Most inconsistent grading standards ever!! To crack or not to crack?

JHS5120 · January 22, 2010 6:43AM

Hi,
I recently purchased this card because I can obviously tell that this is the most beautiful PSA 5 t205 that I have ever seen. I am thinking about resubmitting it as a review because I am paranoid about cracking slabs, there appears to be a mark of some sort (pen?) to the right of the "STL" above the cap. I am thinking that the original submitter checked off no qualifiers because I definately think this is a PSA 7 MK or PSA 6 at the very least.

I have some pics below (the first card is mine) and the two others are off of VCP. Opinions?

KbKards · January 22, 2010 6:53AM

Did you see where your card was sold in 2008? I wonder how many times this card has been sent to PSA for review and returned with a little white tag pointing out the wrinkle?

123Slider · January 22, 2010 6:58AM

I don't believe requesting NQ will apply to a pen mark of any kind. If it is there, it will get the MK.

cwazzy · January 22, 2010 7:00AM

If that is a mark by the STL it would be on the slab with a MK qualifier even if it was a 1. I don't believe the no qualifier request works with the MK designation.

Edited to add that I am a slow typer.

And to say nice card!

JHS5120 · January 22, 2010 7:01AM

<< <i>Did you see where your card was sold in 2008? I wonder how many times this card has been sent to PSA for review and returned with a little white tag pointing out the wrinkle? >>

(If you are checking VCP) I see that it sold twice in 2008 once for 382.00 and the other was 240.50 (niether were me btw) I see no wrinkle in those scans or in person. I really want to know more about this card, please explain.

KbKards · January 22, 2010 7:50AM

300387031648. Your seller warned people in the listing that if it doesn't sell it he will be sending it to PSA for a 6. Each person who bought the card before you probably thought that it was a slam dunk bump. Do you really think the card changed hands all those times and nobody ever attempted to get such an obvious slam dunk bumped? I wish you luck, but if it comes back a 5 again you've still got a great looking card.

Sportsamerica · January 22, 2010 7:59AM

I am assuming the back is clean...

Does it have any indent, which cannot be seen in a scan? I think it should bump to a 6 at least, but that 7 in today's grading wouldn't be a 7 (it is an old flip),

I thought even for a review, if they were going to really grade it (remove from slab) it would have gotten a new flip even if they found it after they removed the slab.. So unless I am wrong any review which has been done they must be seeing something without removing since the flip is the old flip.

diamondman · January 22, 2010 8:01AM

I just think the other 2 (6 & 7) are overgraded. All three should be PSA 5's. JMHO

JHS5120 · January 22, 2010 8:06AM

Has anyone here ever had success sending a card in as a review? I understand the grader will be VERY bias but do people sometimes get lucky? I just renewed my PSA subscription and my free grades are coming in so I might use all 6 for review if that is an option. Just saying.

JHS5120 · January 22, 2010 8:10AM

I just posted a scan of the back. It looks clean to me but I see something above the "Piedmont" I don't think it is paper loss but it is a lighter color.

KbKards · January 22, 2010 11:57PM

I believe I see a wrinkle going through the Pie in Piedmont. There's also a couple small divots of paper loss at the edge to the left of P in Piedmont.

Sportsamerica · January 23, 2010 12:11AM

I agree, you can see it in the i the best (for me at least) there is a wrinkle... Will keep it a 5 all day long.

leathtech · January 23, 2010 12:34AM

I agree with others it a very nice looking 5! I would just enjoy the card and not worry about the grade unless you are trying to make $$$

aconte · January 23, 2010 1:27AM

This is why a lot of collector's today stopped chasing the numerical grade and collected the card they like based on eye appeal.

aconte

Griffins · January 23, 2010 1:35AM

what the wise Mr. Conte said.

nightcrawler · January 23, 2010 1:45AM

<< <i>what the wise Mr. Conte said. >>

x2

mtcards · January 23, 2010 2:21AM

I agree that the PSA 7 is extremely overgraded, IMO. That card should have been no better than a 6 or a 5.

KbKards · January 23, 2010 2:23AM

The only problem with that thinking on the PSA 5 is the Bresnahan isn't a NM card, in or sold raw out of the holder. Raw sellers would love that card because they can call it NM and price it at NM when they sell it. Buyer Beware. Some buyers will see the defects and pass, and some buyers will be thinking they can send it in for a 7. The current buyer saw no defects even knowing that since it was in a 5 holder something must be wrong. Now that the defects are pointed out and he will be able to see them now, will the buyer be content that he has a great looking 5, or will be disappointed that the card won't bump and pass the card along to the next person thinking it will bump.

Most inconsistent grading standards ever!! To crack or not to crack?

Comments