PSA Blunder?

allstars · May 1, 2009

I just bought an incredible mint '75 Topps set. It's only missing the Aaron (660), the Ryan & the Schmidt. I don't normally browse graded cards but this set is sweet & I want to git-r-done before moving it. I had to wonder if the bidders even look at the card when they can go nuts over a PSA 9 with a large & ugly print mark such as this on it...

http://cgi.ebay.com/1975-TOPPS-BASEBALL ... dZViewItem

matfanofold · May 1, 2009

Not a blunder imo...

Print marks such as this were perticularly common with the 75 topps set for some reason, and as such, PSA usually does not grade as harshly for this as they would do on other sets. It's possible the card could have been a 10 without the blemish. However, it is unsightly to me and I would not want that as a representation of a 9 in my collection.

allstars · May 1, 2009

matfanofold said:
Not a blunder imo...

Print marks such as this were perticularly common with the 75 topps set for some reason, and as such, PSA usually does not grade as harshly for this as they would do on other sets. It's possible the card could have been a 10 without the blemish. However, it is unsightly to me and I would not want that as a representation of a 9 in my collection.

I always thought a 9 on a 70's card with solid borders was a pretty lofty grade. I wouldn't buy it for full book ungraded with that flaw, it's pretty eye-catching.

rdg00001 · May 1, 2009

Warren's All Stars said:
matfanofold said:

Not a blunder imo...

Print marks such as this were perticularly common with the 75 topps set for some reason, and as such, PSA usually does not grade as harshly for this as they would do on other sets. It's possible the card could have been a 10 without the blemish. However, it is unsightly to me and I would not want that as a representation of a 9 in my collection.

Click to expand...

I always thought a 9 on a 70's card with solid borders was a pretty lofty grade. I wouldn't buy it for full book ungraded with that flaw, it's pretty eye-catching.

Yeah - that is a screw-up on PSA's part. If anything it should have a (MK) qualifier

muchuckwagon · May 1, 2009

rdg00001 said:
Yeah - that is a screw-up on PSA's part. If anything it should have a (MK) qualifier

First, you are incorrect.

Cards with writing, ink marks, pencil marks, etc. will be designated "MK."

If anything, it is a PD qualifier:
Cards with significant printing defects will be designated "PD."

PSA does make certain allowances for issues that exist in the major of a release. A "fish eye" is not uncommon in '75 Topps cards, just a rough edges are the standard on OPC cards from the 70's or early 80's. A smooth edge on OPC cards from that time frame is a BIG warning sign that trimming might have occurred.

BGS makes the same allowances...they allow chipping on 2007 BCDP refractors and still assign a 9.5 grade to the edges.

JEA2880 · May 1, 2009

Doesn't allowing concessions to certain sets defeat the purpose of grading? Isn't that the POINT? Do they have some grade quota they need to meet? If there are 0 cards deserving of a 9, they none should get a 9 - PERIOD! Another reason why grading is bullsh...

matfanofold · May 1, 2009

JEA2880 said:
Doesn't allowing concessions to certain sets defeat the purpose of grading? Isn't that the POINT? Do they have some grade quota they need to meet? If there are 0 cards deserving of a 9, they none should get a 9 - PERIOD! Another reason why grading is bullsh...

Completely agree with you that grading is BS, but concessions are, were and will be made for certin cards/sets. Just the name of the game.

allstars · May 1, 2009

Do any of the grading companies offer a complete set grading service? Sorry if that's a silly question. If had quite a few '75 sets over the years but this one is special. Looks like it was hand-picked from vending, almost every card is well-centered. The few cards that are off-centered are interesting too, as I went into my commons stock to upgrade them & every one that I already had of those particular cards had a white "sheet border" line on one of the edges.

matchpenalty · May 1, 2009

I agree with chuck. BGS and PSA both allow a little way on certain issues that have a common problems. I've seen much worse PSA 9 fisheyes than that one get PSA 9 grade. Buy the card not the grade. Bgs allows stuff all the time on certain issues as well. I'm stunned how many 2007 Bowman Sterling cards that are in bgs 9.5 holders and they are way o/c top to bottom. Seems most were cut this way and BGS doesn't knock them on it.

predatorkj · May 2, 2009

I agree buy the card not the grade and that's where the beef is.They should make no allowances for any set period.It should always be the same criteria every time.Otherwise it really defeats the purpose.

allstars · May 2, 2009

predatorkj said:
I agree buy the card not the grade and that's where the beef is.They should make no allowances for any set period.It should always be the same criteria every time.Otherwise it really defeats the purpose.

I think so as well. Standards should be the same regardless of the sets involved. If 71 & 75 Topps cards are rare in a 9 or 10 so be it, it makes that one special card that comes along every so often all that much more special.

manningmurphyfan · May 2, 2009

You'd probably be best off sending some of the nicest stars and low pop commons in to get an idea of how they'll grade out and go from there.

miguelcabrera · May 2, 2009

Warren's All Stars said:
predatorkj said:

I agree buy the card not the grade and that's where the beef is.They should make no allowances for any set period.It should always be the same criteria every time.Otherwise it really defeats the purpose.

Click to expand...

I think so as well. Standards should be the same regardless of the sets involved. If 71 & 75 Topps cards are rare in a 9 or 10 so be it, it makes that one special card that comes along every so often all that much more special.

i agree, it does not really make sense

allstars · May 2, 2009

manningmurphyfan said:
You'd probably be best off sending some of the nicest stars and low pop commons in to get an idea of how they'll grade out and go from there.

Probably good advice, thanks. I see there's a huge desparity in price between a PSA 8 & PSA 9.

allstars · May 12, 2009

manningmurphyfan said:
You'd probably be best off sending some of the nicest stars and low pop commons in to get an idea of how they'll grade out and go from there.

If I may rehash this, what do you grading guys think my best way to go would be? I'd like to pull the best stars & grade them. Where can I find the commons population report?

allstars · May 12, 2009

Warren's All Stars said:
manningmurphyfan said:

You'd probably be best off sending some of the nicest stars and low pop commons in to get an idea of how they'll grade out and go from there.

Click to expand...

If I may rehash this, what do you grading guys think my best way to go would be? I'd like to pull the best stars & grade them. Where can I find the commons population report?

What's the most economic way to go? Beckett? PSA?

THANKS IN ADVANCE!

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

PSA Blunder?

allstars

New member

matfanofold

Active member

allstars

New member

rdg00001

New member

muchuckwagon

New member

JEA2880

New member

matfanofold

Active member

allstars

New member

matchpenalty

New member

predatorkj

Active member

allstars

New member

manningmurphyfan

New member

miguelcabrera

New member

allstars

New member

allstars

New member

allstars

New member

Similar threads

Members online

Latest posts