Options
What Grade Is This 75 Topps Rookie Catchers-Outfielders?
CardGeek
Posts: 765 ✭✭✭
0
CardGeek
Posts: 765 ✭✭✭
Comments
I would say PSA 7. The fisheyes don't usually have a significant impact on the grade, at least they did not in the past. I've even seen PSA 9 1975s with a 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.
6, but hard to say what that brown is along the edge.
A reflection? If it's discoloration , staining, or dirty, then maybe 3 or 4 without a qualifier.
Circumstances being what they are today,6 or 7.
Depending on when it was graded. My guesses…
Today it’s a 3.
Previous assessment would be 6/7.
I’d say 5.
Live long, and prosper.
6
cant really tell without seeing the surface/back, but it looks nice to me. good centering/corners/color/registration. i cant really see the edges well, but i would think a 7, maybe even 8 if the edges/surface are good.
the fisheyes are distracting, but i dont think they downgrade much for those
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
5 or 6
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
It looks like it could be a 7 or 8. But PSA could grade it lower at a 6 or higher at a 9. Is it a 9?
Newly graded 9.... sent in by 4sc and sent to PSA vault?
8 or 9 = if the largest Mass interest or possibly one NJ seller
3,4,5,6 = everyone else since early 2022
Looks like a 6 or a weak 7 to me personally
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
6…too many print fish eyes precludes a higher grade.
I'd say 6....maybe a 6.5 to reward the great centering.
6
I’m guessing 4. I’ve personally received 4s recently that look better but there’s no way that’s a 3. Right?
Nothing would surprise me at this point though.
7 or 8.
A few fisheyes
https://www.ebay.com/itm/306296713287
Thats hilarious
You misspelled nefarious.
it is funny how grading standards have changed over the years. 35 years ago that was absolutely a mint card. 100%
now some folks consider it vg to vg-ex
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Was that card ever a 9, with a touched corner, multiple large fisheyes and chipped edges? I don’t think 9 standards ever allowed for that.
Fish eyes are print defects.
The edges do seem kind of rough too.
You win the sleuth of the week award.
I believe you found the winner
Easy find. But thanks. I like solving puzzles. 😉
Holy cow. So hilarious.
It just surprised me because they have the card in their vault. Did they look at it when they listed it? On the rare occasion when I see stuff that I think is over graded I think to myself, "Obviously that is never going to get resubmitted for review." But, this is something that PSA has in their possession. Something that they're putting a price on based on their grade. It's just an interesting situation.
This is simply an isolated example from many that exist or did and have since been sold. A consigned card wearing a well-known and widely respected label to identify its perceived market value. It's up to the people examining whether or not to buy the card to decide if it fits the grade or to pass.
Regardless of the grade: that listing is auto-generated with PSA's AI from their vault and associated software services. The title and the words in the description reflect how the item is identified by cert number. I don't like how that results in the title as well as the primary words of the text in the listing not including Gary Carter's name. If it were my card, I would be concerned that it would not sell as well because of the listing not featuring his name more prominently in the search terms.
Your concern is that a PSA6 card with a PSA9 flip would not sell for 9 money due to Carter not being mentioned ...?
I get your point in general, but in this case it may prevent a rube from purchasing a card that presents like excrement for top dollar. Perhaps best for the hobby
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
Correct and agreed. My point was not about the specific card being worthy of a certain grade or value (which I agree in this case represents a card that certainly should not be in a holder labeled with a 9!), but rather the general concept of listing titles that are automatically generated being a potentially flawed process if they are not being audited by a human for relevancy and optimization.
I thought it was cards in the old flips that were overgraded...sheesh.
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.
Let guess on who the submitting entity was... Census medians must be maintained -- something that can go either way...
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
I'm still looking for cards in old flips which are undergraded. It's rare, but I've managed to get a few.
There are actually quite a few but many of them are retained in personal collections. The dogs tend to get flipped frequently and make the rounds.
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 going with PSA 5
Definitely conflict of interest