1975 Topps George Brett PSA 10 - How high does this go??

[Lancemountain]

wow great sale.

GC do you know speared that one?

 

[George_Calfas]

wow great sale.

GC do you know speared that one?

Yes, definitely a big wheel

 

[RStadlerASU22]

Crazy sale IMO, I've stated that the back centering would irritate the hell out of me. From my unscientific measuring its at 65/35.

Congrats to the seller and the buyer. I doubt PW saw the card bringing $20k so I'm sure they are very happy.

Ryan

 

[MansGame]

Crazy sale IMO, I've stated that the back centering would irritate the hell out of me. From my unscientific measuring its at 65/35.

Congrats to the seller and the buyer. I doubt PW saw the card bring $20k so I'm sure they are very happy.

Ryan

Great post. Agree across the board here.


---
Buying Albert Belle cards! PM me!

 

[Lancemountain]

^^^I'd suggest you two don't purchase a card such as this then lol

 

[LWMM]

Counting pixels on the back edges of the card, I came up with 11/18 on the top, and 10/19 on the bottom. That comes out to 38/62 and 34/66 centering, well within PSA's 75/25 minimum standard for back centering on a PSA 10.

I have no problem with the fuzzy edges; that's how the card was created. Condition sensitive sets have cards that are created perfectly, and are then quickly damaged: from the sheet cutter to the pack, from the pack to the penny sleeve, and so on. 1970s Topps sets, however, with quickly blunted wire cutters, were given fuzzy edges as a byproduct of their cardboard birth.

The more analogous argument is to look at a mint card that is off-centered. It is as perfect as it was when created, so why dock it grade points? Some cards have really only been found off-centered; should 10s be handed out for them?

The most compelling argument for giving 10s to fuzzy-edged cards (ridiculousness terminology noted) is the sheer pervasiveness of them; for years, nearly every card was produced that way. Should it really be impossible for a decade's worth of cards to get a 10?

 

[RStadlerASU22]

Counting pixels on the back edges of the card, I came up with 11/18 on the top, and 10/19 on the bottom. That comes out to 38/62 and 34/66 centering, well within PSA's 75/25 minimum standard for back centering on a PSA 10.

I have no problem with the fuzzy edges; that's how the card was created. Condition sensitive sets have cards that are created perfectly, and are then quickly damaged: from the sheet cutter to the pack, from the pack to the penny sleeve, and so on. 1970s Topps sets, however, with quickly blunted wire cutters, were given fuzzy edges as a byproduct of their cardboard birth.

The more analogous argument is to look at a mint card that is off-centered. It is as perfect as it was when created, so why dock it grade points? Some cards have really only been found off-centered; should 10s be handed out for them?

The most compelling argument for giving 10s to fuzzy-edged cards (ridiculousness terminology noted) is the sheer pervasiveness of them; for years, nearly every card was produced that way. Should it really be impossible for a decade's worth of cards to get a 10?

As me being one who has argued against the "10" grade on this item, and if any of your post is directed at one of my responses then here is my summary.

I get the edges , I never argued against the grade for the edges. I understand the quality of the set , the technology of the times , etc etc . I didn't think that the grade should be reduced from the way the edges are. I mentioned the edges in one of my posts that with the look plus the centering , and the print marks. it would be hard for ME to use this example to be the "10" Brett I would want.

With the centering , I stated it was 65/35, and yes I understand that fits into the PSA scale. I say that scale is needing adjustment. 60/40 or 55/45 IMO should be the minimum for GEM grades. That wasn't the argument. The argument was eye appeal. It bugs me, and the fact that it went for 20k with the centering issue, was surprising.

[MENTION=3275]Lancemountain[/MENTION] , not sure what your post means , you seem to feel like we must agree to think that it is the perfect example?

If I'm in the market for a PSA 10 anything , and actually any grade , the centering / eye appeal def plays a huge roll if I'd want the item. You have a lot of the PSA 10 1975 Brett's lying around ? You seem to state we have no idea what were speaking about , and that is far from the case .

Ryan

 

[Lancemountain]

.

@Lancemountain , not sure what your post means , you seem to feel like we must agree to think that it is the perfect example?

Not trying to make you agree with me at all.

Just pointing out that you and mansgame and vnutt et all seem to have difficulty understanding the grade.

 

[RStadlerASU22]

Not trying to make you agree with me at all.

Just pointing out that you and mansgame and vnutt et all seem to have difficulty understanding the grade.

No I don't have a hard time understanding the grade , I have a hard time with the eye appeal being the example that $20k gets dropped on. If that was the card I wanted or was perusing , I'm holding out for one centered better regardless if the 65/35 fit the grading standard for a PSA 10.

Ryan

 

[SINFULONE]

I think most here now understand the grade, but are of the non expert opinion that PSA's grading scale is flawed.To give one era of cards more leniancy over another just because "they were commonly made that way" seems inconsistant to say the least.If the card has a rough edge or is badly off centered, regardless if it was made in '75 or '07, it's still a flaw.Grading of all eras should have a consistant scale all across the board.

 

[Lancemountain]

Grading of all eras should have a consistant scale all across the board.

1000% disagree

 

[SINFULONE]

1000% disagree

OK, I can accept that.Your opinion why is welcome.

 

[Lancemountain]

This card, and most like it, left the printers with the edges it still exhibits.

There is absolutly no way you or anyone else (or the three top TPG companies for that matter) could ever come to a consise way to grade cards from lithograpths and tobacco cards, hand printing and wire cutting all the way through the mid centrury untill the era of laser cut/die cut and chrome cards with modern machinery. Seems pretty silly IMO.

If you have issue with the grading guidlines that is another convo. IMO the centering is within the guidelines set forth and understood by the people that were in the market for this card

 

[George_Calfas]

I think most here now understand the grade, but are of the non expert opinion that PSA's grading scale is flawed.To give one era of cards more leniancy over another just because "they were commonly made that way" seems inconsistant to say the least.If the card has a rough edge or is badly off centered, regardless if it was made in '75 or '07, it's still a flaw.Grading of all eras should have a consistant scale all across the board.

All grading is flawed or biased due to human subjectivity.

 

[Topnotchsy]

This card, and most like it, left the printers with the edges it still exhibits.

Do you feel the same way about off centered cards? I'm trying to understand the position but I'm not sure why how it looked when it left the printers matters...