This Gretzky RC cannot be a PSA 9....can it?

MULLINS5 · June 15, 2009 3:11PM

sure does not look 9 to me...

Gretzky PSA 9 ?

Patrick

VitoCo1972 · June 15, 2009 3:13PM

Sure can. That's a 93-97 era flip. Wicked old. Way before grading standards were truly established (if they even are now). That's a huge problem with the pop reports. Look at some of the best all time sets. They have those flips. Particularly the old Cracker Jack sets on the registry and many T206's.

Pigs · June 15, 2009 3:18PM

The centering both L to R and T to B would not allow that card to be a 9 these days. You could almost go one to two grades lower on those old flips.

storm888 · June 15, 2009 3:24PM

ugh

hoarse529 · June 15, 2009 3:25PM

Is 1500 bucks the same price a more recent PSA 9 would go for?

It's still a nice card to own, but I'm sure an educated buyer would realize what is going on there, and not pay that 1500 bucks. That card might be better sold on a Best Offer listing.

wolfbear · June 15, 2009 3:49PM

I've seen worse 9s.

PSA can reholder it with a brand new flip.
Would be well worth the 5 buck investment ...

MULLINS5 · June 15, 2009 3:58PM

<<

I've seen worse 9s.

PSA can reholder it with a brand new flip.
Would be well worth the 5 buck investment ... >>

Yeah, but they would be obligated to knock that down to at least an 8...then pay the difference of SMR to the owner (as that's PSA's policy)

Maybe that's why SMR values are generally pretty ridiculous?

storm888 · June 15, 2009 4:13PM

I am vey unsure as to what - if any - legal obligation PSA has
to change the grade on such a card.

TomGshotput · June 15, 2009 4:22PM

Isn't grading nothing more than their expert opinion? Unless their opinion was negligent, there would be no legal obligations

MULLINS5 · June 15, 2009 4:57PM

<< Isn't grading nothing more than their expert opinion? Unless their opinion was negligent, there would be no legal obligations >>

I have no idea why anybody would think there are any "legal issues" here...it is PSA's policy to give the owner the SMR difference if they regrade a card lower than they originally graded it.

I'm just saying that if I were a PSA grader I couldn't let this card be re-slabbed a 9 as the front is off center and has poor eye appeal, there are print defects on the front as well, the back is centered great, but looks as if there is a slight stain.

Patrick

WinPitcher · June 15, 2009 9:11PM

The scan is too small for me to think either way on it.

I do though think a problem exists on the r/t/b

With that said, just as there are dogs in early slabs there also are

some sweet cards. I never dismiss a card simply because of when it

was graded. I've seen it both ways.

Steve

nightcrawler · June 16, 2009 12:40AM

Isn't it 70-30 with good eye appeal? Not saying the card has very good eye appeal, just curious and to lazy to check. Card doesn't look to bad in my opinion, better than some 65-35s out there.

leathtech · June 16, 2009 3:34AM

Could you send the card back to PSA to have it reslabbed... it sure would look better in a today's flip (might sell for more).

mike92694 · June 16, 2009 4:31AM

<< 

<< Isn't grading nothing more than their expert opinion? Unless their opinion was negligent, there would be no legal obligations >>

I have no idea why anybody would think there are any "legal issues" here...it is PSA's policy to give the owner the SMR difference if they regrade a card lower than they originally graded it.

I'm just saying that if I were a PSA grader I couldn't let this card be re-slabbed a 9 as the front is off center and has poor eye appeal, there are print defects on the front as well, the back is centered great, but looks as if there is a slight stain.

Patrick >>

Right, but there needs to be a request to regrade the card. The owner could just have it reholdered in a new PSA holder without a grade change.

WinPitcher · June 16, 2009 4:34AM

it is PSA's policy to give the owner the SMR difference if they regrade a card lower than they originally graded it.

I don't think that is the policy, at least I hope not.

Suppose I pay 1000.00 for a low pop common and SMR is 30.00?

Steve

storm888 · June 16, 2009 4:43AM

"Right, but there needs to be a request to regrade the card. The owner could just have it reholdered in a new PSA holder without a grade change. "

////////////////////////////

I am uncertain that a regrade request would be necessary
to trigger a downgrade.

The question may be: How much closer to a viable warranty
claim would PSA be, IF they reholdered the card at the
current grade?

Such a claim on the card in the existing slab might be stale.
If they reslab it at the same grade, a fresh warranty claim
might be born.

IchiroDeported · June 16, 2009 1:24PM

thats a sharp looking 7.

mike92694 · June 16, 2009 1:29PM

<< "Right, but there needs to be a request to regrade the card. The owner could just have it reholdered in a new PSA holder without a grade change. "

////////////////////////////

I am uncertain that a regrade request would be necessary
to trigger a downgrade.

The question may be: How much closer to a viable warranty
claim would PSA be, IF they reholdered the card at the
current grade?

Such a claim on the card in the existing slab might be stale.
If they reslab it at the same grade, a fresh warranty claim
might be born. >>

I disagree with this logic. I would venture to say that PSA would treat it in the same way as its sister company PCGS (who grades coins). Basically, it shouldn't matter when the card was graded, just as long as it was graded by PSA.

storm888 · June 16, 2009 1:42PM

"I disagree with this logic. I would venture to say that PSA would treat it in the same way as its sister company PCGS (who grades coins). Basically, it shouldn't matter when the card was graded, just as long as it was graded by PSA."

/////////////

I do not disagree with that notion.

The quandry presents when PSA is asked to reholder the card as a 9.

On the one hand, they likely know it's not currently a 9.

On the other hand, if they downgrade the card, any "previous warranty"
would immediately be called upon for relief.

RawPlusSlabbed · June 16, 2009 2:03PM

<< "I disagree with this logic. I would venture to say that PSA would treat it in the same way as its sister company PCGS (who grades coins). Basically, it shouldn't matter when the card was graded, just as long as it was graded by PSA."

/////////////

I do not disagree with that notion.

The quandry presents when PSA is asked to reholder the card as a 9.

On the one hand, they likely know it's not currently a 9.

On the other hand, if they downgrade the card, any "previous warranty"
would immediately be called upon for relief. >>

Yes, doing the right thing can be tough at times.

This Gretzky RC cannot be a PSA 9....can it?

Comments