Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

you tell me...

OAKESY25OAKESY25 Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
original submission came back trimmed.. resent and got a 6???
is this a 6? perfect in every way... I was scared to touch this card it was so clean

bob

image[/IMG]

Comments

  • OAKESY25OAKESY25 Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
    image
  • OAKESY25OAKESY25 Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
    image
  • DavidPuddyDavidPuddy Posts: 3,488 ✭✭✭
    The top boarder looks funny, but if it's not trimmed,,,,,,, it's super nice. 9 or 9oc

    Surface wrinkle?? How's the back look??
    "The Sipe market is ridiculous right now"
    CDsNuts, 1/9/15
  • lawnmowermanlawnmowerman Posts: 19,477 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>The top boarder looks funny, but if it's not trimmed,,,,,,, it's super nice. 9 or 9oc

    Surface wrinkle?? How's the back look?? >>



    I cant have a surface wrinkle. A wrinkle is an automatic 5.

    I would just lean toward a new brain-dead grader. (I really wanted to say something else but didnt want to be banned........yet)

    1994 Pro Line Live

    TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject

  • OAKESY25OAKESY25 Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
    the card measures perfect... I thought if anything it maybe had a bat ear on the bottom right...
    but the card measures 3.5 x 2.5 perfect...

    image
  • OAKESY25OAKESY25 Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
    image
    oops
  • ElemenopeoElemenopeo Posts: 2,577 ✭✭

    Could you post a scan?


    Just kidding. Looks great to me. The top to bottom centering is off, but not enough to take it all the way down to a 6, I'd think.

    Why no slab? Still in transit?
  • OAKESY25OAKESY25 Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
    yeah.. they just popped yesterday... I sent some post cards in for grading and 2 didnt grade
    I complained because my 62 maris did grade and it had less of the boarder then my others...
    so I am hopefull
  • mandeldmandeld Posts: 350 ✭✭
    Third time is the charm...

    I think it finds its way into an 8 holder.
    Successful transactions with: vintagetoppsguy, packman, barndog, Big80s, MurphDawg, BrackAttack, mealeworm, Publius, Whiteshoes, bigredone, rube26105, ledsters, reelinintheyears, digicat, themetalsign, OSClabs, 1420sports, bighurt2000, MeteoriteGuy, lsutigers1973, skier07, Machodoc, gameusedhoop, tennesseebanker, Downtown1974, CGeorge, Salinas, corvette1340, lbcoach20, initialD, IJustLoveCards, TedSimmonsFan, Goldlabels, Lothar52, bigred1, Bosox1976, itzagoner, svtPONY95
  • OAKESY25OAKESY25 Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
    I will let you all know.. fingers crossed
  • psafanpsafan Posts: 232
    10
  • SoonerCowboySoonerCowboy Posts: 1,179
    Am I missing something? This looks like a sure 7 and borderline 8. How did it get a 6? Another reason PSA should start using subgrades.
    00 Collector's Edge Supreme Master Build Almost
    imageimage
  • LeiascardsLeiascards Posts: 3,233
    9 with PD qualifier or a 6 or 7. There are 5 obvious printing defects couple that with the centering top to bottom 6 or 7 is probaly right on.
  • cravetoppscravetopps Posts: 1,134
    should have been an easy 7 NQ; can't be higher without an (OC) qualifier due to top/bottom centering.
    Mark B.

    Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards

    My PSA Registry Sets

    34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭✭✭
    9 card is beautiful.
    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • ldfergldferg Posts: 6,755 ✭✭✭
    PD??? i don't see it, at least not enough to warrant a PD qualifier.

    maybe something up with the surface itself. looks like a nice 7 imo. i'd like to have it in my collection. image


    Thanks,

    David (LD_Ferg)



    1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
  • packCollectorpackCollector Posts: 2,786 ✭✭✭
    I would say it is the top to bottom centering but looks enough to be a 7, no way an 8 based on top to bottom. The batear on the lower right is probably why it came back trimmed the 1st time although they could have just said miscut and given you a voucher. I have several 54's that have an irregular cut where one corner curves in but obvious factory cuts. all 3 were miscut the 1st time , 2 graded 8's and 1 miscut the 2nd time and the 3rd time the last one came back trimmed. all 3 were previously graded by sgc as well. it isn't trimmed, the grader just chose to keep the grading fee.

    you could crack out and hope for a 7 but I would be happy with it being holdered. If you are selling , start it with a higher opening bid and someone will buy the card eventually and not the holder as it looks gorgeous.

    good luck
  • LeiascardsLeiascards Posts: 3,233
    Several print flaws:

    1. Below Ear
    2. on his left cheek
    3 Midway down the card just to his left
    4. The end of the S in Maris
    5. some kind of mark below the T in T.C.G. on the back.

    Looks like another in his cap 6 to 7 tops after factoring in centering.
  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,487 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hi Bob

    Did you use a loupe to inspect the card before submitting?

    Even if ya use a 5x loupe, inspect the lower right corner...

    it's missing a chunk of the white outer veneer of the card - that will push it into the 6 range if large enough IMO.

    mike
    Mike
  • OAKESY25OAKESY25 Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
    no I just got one a 10x.. but already submitted.. I had another scan that I zoomed in tight and didnt see any chipping
  • chaz43chaz43 Posts: 2,140 ✭✭✭
    Centering is way off. 6 is the right call. chaz
  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,487 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>no I just got one a 10x.. but already submitted.. I had another scan that I zoomed in tight and didnt see any chipping >>

    When ya get it back - double check that lower right corner - I'm affraid you're gonna see some chipping - thus the 6.

    The centering is weak and if you asked for no qualifiers - this would just about give it a 6 also.

    I pixel measured it at 27/73 approx. T/B on it's worst side - the right. That's just short of what's needed for an 8 without OC qualifier.

    So, if you're right on the fact that all the corners are good - this card is an 8 OC - probably?

    I stink at this - so it's just my opinion.
    mike

    edit: I put the 7 and 8 in OC - when I just wanted the 8.

    Mike
  • paleocardspaleocards Posts: 942 ✭✭✭✭
    Centering keeps it out of an "8" holder, and it's marginal for a "7" too. Using jruler, I measure the T/B centering at 27/73 at its most off-centered points (top & bottom right). According to PSA guidelines, the centering tolerances for an "8" are "65/35 to 70/30" and the PSA 7 tolerances are "70/30 to 75/25". It may make it into a "7" holder after resubmission.

    (Looks like Stone beat me to the pixel measurements, but at least we came up with the same numbers!)
  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,487 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Centering keeps it out of an "8" holder, and it's marginal for a "7" too. Using jruler, I measure the T/B centering at 27/73 at its most off-centered points (top & bottom right). According to PSA guidelines, the centering tolerances for an "8" are "65/35 to 70/30" and the PSA 7 tolerances are "70/30 to 75/25". It may make it into a "7" holder after resubmission.

    (Looks like Stone beat me to the pixel measurements, but at least we came up with the same numbers!) >>

    But at least we concur to start with.

    And more important - I value your input and the fact that you would take the time to review the card with an on-line ruler and give your opinions.

    That's what we do best here - as opposed to the incessant whining.

    mike
    Mike
Sign In or Register to comment.