@Chargers49ersLakers said:
That Gibson had a hamster take a bite out of it. Must have lined the cage. Hey, is just me, it seems all the under grades of pre 1990 cards is a PSA 5. This thread is full of PSA 5's. Mine also is a PSA 5. PSA 5 must be the max an older card can get. Cool.
Just recieved back a teeny tiny sub through a local guy. Got this Marino. Believe it or not, i cracked this one out of an old PRO slab. It measured and i sent it in
The bonds is tiffany and the beltre is now pop 11 refractor. Do these look accurate?
@BBBrkrr said:
That Bonds is NICE. Congrats on that one.
I just submitted about 8 of those (not Tiffany though) in the 80s special and was happy they all came back 8/9 (mostly 9s).
thanks. I lucked into the whole set at one of those antique malls. paid $15 for it! I would have sent in the Bo but it had a verticle print line going through the gloss. I am sure it would have gotten hammered for that.
@Harnessracing said:
I’ve got set cases of Tiffany 84-88 w traded. I’ve considered cracking a few but scared to death right now
I just got back my 80's sub. I included five 87 Tiffany's from a set I cracked and subbed. In the past I had gotten 10's from that set of Barry Bonds, Nolan Ryan, and Greg Maddux (I know it's different sets).
I pulled the five sharpest stars, got 4 9's and an 8. I don't expect all 10's, but I thought at least one if not a few of those would hit. A few other straight from pack stars I pulled got 8's and 9's. There were a couple 7s mixed in to. I subbed most of them with intent to sell. If I break even I'll be happy.
I've been looking for a pack fresh clean white paper stock 80-81 Topps Pin up Bullets and saw that Probstein listed a set break of PSA graded Pin ups. The Bullets is a PSA 9 like the others, so I check the pics.
Front looks...ok I guess even though the left edge is not cut straight.
But the back?!
This is a 9? With the paper this discolored?
That means mine would all be 10s, no doubt. (not that I would pay $75ea to get them graded)
The Ripken has a stain on the border and the corner is rounded. I know it's probably like that because its from a factory set but that one is pretty bad.
Patriot Trading- I believe is spot on. While PSA has been harder than any time that I can remember, they are just not letting the small stuff through like before. That PSA 5 1969 Yaz is hard to stomach because it looks amazing. I think it could be in a PSA 7 if you play the game.
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
@1954 said:
Patriot Trading- I believe is spot on. While PSA has been harder than any time that I can remember, they are just not letting the small stuff through like before. That PSA 5 1969 Yaz is hard to stomach because it looks amazing. I think it could be in a PSA 7 if you play the game.
Even if that was the case it's still a big change in how they are grading. It just doesn't jive with the grading standards we had all gone off for over 20 years. If they want to be harder then change the grading standards to match.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Those tiny imperfections never resulted in that low of grades in the past and shouldn't now.
For sure. I posted that Ripken because it's not even consistent with the other 84 D Ripkens I submitted in the 80s specials (the rest were 9/10). I assumed all would be 7-9 (I currently have 9s in my collection with more flaws than that card).
It's not that the card didn't have flaws. It's that the standards seem to have changed recently, and are also inconsistent on vintage (I don't know about modern since I don't do those).
If those two minor imperfections mean it's a 5 then how much variety would be in a 1-4? How would anyone ever even get an 8 or 9?
@PatriotTrading said:
The Ripken has a stain on the border and the corner is rounded. I know it's probably like that because its from a factory set but that one is pretty bad.
Are you justifying the 5 grade? Saying that 1 corner is "pretty bad"?
Is that a "stain" or a print mark?
Standard definition for an 8 is "slightest fraying of 1 or 2 corners, and a minor printing imperfection"
You think the factory rounded corner (not wear) deserves 3 grades worse than a slightly frayed 1 or 2 corners?
Great Thread. The other thread about the SGC crossover results might even be better. I have been sending in vintage cards to PSA to grade for 30 years. I have seen mild fluctuations in grading severity over the years that could be attributed to individual grader subjectivity, i.e. it depends on which grader you get. However, what is going on now is an across the board change in grading severity. This year, every grading order for me seemed to have been graded by the grader from hail, but that would not be realistic. The main points coming out of this thread is also what I am seeing and receiving: any minor print spot defect is now a PSA 5. PSA 5 is now PSA's favorite grade for vintage. It might be a combination of using Genamint/AI to assist in grading and inexperienced graders. But the latter would not explain consistent undergrading.
These threads are important to communicate to PSA that we do not appreciate the about-face in grading standards after 30 years of relatively stable grading standards. I just listed and (unfortunately) sold a recently graded PSA 5 (of course) 1958 Topps Willie Mays that in my mind was a solid 7 and possibly at worst a 6 (on a bad day or a harsh grader) for the price of a high-end 5. It has minor white print in the blue background that is very common for this card. I have seen older PSA 7s with the same print issue but with lesser corners and centering. I am pretty sure from what I have been reading someone off of this forum gobbled that one up and will crack and resubmit to SGC and good for him/her. I would have done the same if I had read this thread earlier and realized this was happening to others and not just me. The thread is great but I don't agree with the comments that the 84 Donruss Ripken and 69 Topps Yaz cards were graded correctly at PSA 5 because of very minor print imperfections. Both deserved an 8 or maybe a 7.5 based on previous PSA standards. Also most of the other examples shown in this thread were also cards graded too low in my opinion.
Pokemon, agreed, not even close. Its a little different in the sense that you can have a round corner and get a 10. 😄 There its more chipping on the reverse or if its a foil scratching. Naturally if it was played you get very visible wearing. But think with Pokemon the centering is usually reasonably there so quite often fresh out of the pack you have a solid chance of a 9 or 10 most of the time. Attaching a few Disney Lorcana TCG cards. I felt they looked like 10s. 3 out of 4 were. Older stuff my feeling about what they are and what they will grade at is much different. I had some 87 Tiffanys too that I felt were close to perfect that were 8s. Like 51 49 centering and sharp corners. I just couldn't see the logic behind it. I was submitting 1984 Nestle that I was cutting with a blade and not too many 10s and its like look I know the corners and edges are as blazing sharp as it gets. I use a caliper to ensure the centering is as close to 50 as possible. But super hard to pull a Gem Mint there. Squint and find a print dot and its an 8.
Saw this article/offering and found it fascinating. COMC will review your brand new cards for $5 to tell you if they are Mint or Gem Mint. Its like yeah okay, no thanks. But that is where we are. People can look at a new card and decide in 20 seconds what they are dealing with. No surface wrinkles bumps paint chipping. They say they wont look at anything 2000 or older and I think its similar to PSA. They probably feel they can hand 100 Pokemon or Panini Prizm cards to a 25-year-old with some brief training and they can pound the grades out within 45 minutes and net $1500 or $1900. That 52 Eddie Mathews they need to spend a little more time with. Not great business for them and probably not too appealing. They have 5000 fish in a barrel over here. Why go out into the lake in the boat to see if you can catch that one?
The problem with “letting the small stuff thru like before” is 5 years ago 8 is not the same as last weeks 8. The product is damaged. That comment tells me that if a last week 8 sells for $100, I shouldn’t pay anywhere near that for a 5 year old 8 because “the small stuff could of gotten thru”
It’s black and white. Are we now going to see price guides for early grades against 10 yr old grades against last week grades? They have damaged there product by changing the grading standards. They will never admit it. They will just say, we are as always following out grading standards. We know that’s not true
@Harnessracing said:
The problem with “letting the small stuff thru like before” is 5 years ago 8 is not the same as last weeks 8. The product is damaged. That comment tells me that if a last week 8 sells for $100, I shouldn’t pay anywhere near that for a 5 year old 8 because “the small stuff could of gotten thru”
It’s black and white. Are we now going to see price guides for early grades against 10 yr old grades against last week grades? They have damaged there product by changing the grading standards. They will never admit it. They will just say, we are as always following out grading standards. We know that’s not true
And this is exactly where we are. If grading has changed then that undermines prices for anything done before. It has the potential to kill value on anything graded earlier, but who's going to have the courage to regrade any of that? I have a 75 Brett/PSA 9 sitting in my collection that was graded several years ago. Does this new AI nonsense mean that should be valued like a current 7 or 8?
If so, then all that falls on PSA and I'm not happy (to say the least)! This kind of inconsistency hurts vintage value for all cards. Does it wipe 10% across the board? 20%? Who knows?
You cannot be a grading company with clear, established guidelines and then change those after decades in operation without undermining every graded card you've ever done.
Is AI being used i.e via the acquisition of gemint technology company??...seems AI be better suited for modern cards and not vintage unless someone knows how to program the "Artificial Eyes"...I like my crabmeat, sugar etc to be real and not artificial
Though as Dave (paulmaul) posted earlier, there have been some clunkers in 9 holders, too, so are the grading standrads entirely harsher or just less consistent due to inexperienced graders overall?
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.
@HOMETOWNSPORTS said:
Is AI being used i.e via the acquisition of gemint technology company??...seems AI be better suited for modern cards and not vintage unless someone knows how to program the "Artificial Eyes"...I like my crabmeat, sugar etc to be real and not artificial
I am almost certain that Genamint can't actually grade a card. Maybe it can measure for specs, but there is no way that the actual grading is being done by a machine.
@HOMETOWNSPORTS said:
Is AI being used i.e via the acquisition of gemint technology company??...seems AI be better suited for modern cards and not vintage unless someone knows how to program the "Artificial Eyes"...I like my crabmeat, sugar etc to be real and not artificial
I am almost certain that Genamint can't actually grade a card. Maybe it can measure for specs, but there is no way that the actual grading is being done by a machine.
It shouldn’t be grading cards. IMO. Inputting millions of variables and scenarios can’t be done overnight…
I hope this thread doesn't die to soon because for many a major component of collecting now is to rely on accurate accepted grading standards that do not change over time especially after 30 years of basically excepted standards regardless of technology.
That bottom corner is not consistent with the others. It very well could be the grader didn't care where it came from. They graded that corner like it was rounded and they wouldn't be wrong for it. I mean, there is no angle to measure if you had to. But alas, I'm no grader, it does no good to take out your aggression on me.
@PatriotTrading said:
The Ripken has a stain on the border and the corner is rounded. I know it's probably like that because its from a factory set but that one is pretty bad.
Are you justifying the 5 grade? Saying that 1 corner is "pretty bad"?
Is that a "stain" or a print mark?
Standard definition for an 8 is "slightest fraying of 1 or 2 corners, and a minor printing imperfection"
You think the factory rounded corner (not wear) deserves 3 grades worse than a slightly frayed 1 or 2 corners?
@PatriotTrading said:
That bottom corner is not consistent with the others. It very well could be the grader didn't care where it came from. They graded that corner like it was rounded and they wouldn't be wrong for it. I mean, there is no angle to measure if you had to. But alas, I'm no grader, it does no good to take out your aggression on me.
@PatriotTrading said:
The Ripken has a stain on the border and the corner is rounded. I know it's probably like that because its from a factory set but that one is pretty bad.
Are you justifying the 5 grade? Saying that 1 corner is "pretty bad"?
Is that a "stain" or a print mark?
Standard definition for an 8 is "slightest fraying of 1 or 2 corners, and a minor printing imperfection"
You think the factory rounded corner (not wear) deserves 3 grades worse than a slightly frayed 1 or 2 corners?
Sorry you feel asking questions is being aggressive. I mistakenly assumed you'd be proud to defend your opinion.
So you're saying that one "pretty bad" corner and a "stain" (printing imperfection?) constitutes a 5 grade.
I find this to be very telling as to why some of the grades are leaving the grading room 2-3 grades below expected.
Yours, and the grader's viewpoints seem to differ from the standard definitions of grading.
I thank you for your perspective, and I hope your feelings weren't hurt too bad as I refrained from asking you any further questions.
@belz said:
Guess the grade. Oh wait, this was one of my recent graded 75s….just looked through them for the first time..won’t sell any, going to my grave lol.
I'm assuming they dinged you for the smudged surface around Mickey's name (common with this card) but a 5 is is still rather harsh.
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.
@belz said:
Guess the grade. Oh wait, this was one of my recent graded 75s….just looked through them for the first time..won’t sell any, going to my grave lol.
I'm assuming they dinged you for the smudged surface around Mickey's name (common with this card) but a 5 is is still rather harsh.
Right on, back in the day eye appeal had more play when I subbed these…psa 7 or 8 easy back in the day.
Ebay listing I was interested in until I zoomed the pic.
I don't know if those spots are on the case or card.
Also can't tell if the upper left corner is fuzzy or a spot on the case.
If it's the case, strange the seller wouldn't clean it.
@RonSportscards said:
Ebay listing I was interested in until I zoomed the pic.
I don't know if those spots are on the case or card.
Also can't tell if the upper left corner is fuzzy or a spot on the case.
If it's the case, strange the seller wouldn't clean it.
Fugly looking
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
No way those are on the card. you can see with the two 'chunks' at the top, they go out further than the card. Could also be a really dirty scanner. If I were selling a PSA 10, I would want to shoe it in it's best light.
That Mickey Rivers card looks amazing. Perhaps a wrinkle is the only explanation for a PSA 5, however if you got a 5 without a wrinkle, my two invoices (175 cards) at PSA are screwed.
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
@BBBrkrr said:
I used to love Mickey back in the day. Dude was so cool.
That card is a beautiful 5. They really need to bring a bit of 'eye test' back into their grading.
The collectors Voice will be heard and weighed in on "artificial eyes" verses "real human eyes"...personally I prefer real human eye judgement ESPECIALLY on pre 1990 cardboard...maybe artificial eyes on post 2000 cards...rock on folks!
@BBBrkrr said:
I used to love Mickey back in the day. Dude was so cool.
That card is a beautiful 5. They really need to bring a bit of 'eye test' back into their grading.
Agree 100%. He would walk to home plate like Fred Sanford and beat out a grounder to short. He also had the following quotes that I remember off the top of my head:
"I like the 2nd half of the season more because the 2nd half of the season is shorter."
"It's so cold out there I saw a dog chasing a cat and they were both walking."
"My goals for this season are to hit .300, score 100 runs, and stay injury prone."
Stop already, I have zero feelings invested. You're the one that posted that garbage. I'm just telling you like it is. Whining about it does nothing. Do yourself a favor and buy a 10x loupe or keep wasting money sending sh*t cards. Haha
@PatriotTrading said:
That bottom corner is not consistent with the others. It very well could be the grader didn't care where it came from. They graded that corner like it was rounded and they wouldn't be wrong for it. I mean, there is no angle to measure if you had to. But alas, I'm no grader, it does no good to take out your aggression on me.
@PatriotTrading said:
The Ripken has a stain on the border and the corner is rounded. I know it's probably like that because its from a factory set but that one is pretty bad.
Are you justifying the 5 grade? Saying that 1 corner is "pretty bad"?
Is that a "stain" or a print mark?
Standard definition for an 8 is "slightest fraying of 1 or 2 corners, and a minor printing imperfection"
You think the factory rounded corner (not wear) deserves 3 grades worse than a slightly frayed 1 or 2 corners?
Sorry you feel asking questions is being aggressive. I mistakenly assumed you'd be proud to defend your opinion.
So you're saying that one "pretty bad" corner and a "stain" (printing imperfection?) constitutes a 5 grade.
I find this to be very telling as to why some of the grades are leaving the grading room 2-3 grades below expected.
Yours, and the grader's viewpoints seem to differ from the standard definitions of grading.
I thank you for your perspective, and I hope your feelings weren't hurt too bad as I refrained from asking you any further questions.
Comments
PSA Authentic
Altered
chaz
We're dealing with Cardboard for God's sake.
chaz
Altered NFT
The Bob Gibson is a disaster, PSA. PSA needs to buy this card up and put it in an authentic or burn it
PSA can’t excuse that Gibson away
The > @BBBrkrr said:
I've heard of dog eared. Now I've seen mice chewed eared.
Just recieved back a teeny tiny sub through a local guy. Got this Marino. Believe it or not, i cracked this one out of an old PRO slab. It measured and i sent it in
The bonds is tiffany and the beltre is now pop 11 refractor. Do these look accurate?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That Bonds is NICE. Congrats on that one.
I just submitted about 8 of those (not Tiffany though) in the 80s special and was happy they all came back 8/9 (mostly 9s).
thanks. I lucked into the whole set at one of those antique malls. paid $15 for it! I would have sent in the Bo but it had a verticle print line going through the gloss. I am sure it would have gotten hammered for that.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I’ve got set cases of Tiffany 84-88 w traded. I’ve considered cracking a few but scared to death right now
I just got back my 80's sub. I included five 87 Tiffany's from a set I cracked and subbed. In the past I had gotten 10's from that set of Barry Bonds, Nolan Ryan, and Greg Maddux (I know it's different sets).
I pulled the five sharpest stars, got 4 9's and an 8. I don't expect all 10's, but I thought at least one if not a few of those would hit. A few other straight from pack stars I pulled got 8's and 9's. There were a couple 7s mixed in to. I subbed most of them with intent to sell. If I break even I'll be happy.
It's brutal out there.
That’s why I’m going to drive the cases to BBCE and get the sets wrapped FASC I think
I've been looking for a pack fresh clean white paper stock 80-81 Topps Pin up Bullets and saw that Probstein listed a set break of PSA graded Pin ups. The Bullets is a PSA 9 like the others, so I check the pics.
Front looks...ok I guess even though the left edge is not cut straight.
But the back?!
This is a 9? With the paper this discolored?
That means mine would all be 10s, no doubt. (not that I would pay $75ea to get them graded)
The Ripken has a stain on the border and the corner is rounded. I know it's probably like that because its from a factory set but that one is pretty bad.
The Yaz may suffer from the same problem. I'm curious is AI is the one grading the surface and just nailing it.
Those tiny imperfections never resulted in that low of grades in the past and shouldn't now.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Patriot Trading- I believe is spot on. While PSA has been harder than any time that I can remember, they are just not letting the small stuff through like before. That PSA 5 1969 Yaz is hard to stomach because it looks amazing. I think it could be in a PSA 7 if you play the game.
Even if that was the case it's still a big change in how they are grading. It just doesn't jive with the grading standards we had all gone off for over 20 years. If they want to be harder then change the grading standards to match.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
For sure. I posted that Ripken because it's not even consistent with the other 84 D Ripkens I submitted in the 80s specials (the rest were 9/10). I assumed all would be 7-9 (I currently have 9s in my collection with more flaws than that card).
It's not that the card didn't have flaws. It's that the standards seem to have changed recently, and are also inconsistent on vintage (I don't know about modern since I don't do those).
If those two minor imperfections mean it's a 5 then how much variety would be in a 1-4? How would anyone ever even get an 8 or 9?
Can anyone chime in from recent experience if their MTG or Pokemon cards are getting graded as harshly as vintage?
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
Not even close
Are you justifying the 5 grade? Saying that 1 corner is "pretty bad"?
Is that a "stain" or a print mark?
Standard definition for an 8 is "slightest fraying of 1 or 2 corners, and a minor printing imperfection"
You think the factory rounded corner (not wear) deserves 3 grades worse than a slightly frayed 1 or 2 corners?
Great Thread. The other thread about the SGC crossover results might even be better. I have been sending in vintage cards to PSA to grade for 30 years. I have seen mild fluctuations in grading severity over the years that could be attributed to individual grader subjectivity, i.e. it depends on which grader you get. However, what is going on now is an across the board change in grading severity. This year, every grading order for me seemed to have been graded by the grader from hail, but that would not be realistic. The main points coming out of this thread is also what I am seeing and receiving: any minor print spot defect is now a PSA 5. PSA 5 is now PSA's favorite grade for vintage. It might be a combination of using Genamint/AI to assist in grading and inexperienced graders. But the latter would not explain consistent undergrading.
These threads are important to communicate to PSA that we do not appreciate the about-face in grading standards after 30 years of relatively stable grading standards. I just listed and (unfortunately) sold a recently graded PSA 5 (of course) 1958 Topps Willie Mays that in my mind was a solid 7 and possibly at worst a 6 (on a bad day or a harsh grader) for the price of a high-end 5. It has minor white print in the blue background that is very common for this card. I have seen older PSA 7s with the same print issue but with lesser corners and centering. I am pretty sure from what I have been reading someone off of this forum gobbled that one up and will crack and resubmit to SGC and good for him/her. I would have done the same if I had read this thread earlier and realized this was happening to others and not just me. The thread is great but I don't agree with the comments that the 84 Donruss Ripken and 69 Topps Yaz cards were graded correctly at PSA 5 because of very minor print imperfections. Both deserved an 8 or maybe a 7.5 based on previous PSA standards. Also most of the other examples shown in this thread were also cards graded too low in my opinion.
Pokemon, agreed, not even close. Its a little different in the sense that you can have a round corner and get a 10. 😄 There its more chipping on the reverse or if its a foil scratching. Naturally if it was played you get very visible wearing. But think with Pokemon the centering is usually reasonably there so quite often fresh out of the pack you have a solid chance of a 9 or 10 most of the time. Attaching a few Disney Lorcana TCG cards. I felt they looked like 10s. 3 out of 4 were. Older stuff my feeling about what they are and what they will grade at is much different. I had some 87 Tiffanys too that I felt were close to perfect that were 8s. Like 51 49 centering and sharp corners. I just couldn't see the logic behind it. I was submitting 1984 Nestle that I was cutting with a blade and not too many 10s and its like look I know the corners and edges are as blazing sharp as it gets. I use a caliper to ensure the centering is as close to 50 as possible. But super hard to pull a Gem Mint there. Squint and find a print dot and its an 8.
Saw this article/offering and found it fascinating. COMC will review your brand new cards for $5 to tell you if they are Mint or Gem Mint. Its like yeah okay, no thanks. But that is where we are. People can look at a new card and decide in 20 seconds what they are dealing with. No surface wrinkles bumps paint chipping. They say they wont look at anything 2000 or older and I think its similar to PSA. They probably feel they can hand 100 Pokemon or Panini Prizm cards to a 25-year-old with some brief training and they can pound the grades out within 45 minutes and net $1500 or $1900. That 52 Eddie Mathews they need to spend a little more time with. Not great business for them and probably not too appealing. They have 5000 fish in a barrel over here. Why go out into the lake in the boat to see if you can catch that one?
https://blog.comc.com/2023/10/10/grade-with-confidence-using-the-comc-pre-grade-service/
The problem with “letting the small stuff thru like before” is 5 years ago 8 is not the same as last weeks 8. The product is damaged. That comment tells me that if a last week 8 sells for $100, I shouldn’t pay anywhere near that for a 5 year old 8 because “the small stuff could of gotten thru”
It’s black and white. Are we now going to see price guides for early grades against 10 yr old grades against last week grades? They have damaged there product by changing the grading standards. They will never admit it. They will just say, we are as always following out grading standards. We know that’s not true
And this is exactly where we are. If grading has changed then that undermines prices for anything done before. It has the potential to kill value on anything graded earlier, but who's going to have the courage to regrade any of that? I have a 75 Brett/PSA 9 sitting in my collection that was graded several years ago. Does this new AI nonsense mean that should be valued like a current 7 or 8?
If so, then all that falls on PSA and I'm not happy (to say the least)! This kind of inconsistency hurts vintage value for all cards. Does it wipe 10% across the board? 20%? Who knows?
You cannot be a grading company with clear, established guidelines and then change those after decades in operation without undermining every graded card you've ever done.
Is AI being used i.e via the acquisition of gemint technology company??...seems AI be better suited for modern cards and not vintage unless someone knows how to program the "Artificial Eyes"...I like my crabmeat, sugar etc to be real and not artificial
Though as Dave (paulmaul) posted earlier, there have been some clunkers in 9 holders, too, so are the grading standrads entirely harsher or just less consistent due to inexperienced graders overall?
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 am almost certain that Genamint can't actually grade a card. Maybe it can measure for specs, but there is no way that the actual grading is being done by a machine.
It shouldn’t be grading cards. IMO. Inputting millions of variables and scenarios can’t be done overnight…
I hope this thread doesn't die to soon because for many a major component of collecting now is to rely on accurate accepted grading standards that do not change over time especially after 30 years of basically excepted standards regardless of technology.
That bottom corner is not consistent with the others. It very well could be the grader didn't care where it came from. They graded that corner like it was rounded and they wouldn't be wrong for it. I mean, there is no angle to measure if you had to. But alas, I'm no grader, it does no good to take out your aggression on me.
Sorry you feel asking questions is being aggressive. I mistakenly assumed you'd be proud to defend your opinion.
So you're saying that one "pretty bad" corner and a "stain" (printing imperfection?) constitutes a 5 grade.
I find this to be very telling as to why some of the grades are leaving the grading room 2-3 grades below expected.
Yours, and the grader's viewpoints seem to differ from the standard definitions of grading.
I thank you for your perspective, and I hope your feelings weren't hurt too bad as I refrained from asking you any further questions.
Guess the grade. Oh wait, this was one of my recent graded 75s….just looked through them for the first time..won’t sell any, going to my grave lol.
Wow……
What are the small brown circle stains on the name "rivers" front of the card?
I'm assuming they dinged you for the smudged surface around Mickey's name (common with this card) but a 5 is is still rather harsh.
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.
Right on, back in the day eye appeal had more play when I subbed these…psa 7 or 8 easy back in the day.
I would have grade 8(ST) or 6 with no qualifiers.
Ebay listing I was interested in until I zoomed the pic.
I don't know if those spots are on the case or card.
Also can't tell if the upper left corner is fuzzy or a spot on the case.
If it's the case, strange the seller wouldn't clean it.
Fugly looking
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
No way those are on the card. you can see with the two 'chunks' at the top, they go out further than the card. Could also be a really dirty scanner. If I were selling a PSA 10, I would want to shoe it in it's best light.
Looks like the seller blew chunks onto the scanner before scanning the card.
That Mickey Rivers card looks amazing. Perhaps a wrinkle is the only explanation for a PSA 5, however if you got a 5 without a wrinkle, my two invoices (175 cards) at PSA are screwed.
I used to love Mickey back in the day. Dude was so cool.
That card is a beautiful 5. They really need to bring a bit of 'eye test' back into their grading.
The collectors Voice will be heard and weighed in on "artificial eyes" verses "real human eyes"...personally I prefer real human eye judgement ESPECIALLY on pre 1990 cardboard...maybe artificial eyes on post 2000 cards...rock on folks!
Agree 100%. He would walk to home plate like Fred Sanford and beat out a grounder to short. He also had the following quotes that I remember off the top of my head:
"I like the 2nd half of the season more because the 2nd half of the season is shorter."
"It's so cold out there I saw a dog chasing a cat and they were both walking."
"My goals for this season are to hit .300, score 100 runs, and stay injury prone."
Stop already, I have zero feelings invested. You're the one that posted that garbage. I'm just telling you like it is. Whining about it does nothing. Do yourself a favor and buy a 10x loupe or keep wasting money sending sh*t cards. Haha