Why no 10 on this Ryan? OK then, how about the Carlton?

JoeBanzai · June 16, 2021 3:47PM

Thought this one had a great chance at a 10 and a $1,000.00 (or so) pay day. 9's are worth $50.00.

The two "white lines" on the left side of the card are from scanner junk, NOT on card.

Do you guys think this card is a 10? I might have to send it back to PSA with this big of a $ difference.

rexvos · June 16, 2021 3:49PM

top right corner

blurryface · June 16, 2021 4:00PM

discoloration under the o in astros up top. looks like scratches on his left side of jersey/hat?

Vagabond · June 16, 2021 4:00PM

Top right. Minimal chipping on right side. Not that its impossible to get a 10 but its not perfectly centered either. If this was a 10 and I was in the market for one, this would not be the one I would purchase. Just my thoughts.

bobbybakeriv · June 16, 2021 4:29PM

@JoeBanzai said:

Very nice card but I have to agree with REXVOS on this one. Black bordered cards are notoriously difficult to collect in high grade (e.g., 71 Topps, 86 Topps, 89 Donruss baseball, 85 Topps football). 71 Topps are crazy hard. Good luck with your grades in the future. I certainly need better luck these days too! 😊

handyman · June 16, 2021 5:02PM

big old ding on the back left edge under date

grote15 · June 16, 2021 5:05PM

@handyman said:
big old ding on the back left edge under date

Yup. Surprised it graded as high as a 9, actually.

blurryface · June 16, 2021 5:22PM

^ should be a 6.

Historicalwood71 · June 16, 2021 5:28PM

Top right soft corner. It's as simple as that. Psa requirements 4 sharp corners to even sniff a psa 10.

Historicalwood71 · June 16, 2021 5:29PM

@blurryface said:
^ should be a 6.

This is ridiculous! How does that pass as a 9?

blurryface · June 16, 2021 5:35PM

so much for stricter grading standards? or was this damaged while holdering?

either way, kinda infuriating seeing this way over-graded whilst seeing alot of member's cards get defecated on.

not a good look.

beachbumcollecting · June 16, 2021 5:52PM

@blurryface said:
so much for stricter grading standards? or was this damaged while holdering?

either way, kinda infuriating seeing this way over-graded whilst seeing alot of member's cards get defecated on.

not a good look.

I agree on the last part that it sucks seeing that in a 9 holder with all the cards that are being put in 6 and 7's holders, looking at the card crushed into the slab, that looks like it was damaged in holdering.

My friend just got his large GPK order back after almost a year and one of his first series 9's became a 4 because they destroyed it in slabbing. at least they gave him a 100 credit , sadly the card was selling for 350 these days.

Constantine · June 16, 2021 5:54PM

Sometimes you ask why not a 10 when it’s barely a 6.

Centauri · June 16, 2021 6:25PM

Looks 9 to me. That back thing isn’t a ding - that is just a common paper issue on 86 Topps. Similar to rough cut OPC

blurryface · June 16, 2021 6:28PM

@Centauri said:
Looks 9 to me. That back thing isn’t a ding - that is just a common paper issue on 86 Topps. Similar to rough cut OPC

nope.

JoeBanzai · June 16, 2021 7:02PM

Thanks guys,

I saw the top right corner, but it is barely noticeable to the naked eye. It shows up more when the light from the scanner hits it. I have seen some pretty "soft" 10's and some horrible 9's listed lately.

Centering is better than a lot of 10's, I don't see that as an issue.

As I mentioned there are no scratches on the front. There is some discoloration under the "O".

I'm pretty sure the back damage was not there when it was sent in, but I can't say for sure.

Not a 10, that back wrinkle is a bit bothersome.

Appreciate the comments!

1959 · June 16, 2021 9:41PM

I think PSA thinks, if one corner (Top left) is better than another corner 9 (top right) It cannot be a 10. The way they're grading now, take the 9.

Jayman1982 · June 17, 2021 4:22AM

@Historicalwood71 said:

@blurryface said:
^ should be a 6.

This is ridiculous! How does that pass as a 9?

It doesn't, that was likely done when holdering and was not picked up in a rushed QA process

Historicalwood71 · June 17, 2021 4:56AM

@Jayman1982 said:

@Historicalwood71 said:

@blurryface said:
^ should be a 6.

This is ridiculous! How does that pass as a 9?

It doesn't, that was likely done when holdering and was not picked up in a rushed QA process

If I was psa.... I'd stop for a year with submissions and keep the reputation you have now. This isn't fair to people that value safety our our cards. But I hear ya.

Barfvader · June 17, 2021 7:32AM

RE: Carlton

Maybe this?

I can slightly see the corner issue on the front scan lower left.

JoeBanzai · June 17, 2021 7:38AM

Could be.

I was thinking the centering was a bit high, but this card sure looks like a 10 to me.

JoeBanzai · June 17, 2021 7:58AM

By the way Jeff, you are very good at this.

Barfvader · June 17, 2021 8:04AM

Thanks. Your high quality scan is a big help.

thehallmark · June 17, 2021 2:47PM

@JoeBanzai said:
Could be.

I was thinking the centering was a bit high, but this card sure looks like a 10 to me.

To me this is a really good example of a card I would have thrown into a bulk 80s sub in previous years and had maybe a 15% shot at a 10 - which was usually good enough (at $8 per card).

Goldy213 · June 17, 2021 3:50PM

Maybe a print discoloration.. I get these a lot on my 86 cards

Goldy213 · June 17, 2021 3:50PM

ldferg · June 17, 2021 4:06PM

@blurryface said:
so much for stricter grading standards? or was this damaged while holdering?

either way, kinda infuriating seeing this way over-graded whilst seeing alot of member's cards get defecated on.

not a good look.

I'm going with "damaged while holdering". Otherwise top right corner should keep it from a 9 imo. The Carlton is not focused enough for a 10 and black is faded.

handyman · June 17, 2021 7:49PM

Yeah out of focus on the Carlton. You can tell when you look at his pitching hand. The image is all blurry. Easy way to see is his pinky and face(under his eyes and eyes). Yours its all mushed together. Not as much detail.
https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1986-topps/steve-carlton/values/201606#g=10
Just look at the last 10 sold cert 41687993

GreenSneakers · June 18, 2021 4:56AM

On the Ryan, also two fish eyes on the back between the card number and the name, and another on the right margin. Also some discoloration above the L. To keep my belief system in order, I have to think the bottom was damaged upon holdering. But the card is unfortunately not a 10 even without that as the top right, color and fish eyes all detract.

JoeBanzai · June 18, 2021 5:45AM

@GreenSneakers said:
On the Ryan, also two fish eyes on the back between the card number and the name, and another on the right margin. Also some discoloration above the L. To keep my belief system in order, I have to think the bottom was damaged upon holdering. But the card is unfortunately not a 10 even without that as the top right, color and fish eyes all detract.

You are correct it is not a 10.

However I don't think PSA even looks at the backs, and if they do that wouldn't be the issue imo.

The problem is when the owner of a potential $#900.00 card gets a 9 reducing the value to $50.00, he looks at ebay and sees some pretty lousy looking PSA 9's and thinks; "If that's a 9, mine's a 10.

JoeBanzai · June 18, 2021 5:47AM

@handyman said:
Yeah out of focus on the Carlton. You can tell when you look at his pitching hand. The image is all blurry. Easy way to see is his pinky and face(under his eyes and eyes). Yours its all mushed together. Not as much detail.
https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/baseball-cards/1986-topps/steve-carlton/values/201606#g=10
Just look at the last 10 sold cert 41687993

I didn't notice the focus issue, but I see your point. Card is slightly OF.

Have seen worse looking 10's though.

Cakes · June 18, 2021 11:10AM

@GreenSneakers said:
On the Ryan, also two fish eyes on the back between the card number and the name, and another on the right margin. Also some discoloration above the L. To keep my belief system in order, I have to think the bottom was damaged upon holdering. But the card is unfortunately not a 10 even without that as the top right, color and fish eyes all detract.

Please tell me that fish eyes on the back do not affect the grade. If so it furthers my stance that grading is starting to ruin the hobby for me.

JoeBanzai · June 18, 2021 11:50AM

@Cakes said:

@GreenSneakers said:
On the Ryan, also two fish eyes on the back between the card number and the name, and another on the right margin. Also some discoloration above the L. To keep my belief system in order, I have to think the bottom was damaged upon holdering. But the card is unfortunately not a 10 even without that as the top right, color and fish eyes all detract.

Please tell me that fish eyes on the back do not affect the grade. If so it furthers my stance that grading is starting to ruin the hobby for me.

I never cared about the back as long as there was some border all the way around and there were no other HUGE problems.

What I am thinking is PSA might be instructing the graders to start looking more closely at the backs and not giving out 10's if there are back issues that used to be overlooked.

Out of focus was always kind of subjective too, and my Carlton is certainly not perfectly focused, but that seems to indicate a "tightening up" of the process.

Cakes · June 18, 2021 12:46PM

It's getting wild just how many things can lower a grade. The only silver lining I can see about the stricter grading process/evolution is I have learned a lot more about some of the finer points about grading. In 20 years it seems to have gone from 3 or 4 key aspects to about 5 or 6 key aspects plus 4 or 5 minor ones.

Kepper19 · June 18, 2021 8:59PM

@beachbumcollecting said:

@blurryface said:
so much for stricter grading standards? or was this damaged while holdering?

either way, kinda infuriating seeing this way over-graded whilst seeing alot of member's cards get defecated on.

not a good look.

I agree on the last part that it sucks seeing that in a 9 holder with all the cards that are being put in 6 and 7's holders, looking at the card crushed into the slab, that looks like it was damaged in holdering.

My friend just got his large GPK order back after almost a year and one of his first series 9's became a 4 because they destroyed it in slabbing. at least they gave him a 100 credit , sadly the card was selling for 350 these days.

I had about 6 Star Wars wax packs that were damaged when PSA employee pushed/shoved/smushed them into the too-tight holders...ticked me off good...never should happen...

JoeBanzai · June 19, 2021 8:33AM

@Kepper19 said:

@beachbumcollecting said:

@blurryface said:
so much for stricter grading standards? or was this damaged while holdering?

either way, kinda infuriating seeing this way over-graded whilst seeing alot of member's cards get defecated on.

not a good look.

I agree on the last part that it sucks seeing that in a 9 holder with all the cards that are being put in 6 and 7's holders, looking at the card crushed into the slab, that looks like it was damaged in holdering.

My friend just got his large GPK order back after almost a year and one of his first series 9's became a 4 because they destroyed it in slabbing. at least they gave him a 100 credit , sadly the card was selling for 350 these days.

I had about 6 Star Wars wax packs that were damaged when PSA employee pushed/shoved/smushed them into the too-tight holders...ticked me off good...never should happen...

That's too bad, those weren't the 1967 Leaf were they?

I'm sure glad my card wasn't a little nicer, that would have been a $850.00 loss for me.

It will be interesting to see what happens in July if/when PSA opens thing up, and how the hobby, that now loves the number "10" over all others, reacts.

I am curious to see what happens to all the "newer" cards worth under $150-200. Will the supply of graded simply dry up?

fergie23 · June 19, 2021 11:02AM

The Carlton is OC T/B and out of focus. Neither card has a particularly compelling case to be a 10. In general, comparing your own cards to weak examples of higher graded ones is a fools errand. If I had submitted the Ryan, I would have expected a 9 and hoped for a 10. The Carlton I would have just hoped for a 9.

As for the backs, the only change I have noticed over the years is that they are starting to care more about minor corner wear on the back then they used to. There is no chance fish eyes on the back had any impact on the grade.

Robb

JoeBanzai · June 19, 2021 4:23PM

@fergie23 said:
The Carlton is OC T/B and out of focus. Neither card has a particularly compelling case to be a 10. In general, comparing your own cards to weak examples of higher graded ones is a fools errand. If I had submitted the Ryan, I would have expected a 9 and hoped for a 10. The Carlton I would have just hoped for a 9.

As for the backs, the only change I have noticed over the years is that they are starting to care more about minor corner wear on the back then they used to. There is no chance fish eyes on the back had any impact on the grade.

Robb

I did just that, expected 9's and hoped for 10's.

Fools errand or not, some of the Ryan 9's looked to be more like 7-8's with faded colors, big fisheyes and print spots on his face.

Maybe they should have created a 9.5 when they went to half grades.

Either way, I appreciate the feedback!

blurryface · June 19, 2021 4:48PM

@JoeBanzai said:

@fergie23 said:
The Carlton is OC T/B and out of focus. Neither card has a particularly compelling case to be a 10. In general, comparing your own cards to weak examples of higher graded ones is a fools errand. If I had submitted the Ryan, I would have expected a 9 and hoped for a 10. The Carlton I would have just hoped for a 9.

As for the backs, the only change I have noticed over the years is that they are starting to care more about minor corner wear on the back then they used to. There is no chance fish eyes on the back had any impact on the grade.

Robb

Maybe they should have created a 9.5 when they went to half grades.

they just did. its a 9 cert’d w a number 50000000 and up! 😉

Why no 10 on this Ryan? OK then, how about the Carlton?

Comments

Categories