.
There are many attributes to consider when determining the grade of a card. Most people focus prinarily on centering and corners, but surface issues (besides fisheyes, like snow or PD) and card registration also play a huge part in the grading process.
I'm not suggesting that the card linked to above is a solid PSA 10 as there are other issues to consider besides the fisheye. We all have our opinions on what should constitute a gem mint card, but for me, personally, a minor fisheye is not a factor that should preclude an other pristine card from attaining a PSA 10 grade.
At the end of the day, card grading is a subjective exercise to some extent based on personal opinions and perceptions, but it's also important to remember that a gem mint card is not necessarily a flawless or perfect card, either.
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 could never purchase a PSA 10 with a fish eye because that would bug me every time I looked at it.
What may bother you, may not bother someone else. OTOH, a minor issue that may not bother you (like an OC back, for instance) may bother someone else. For me, an OC back is more annoying than a minor stray fisheye.
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'm definitely known for being a bit OCD with my cards, so I plead guilty on having very little tolerance for any defects.
That being said, I still think that the reason that the GEM MINT 10 grade exists is to distinguish between something that is "like new" despite being circulated (which is a PSA 9 in my eyes) versus something that is pristine and the best that it ever could have been (which is a PSA 10 in my eyes).
You should be able to say that you cannot get any better than "this" when talking about a PSA 10. Unless the same fisheye is on every example of the card that ever existed then even with a "minor" fisheye there is still the possibility of a better one.
Think of it this way. If there were two of the card in PSA 10 slabs in from of you. One was completely flawless and the other was identical in its characteristics except for the minor fisheye. Which one would every one of us choose?
Dave
David, I think you are missing my point. I acknowledge that there are higher end 10s and lower end 10s. Of course, if you place a lower end 10 next to a pristine 10, I'm going to select the card with nicer eye appeal. But that doesn't mean that the other 10 doesn't meet the criteria for the PSA 10 grade. You say that a PSA 10 should be a flawless card, but that is not the literal definition of what constitutes a gem mint card. PSA allows for 80/20 centering on back of a PSA 10 card and in some cases I've seen PSA 10 cards with closer to 90/10 centering on back. To me, that is too generous a standard for back centering as a card has two sides and as a collector, I'd want my PSA 10 to feature back centering no worse than 65/35. But I acknowledge that is not the case for the card to attain a PSA 10 grade. If you put a PSA 10 with a small fisheye but a perfectly centered back next to a card with no fisheye and 80/20 centering on back, I'll take the former every time. It's all relative to the tastes and preferences of the individual collector and what aspects appeal to them.
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.
Card sold for $1,076.99 big ones.......warts and all !!
It's a Pop 2 PSA 10 so never mind the fact that it's uglier than most 9's and does' belong in a 10 holder. Someone just moved up to 1st place on the Mel Blount Collection set registry and that creates madness like this sale.
TheClockworkAngelCollection
Buy the card, not the holder. GEM MINT is supposed to be reserved for the best examples of this specific card in mint condition ever made and still in that pristine state. This one wasn't even close.
Dave
I think the card was fairly graded. There is no such thing as flawless.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.