Renewal Poppage: Man, PSA is tough on '75's
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭✭✭
I sent in three 1975 baseball cards along with a few wacky packages for my 6-card renewal sub.
In the last year, I've submitted approximately 300 wacky packages to PSA, with close to 60% coming back 9's and 10's, so I'm not in fantasy land regarding how nice cards have to be to earn these grades. I can only conclude PSA is much tougher on certain issues than others. Here are the results:
George Brett: this one I was happy with, as it is a tad low and has one corner with a tiny but visible touch and a small fish eye. Extra happy since I picked it up for $25 at a local card store ten years ago:
Jim Palmer: since the centering is better than 60/40 all around and the corners and surface appear perfect, I can only assume this grade is wholly due to the four or five flakes of snow in the lower left quadrant. Frankly, I never even noticed them when examining the card in hand, only in the larger scan. This would have to be a 9 otherwise, right?
Highlights: this one really annoys me. Even though PSA 8 is a nice grade, there just isn't anything wrong with this card. Perfect corners
all around, really zero wear visible examining card in hand. Am I missing something on the centering? Looks very nice to me. How is this not
a 9?
Oh well, I don't want to be a baby, I'm happy with the Brett, I just really thought the other two were primo...
In the last year, I've submitted approximately 300 wacky packages to PSA, with close to 60% coming back 9's and 10's, so I'm not in fantasy land regarding how nice cards have to be to earn these grades. I can only conclude PSA is much tougher on certain issues than others. Here are the results:
George Brett: this one I was happy with, as it is a tad low and has one corner with a tiny but visible touch and a small fish eye. Extra happy since I picked it up for $25 at a local card store ten years ago:
Jim Palmer: since the centering is better than 60/40 all around and the corners and surface appear perfect, I can only assume this grade is wholly due to the four or five flakes of snow in the lower left quadrant. Frankly, I never even noticed them when examining the card in hand, only in the larger scan. This would have to be a 9 otherwise, right?
Highlights: this one really annoys me. Even though PSA 8 is a nice grade, there just isn't anything wrong with this card. Perfect corners
all around, really zero wear visible examining card in hand. Am I missing something on the centering? Looks very nice to me. How is this not
a 9?
Oh well, I don't want to be a baby, I'm happy with the Brett, I just really thought the other two were primo...
0
Comments
Crack it and send it back in, maybe they will get it right.
-CDs Nuts, 1/20/14
*1956 Topps baseball- 97.4% complete, 7.24 GPA
*Clemente basic set: 85.0% complete, 7.89 GPA
<< <i>Is there a slight corner push on the lower left corner under Busby? It appears from the scan but my eyes could deceive me. Perhaps that was the culprit? >>
I see what you mean in the scan, honestly it's not visible in hand.
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>Those are some tough grades. I would resubmit the league leaders and the palmer cards. I can easily see those cards grading one full point higher. >>
not worth it on the palmer. even it changes, you wouldnt gain alot.
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
<< <i>I can see that Palmer being a 7 >>
Based on what, the snow?
example
<< <i>no not a white dot. there is a discolored splash of orange tint over his right eye. i'm pretty sure that's the reason for the downgrade.
example >>
The linked card is a 7 primarily due to surface (snow) issues. I usually get straight 7s or 9PDs on those. I don't see enough snow on the OP's card to warrant a downgrade to a 7. This Palmer card has worse registration issues and graded a PSA 8.
PSA 8 Palmer
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.
the OP's card and the example which i posted both show the Jim Palmer's right eye to appear ORANGE! that is what i'm alluding to. it's a print defect which PSA will downgrade. the print dots, etc. may be a contributing factor, but Jim Palmer's orange right eye is the clincher.
JMO.
<< <i>correct Grote. thank you for posting that. if you notice the consistency in coloration over BOTH of Jim Palmer's eyes, you should be able to tell the difference.
the OP's card and the example which i posted both show the Jim Palmer's right eye to appear ORANGE! that is what i'm alluding to. it's a print defect which PSA will downgrade. the print dots, etc. may be a contributing factor, but Jim Palmer's orange right eye is the clincher.
JMO.
You do have a good point about the orange eye, lol...that may very well be the reason, though it's one heckuva 7 compared to the 8, 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.
Not sure if it is just something weird about your scan, but the green in the border of the Brett card looks awfully varied, almost faded in some areas compared to darker in others. If that is the case, an 8 seems too high. If it is the scan, then the card looks right in that holder. Worth a shot a bump on the Ryan HL.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Jmaciu's Collection
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>Is there a slight corner push on the lower left corner under Busby? It appears from the scan but my eyes could deceive me. Perhaps that was the culprit? >>
I see what you mean in the scan, honestly it's not visible in hand. >>
I would take a look at that corner under a loop. Maybe that might shed more light? Regardless, I still agree with many above that I would at least try a resubmit.