Options
This is what makes me insane about the grading cards game
CARDSINLOSANGELES
Posts: 302 ✭✭✭
These are both 5s. Where is the consistency? How can we all pretend that PSA knows best when we see things like this? 
0
CARDSINLOSANGELES
Posts: 302 ✭✭✭
Comments
No way that top card gets a 5 these days. I firmly believe grading standards have gotten quite a bit more stringent over the years. Just from memory, I believe that's one of their very early holders and probably graded 15 years ago or better?
buy the card ... not the holder!
sjjs28@comcast.net
Collector of 1964 Topps Stand Ups, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game and 1969 Topps Decals
Registered Sets: 1964 Stand Ups, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game, 1969 Topps Decals
I would be stunned if the top card was the original card in that holder, old holder or not.
That could very well be a flip typing error.
Has happened in the past and will continue in the future.
Also, a mess of cert. numbers were deleted around that number which may be part of the problem?
Although possible, I don't think likely. There's a better chance that the folks in the market for a 5 on that card would be a bit more judgmental on condition. Someone with VCP access could probably give examples of realized prices on 5's with old flips versus new flips and be able to see the range with regard to a lower realized price looking inferior to the stronger realized price.
100% agree. This is not a legit PSA card. Buyer beware.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
What really gets me is when I submit a modern/vintage mix and a noticeably worn card from the 60s will get a 5 and a card from 2000 with what has to be a microscopic surface scratch or undetectable crease will also get a 5 ¯_(ツ)_/¯
But that's just the grading game and I've learned to accept it.
I agree it is hard to believe that the top card is a legit 5. Either the card was swapped out or there was an error made on the label.
Ok, I'll ask the question............
Could the card in the OP be one of the dreaded "WIWAG" cards that is still floating around undetected?
IMHO, that card is no better than a 2(MC).
Steve
https://psacard.com/Articles/ArticleView/3741/card-fraud-update
i think the bottom card received a PSA 5 because it is O/C,sometimes PSA downgrades a card instead of giving it a qualifier.
Let's all take a step back and reflect on what an awesome card this is. Great design, great pic, great pose. The Mick taking one last run at greatness.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
The top one looks like a lower-grade card that got switched-out and the bottom looks like a photoshop. The bottom one appears to have four sharp corners, solid edges, no print marks and 60/40 LR and 80/20 UD centering - that looks much better than PSA's description of a 5. If real, that should have been no worse than a 7 with an (OC) qualifier(assuming the back doesn't have some flaw).
And yes, that is one of my favorite Mantle cards.
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
I think it's shame so much of the grade has become based on centering/t/b. The card in the new flip is much nicer then a PSA 5.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
7(OC) = 5 and many prefer no qualifiers.
It's not appropriate to expect all cards of a given grade to be equally appealing.
The grade PSA 6 requires at least 80/20 centering on the front. Let's say this card has one centering measurement of 85/15. Then it is not a PSA 6 no matter how nice it is otherwise. It might be a 9 OC, but that does not guarantee it is a straight 7 if it doesn't meet the centering requirements of a 7.
On the other hand, once the card is down to a 5 because of the centering, other defects that are acceptable for a 5 (corner wear) will not necessarily lower the grade further. So what you will have is two accurately graded 5s, one of which looks much nicer than the other.
Technical grade does not equal eye appeal. Bottom line.
No way that card is a 7(OC), what makes it a 7? IMHO it looks like a 9(OC).
I do get your point about the qualifiers as I hate them also.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Again, a 9 OC does not automatically equate to a straight 7. It does for registry purposes, but if the card is a structural 9 with 90/10 centering, it can get a 9OC, but it can't get a straight 7.
We're also not seeing the backs. Anyone with any experience shopping for low-grade/high-eye appeal cards know that the tiniest of tiny imperfections on the back of a card can save you thousands of dollars.
Just responding to @Jimmy_Commonpants who was seeming to indicate that 7(OC) and a 5 were vastly different grades when in reality they're roughly equivalent. It's a low grade scan, I'm not going to attempt to grade the card off of that other than centering.
One thing even high quality scans are horrible at is showing any surface issues. The tiniest of wrinkles on the front is an automatic 5 for technical grade, though eye appeal can be much higher.
I understand, but the top one does not have 85/15 centering U/D, its completely mis-cut. And those corners don't reflect "very minor rounding becoming evident" - three are plain bent/dog eared. Unless there is something on the back of the bottom one, those two cards should be at least two complete grades apart.
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
I would add, the lower you go in grade, the greater the variation in eye appeal among the same numerical grade. Once you get down to 1s, you can have everything from a '10' with a pinhole to a seriously trashed card.
I don't think the top one should be a 5 either, I was more talking about why it's not necessarily unreasonable for the bottom one to be a 5.
Larkin, the comment on the surface is valid, I have a gorgeous Julius Erving rookie that looks like a PSA 9 online but it has a small defect that's tough to see.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
The bottom one likely has a hidden surface crease, possibly on the back.
It's the only grading factor I comment on in my eBay raw listings. With good quality scans, centering, corners, and edges can all be discerned online. Surface is the technical grade killer of many gorgeous cards.
Ok, I gotcha.
Did some looking, and this PSA 4 looks better than the top PSA above. I'm leaning towards that one posted above being a cracked slab/swapped card. Maybe its not, but I just can't find any other one graded a 5 that looks that bad.
1965 Topps - [Base] #350 - Mickey Mantle [PSA 4]
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
I agree; my bet is that you're right, this is the correct answer for why the card is in the holder you see in the OP. I think this is more likely than it having been a sneaky crack-and-replace job.
Which 5 is better?
Based upon the front scans, the bottom Clemente is much better. Not even a debate. Now if there is something on the back of the bottom one....
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
This will not be the consensus, but I personally prefer the top, with fairly even wear and nothing that jumps out as visually distracting at that grade. The bottom one is far cleaner (and better centered), but my eye jumps to the upper right damage that bumped it down to a 5 on a card that could otherwise be an 8.
If auctioned simultaneously, the bottom would likely bring a moderate to significantly higher price.
Are you absolutely sure about this? I cannot imagine centering having to drop a card from a 9OC to a PSA 3 if asking for no qualifiers. I use this example instead of the PSA 5, because if you follow their guidelines and your suggestion of centering being mandatory, for a PSA 3 it must be 90/10 or better and a PSA 4 is 85/15 or better. I guess at some point it becomes miscut, but I just cannot see PSA dropping 6 points in this example following the rule. I think if anything, they would just tell you they cannot grade, like in the instance of other qualifiers being unable to remove for the 2 pt drop.
You are correct regarding the right corner, however I do prefer the cleaner one. Again it is an eye appeal vs technical and yes the cleaner one is my card
It could probably go down to a 5 since there's a 5% leeway in the centering for a given grade, no way it would drop all the way to a 3. At 90/10 on an otherwise sharp-perfect card, another grading company would likely be your best bet given PSAs reputation for being more strict on centering. Never forget also, PSA reserves the right to ignore their grading guidelines and could potentially give a 90/10 front card a straight 6:
The key point to remember is that the graders reserve the right, based on the strength or weakness of the eye appeal, to make a judgment call on the grade of a particular card.
What's the grade on this card?
Trick question....4-5?
That right edge is mesmerizing. Auth-Trimmed?
Hiya Kyle
No - I pulled this myself out of a vending box.
Thought it was for sure a 9 - looks incredible - what did I miss?
A tiny indentation in the area where the "game" is in the back upper right area. Too bad too - it's still a beauty in a 6 holder.
I agree, Mike, it's a beauty, just have to expect it to be a trick question
Looks like a 10
All these examples remind me why VCP is not the bible; Who wouldn't pay more for any of the better examples shown in this thread?
I have to much S**t; so if you working on sets or are a player/team collector, send me your want list, with conditions desired. Keep in mind I have a another job so please allow me a few days to respond.
Exactly, the thing is they are all technically the correct grade. Eye appeall means so much and as everyone always says here buy the card not the holder.
Speaking of eye appeal.
We have discussed forever about how centering has become "King" in what a card will command?
The lesser centered one went for under 900 bucks while the centered went for a whopping 1500 clams!
The fisheye is pretty noticable on the centered Mantle.
I don't really like either one, off center and fisheyes' both bother me.LOL.
You know there is always a guy like you.
I agree with Mike's posit. My eye is always first drawn to centering. HOWEVER as soon as I see a small flaw like the fisheye I can't unsee it.
That said, if I'm a BB collector and 1960 Topps Mantle #350 is on my buy list, my top dollar for it is $1500, and a centered PSA 7 like that showed up?......... I'd jump on it! With PSA 8s having a VCP of $3433, I'd have ZERO problem making that my 7 for $400 over VCP.
Like was said earlier. Every grade level of every card is different. That's the beauty of collecting. Certain cards look better to me with certain flaws.
Modern Hockey: I'd take modern (with no defined border YGs, FWA etc) off centered all day long over one with "perfect centering" and white showing through on the corners.
Vintage hockey: since most have a defined border I need centering and can overlook lightly touched corners.
Prewar Hockey: give me perfect centering, completely loved round corners, perhaps a small wrinkle even and I'm in heaven.
Different strokes for different folks,
Kevin
Kevin
Old flip - bought when we were more "tolerant" of the grading thing.
I paid $250 and thought that was way too much money - some time in the early 90s.
edit: in fact, this card got lost in a box for years and I didn't remember owning it. I found a list of prices more recently that I paid for stuff in the 90s - good to have.
Much better, Mike. You saved the best looking one for last, and its your own card!
Congrats on a great buy many years ago.
Edited to add: I know Mikes' isn't perfectly centered, but it is certainly not off-centered enough to
be a distraction to me. Especially in a PSA 7 holder. A PSA 9, I would want a better centered one,
but Mikes' is a great looking 7 IMO.