Speaking of cards that DO NOT appear to be 10's
WinPitcher
Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
260276647853
Sorry can't link, however this is worthy of a thread regarding cards that
should not be in a 10 holder.
Discuss.
Thanks in advance to who ever links for me.
Steve
Sorry can't link, however this is worthy of a thread regarding cards that
should not be in a 10 holder.
Discuss.
Thanks in advance to who ever links for me.
Steve
Good for you.
0
Comments
Thanks for doing it for me.
Steve
That's not my idea of a Gem Mint 10. I wonder what SGC would say if a person wanted to cross it over?
Should be bought back and downgraded.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
PSA should have instituted the 9.5 grade for 55/45 and 60/40 centering and called it Gem Mint and the PSA 10 should be Pristine like SGC.
After all, isn't there just as much of a difference between an 8 - 8.5 as there should be in a 9 - 9.5?
PSA's definition of a 10:
A PSA Gem Mint 10 card is a virtually perfect card. Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus and full original gloss. A PSA Gem Mint 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse.
SGC's definition of a 10:
100 PRISTINE - a "virtually flawless" card. 50/50 centering, crisp focus, four sharp corners*, free of stains, no breaks in surface gloss, no print or refractor lines, and no visible wear under magnification.
98 GEM 10 - 55/45 or better centering, sharp focus, four sharp corners*, free of stains, no breaks in surface gloss, no print or refractor lines, and no visible wear. A slight print spot visible under close scrutiny is allowable if it does not detract from the aesthetics of the card.
PoppaJ
Although this card is an extreme example, I think PSA has curved standards when it comes to grading old cards. Possibly when a card that old is submitted, a grader might have a more positive mindset. They're looking for what is right with the card, rather than what is wrong with it.
If a 2007 Topps Chrome card that looked like that were submitted for grading it would be lucky to get a 9.
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>I know how to link smart ass my comp won't allow me too. >>
To type a link, do this (without the spaces between characters):
[ L=this is a link ]http://www.link.com[ /L ]
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>looks like an early PSA slab before they really started to take centering into the equation like they should. >>
Wh wh whaaaat!!???? The date on which PSA grades a card has nothing to do with how strict or lax their standards are!!!! You buy the card, not the grade!! It's all human variables!!!
at least that's what I've been told on these boards by certain people.
I think you have a point my friend.
Centering, Edges,Corners and Surface, imo the grader who slabbed that a 10 took into account in which if PSA showed the subgrades ala BGS then imo he would have had given it a 9 centering, 9.5 corners, 9.5 edges, and 9.5 surface....which equals a GEM MINT card......also the grader could have gave it a 8.5 centering in his mind and then the other subgrades 10 corners, 9.5 edges and 9.5 surface...which still comes out to being a GEM MINT.....thats just my take on the card......a damn beautifull card it sure is
It fails my "eye appeal" test.
It does, though, have a very nice pack-fresh look to it.
No way. At best the front centering is a 7 and the back a 3.
Steve
<< <i>well in my opinion i think the card is graded perfect, i belive then if u take into consideration of the 4 attributes in which cards are graded
Centering, Edges,Corners and Surface, imo the grader who slabbed that a 10 took into account in which if PSA showed the subgrades ala BGS then imo he would have had given it a 9 centering, 9.5 corners, 9.5 edges, and 9.5 surface....which equals a GEM MINT card......also the grader could have gave it a 8.5 centering in his mind and then the other subgrades 10 corners, 9.5 edges and 9.5 surface...which still comes out to being a GEM MINT.....thats just my take on the card......a damn beautifull card it sure is >>
Have you ever seen a card with the subgrades of centering 8.5, corners 10, edges 9.5 ,and surface 9.5 equall a 9.5 gem overall?
that the stamp-side employs.
Maybe even PSA should read it.
The "relative grading" that results in PSA giving high-grades to cards with junk
centering needs to be abandoned.
As noted in the PSE guidelines, if you can look at an item for less than 10-seconds
and see that it has centering issues, it AIN'T top-tier.
CENTERING
It's not an attractive 10 - it will look good without a scan on the registry if one is a super competitor?
Not the best scan either.
I think I'll pass.
mike
<< <i>...I cannot imagine taking more than 10 seconds to determine if something is off center.
But most of the time Centering is judged almost instanly............ >>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The PSE concept is built on the notion that if an item is OC - like the PSA 10 at issue -
it does not take but one FAST look to see the centering-issue. Such items, under the
PSE scheme, are auto-excluded from the top grades.
If an item must be "measured" to FIND the defect, it is still possible that a high-grade
can be obtained. BECAUSE, obviously, such an item has passed the "eye appeal test,"
and ONLY a pixel count can discredit it.
Sadly, PSA - and their demanding customers - are using measuring-sticks to create
wealth and not to find "perfect cards." They need to STOP trying to get cards by the
"minimum standards for the grade," and start considering "eye-appeal" as THE SUPER
critical element of the grade. Measuring should be used to disqualify cards from
high-grades; not to allow the item to squeak by.
If PSA is grading certain cards based on notions of, "that series is most difficult to
locate well centered," they are messing-up the grading system. A 10 should look
like a 10. The market can decide if a "tough series" 8 is best of breed; putting 10s
on 8s is grading on the curve, and weakens the value of PSA slabs.
has a reserve set at 9k and wants more.
Anyone think it will sell at the asking price?
Steve
edited to add I see it now has a bid, not sure if it had it when I created this thread.
"multiple-standards." PSE gets it.
And, please don't argue that "cards are different." Centering on a printed
item is equally important in ALL collectible categories; stamps, cards, currency
ALL enter the first round of the "eye-appeal contest" advantaged/disadvantaged
by their CENTERING. The results of that contest need to be FULLY reflected in the
grade granted.
//////////////////
PSE excerpt from "centering info".............
PSE therefore strives to apply only one centering standard for all U.S. stamps with the exception of the first perforated issue of 1857 to 1861 (Scott Nos. 18-38), and their corresponding reprints of 1875 (Scott #41 through #46) and the 5, 24 and 30 issues of 1861 (Scott Nos. 67, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78 and their grilled counterparts). The 1857 stamps were originally designed as imperforates, and because the margins are often virtually non-existent, the perforations are often touching the design even on well-centered examples. Aside from these pre-Civil War issues and the few 1861 issues, the remaining U.S. stamps are evaluated using a single, consistent criterion. In this way, the standard can remain steady, and the listed market values can adjust appropriately.
The logic behind this can be easily understood using a non-philatelic example. Assume for example, a rare antique car is being offered - let's say a 1911 Buick. All the known 1911 Buicks (including this car) are rusty wrecks. But, this particular one is the least rusty, and the best one known. Should the car be described as being in "Excellent" or "Near Mint" condition? Of course not. Simply because it is nice for a 1911 Buick does not change its actual condition. It might accurately be described as "only fair, finest known." Those who want an example of this car will therefore bid accordingly, and the car may realize a handsome price. But its rarity does not affect its grade or condition.
Using a philatelic example, the PSE centering standard for Scott No. 596, a rare and typically poorly centered stamp is consequently the same as that for Scott No. 595, a stamp that comes in the full range of centering. In this way, superb centering is just that, and there is no such thing as a Scott No. 596, "Superb" for issue. The inconsistency and confusion resulting from a "relative" scale is obvious. According to the PSE centering standard, the best-centered Scott No. 596 in existence is only Fine, but the market retail price for this centering can still exceed $100,000.
on 8s is grading on the curve, and weakens the value of PSA slabs.
Very well said.
Steve
Cert #s 02083873 through 02088390 are all T206s that received at least a PSA 8 and they got two more PSA 10s.
I'd still welcome it in my collection, but then again I wouldn't kick Jennifer Anison out of bed for eating crackers either.
Now this card is worthy of any grade they have assigned. This is simply the best T206 I have ever seen. BTW, Same seller and original submitter.
T206 Mullins PSA 9
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
/////////////////////////
Likely true and correct. BUT.............
Repeating PSE's view on that issue:
"The logic behind this can be easily understood using a non-philatelic example. Assume for example, a rare antique car is being offered - let's say a 1911 Buick. All the known 1911 Buicks (including this car) are rusty wrecks. But, this particular one is the least rusty, and the best one known. Should the car be described as being in "Excellent" or "Near Mint" condition? Of course not. Simply because it is nice for a 1911 Buick does not change its actual condition. It might accurately be described as "only fair, finest known." Those who want an example of this car will therefore bid accordingly, and the car may realize a handsome price. But its rarity does not affect its grade or condition.
///////////////////////////
EDITED: I was addressing the 10, not the 9. Nice 9.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
garner no better then a 7 in my opinion.
I'd love it in my collection too, just not for 9k or 22 k.
Steve
<< <i>That card was never a '10' IMO, back in the day a card with reverse centering that this card has would
garner no better then a 7 in my opinion.
I'd love it in my collection too, just not for 9k or 22 k.
Steve >>
I agree on both points. It was only deemed a 10 because of the submitter IMO.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
<< <i>Somebody had a really profitable submission . . .
Cert #s 02083873 through 02088390 are all T206s that received at least a PSA 8 and they got two more PSA 10s. >>
That submission is pretty freaking insane. We'll have to keep an eye on these as they sell. Maybe they're all overgraded?