Wacky Packages Forum
Wacky Packages Discussion => General Wacky Packages Discussion => Original Series => Topic started by: NationalSpittoon on February 06, 2022, 12:14:19 PM
-
I believe I made one of these topics when I first came here, and at that point I was very inexperienced in the wacky realm. This is always one of my favorite topics. For each series, I am going to point out five titles of which seem more difficult in high grade for one reason or another. You all are encouraged to list some toughies in your experience as well. These are roughly listed in order from toughest in the set to least tough (out of the five that I chose), but the listings are not always so concrete.
1973 Series 1 WB
This set is unique in its sheet distribution, but it ironically does not entirely correlate with toughness in high grade. here is my list:
Kook Aid
Grave Train
Band-Ache
Lavirus
Dopey Whip
1973 Series 2 WB
This set boasts an impressive list of commonly miscut and off-centered titles, so picking five is not easy. 8-Lives and Cap'n Crud are likely candidates for the top toughest in the entire original series.
8-Lives
Cap'n Crud
Botch Tape
Brittle
Ditch Masters
1973 Series 3 TB
Conversely to series 2, I consider most of this set to be relatively easy to find in high grade. This effort is exacerbated if you don't mind egregious toning on every copy. However, a few titles stand out among the rest...
Raw Leaves
Sweathard
Wheez-It
Windchester
Rice-a-Phoni
1973 Series 4
Choke Wagon
Blue Beanie
Brute 88
Windhex
Mustard Charge
1973/4 Series 5
For reference, I have the most experience hunting for high grade titles in this set - so this list may hold a bit more water than the other series.
Shot Wheels
Muleburro
Krazy Crackers
Hungry Jerk
Triks Cereal
1974 Series 6
Clammy
Bar-Kist
Mold Rush
Truant
What Man's
1974 Series 7
Like series 3, this one doesn't generally seem difficult besides a few exceptions. I think most mid-series are this way, the majority of concern lying in roller marks.
Feetena
Leek
Contrac
Hurtz Baked Bears
Sorry Wrap
1974 Series 8
Kentucky Fried Fingers
Knots
Kong Fu
Rolaches
Hardly Wrap
1974 Series 9
This series is quite tough to pick five for! "Stickers" is an honorable mention.
Jerky Fruits
Pig Pen Oil
GI Toe
Foolite
Delinquent Spinach
1974 Series 10
Greaseline
Fishey Prize
Tic Toc
Uncle Bums
Caraid
1974 Series 11
Roller marks plague this set, and majority of the latter half of the checklist is excruciatingly difficult to find in high grade. The top three are pretty much interchangeable.
Alpain
Bash
Fib Deterrent
King o' Scare
Comit
1975 Series 12
The top three are noticeably more difficult than the rest in my opinion.
Wash 'n Fly
Battle Caps
Creep
Siesta
Martian Hats
1975 Series 13 TB
Dumb and Crazy
Doomed Matches
Don't-Touch-Mee
Ape Green Beans
Ale Detergent
1975 Series 14 WB
Ain't Toothpaste
Hippy Trash Bags
Irish Ring
Polarbearoid
Rebell Jet
1975 Series 15
This series has some of the titles with the biggest diamond cut/tilt issues in the OS.
Earth Barn
Electric Slave
Fang Edward
Jerkitol
Petley
1976 Series 16
Floral
Old Grandmom
Cracked
Ram-A-Liar
Clubbed Canadian
Let me know what you guys/gals think. Also feel free to share if you have any nice examples of some of the tough titles.
-
Series 14 tri-fold.
-
You are pretty much right on the money with all of these. The only thing I would add is that certain 2nd series titles seem tougher as tan backs, notably Awful Bits, Run Tony, Chicken Fat, and Putrid.
-
You are pretty much right on the money with all of these. The only thing I would add is that certain 2nd series titles seem tougher as tan backs, notably Awful Bits, Run Tony, Chicken Fat, and Putrid.
Yes. This is why I tried to delineate backing types for each series. Although, I feel that series 2 is the only one that makes a big difference in terms of individual titles being more difficult (I.E. Awful Bits TB, Run Tony TB, et al.). Even in series 1, I haven't seen that TB's or ludlow backs are more difficult on individual titles. Rather, all TB's are prone for miscut for example.
Series 14 tri-fold.
This is true. Just the way that series 14 tans are all likely OC or miscut, and all prone to roller marks at that.
-
I would only add two more Muler Dregg's series 11 and Shrunken donuts series 13 Those are two of the hardest I am trying to find in high grade. If I had to pick the hardest total series it would be series 14. Holy cow is that one hard Satan wrap that one is highest a 8 from PSA. I run into roller marks or off center. Also Faustxxx is correct on series 14 tri-folds. That series wow most of the series the highest graded is a 6 or a 5. just can't get high grade cards in that run.
-
is this thread really about "high grade" as opposed to centered as defined by visual appearance due to placement on a sheet? Typically the hardest cards of any set to find in high grade would be the ones on the top of bottom of a stack that might be rubberbanded or face the highest risk of exposure, otherwise the chances of any card being handled and thus in lesser condition would be more likely a function of it being traded or handled more. Many of the titles on this list don't seem to fall into the latter categories I mentioned.
-
The “top card” theory has always been around, and it may be true to some degree, but PSA populations would suggest that centering problems caused by sheet position are a more serious factor in thwarting high grades.
-
Centering is a factor in grade, no? Just the way that miscut is? Factory prone errors are still a factor in grade… of course rubber band marks, writing, and other user inflicted blemishes impact grade but in terms of the larger picture they don’t impact the overall ability to find certain cards in high grade vs. others.
What do you think about roller marks in regard with high grades?
-
is this thread really about "high grade" as opposed to centered as defined by visual appearance due to placement on a sheet? Typically the hardest cards of any set to find in high grade would be the ones on the top of bottom of a stack that might be rubberbanded or face the highest risk of exposure, otherwise the chances of any card being handled and thus in lesser condition would be more likely a function of it being traded or handled more. Many of the titles on this list don't seem to fall into the latter categories I mentioned.
I think there can be two categories of "high grade cards". One would be Man made defectors, Ernie stated top card and bottom card. I would even throw in favorite cards that get handled more. Then there are ones that are manufacture based. Those would be roller marks and positioning on the sheets.
-
What do you think about roller marks in regard with high grades?
PSA does not like roller marks at all. They seem to take off a lot when grading cards that are otherwise near perfect but have the roller marks. I am usually pretty picky, but for some reason the roller marks don't bother me at all.
-
PSA does not like roller marks at all. They seem to take off a lot when grading cards that are otherwise near perfect but have the roller marks. I am usually pretty picky, but for some reason the roller marks don't bother me at all.
I believe any card they note with roller marks is immediately a 6. I also think this is moronic considering some of the stuff they don’t penalize for but that’s just me.
-
PSA does not like roller marks at all. They seem to take off a lot when grading cards that are otherwise near perfect but have the roller marks. I am usually pretty picky, but for some reason the roller marks don't bother me at all.
The roller marks don't bother me much, either.
-
I think they kind of add character since they essentially prove that you're getting the real deal from 1973.
-
The “top card” theory has always been around, and it may be true to some degree, but PSA populations would suggest that centering problems caused by sheet position are a more serious factor in thwarting high grades.
Centering problems due to sheet position are eye appeal problems, not true centering issues per the intended cut by the manufacturer.
-
Centering is a factor in grade, no? Just the way that miscut is? Factory prone errors are still a factor in grade… of course rubber band marks, writing, and other user inflicted blemishes impact grade but in terms of the larger picture they don’t impact the overall ability to find certain cards in high grade vs. others.
What do you think about roller marks in regard with high grades?
Centering is a factor in the grade but if a card by definition is "off center" on a sheet but cut perfectly per manufacturer intent so all the rest of the cards in that same row or column are perfect, is that card really off center or does it lack eye appeal? your other questions are good ones, I think in terms of coins and "degrading" starts the the day it leaves the manufacturer's hands, any issues before that are manufacturing errors which of course are far more scarce than the rest of the population for the same item but collector cards have declared those as misfit toys as opposed to more scarce manufacturing flaws.
-
PSA does not like roller marks at all. They seem to take off a lot when grading cards that are otherwise near perfect but have the roller marks. I am usually pretty picky, but for some reason the roller marks don't bother me at all.
Same here, I hardly notice roller marks but I also don't obsess with high grade cards either even though my keeper collection is very high grade, that is a result of just taking the best of thousands of cards I accumulated in collections, I don't have any specific cards I have declared as "need to upgrade" and I would say the last several thousand cards I have come across I haven't even bothered to see if they are upgrades so my extras stash is loaded with high grade cards. When someone finally buys me out, they will displace the leading collections in grade as I will probably include my keeper wackys during such a buyout and just start to collect them all over again.
-
Centering problems due to sheet position are eye appeal problems, not true centering issues per the intended cut by the manufacturer.
There are two possible issues:
1. Cards at the edges of sheets tend to be OC and miscut more often even if their placement on the sheet is proper
2. Cards are placed on the sheet in such a way as to be OC when properly cut
#2 is much less common than #1. Most of the high grade condition rarities are of #1 type. I believe there are a few that fall into #2 (8-Lives, Capn Crud) but to be sure I would have to examine an actual sheet as the imperfections are very slight. There are definitely a few titles that were placed slightly tilted on the sheet so that their cards almost always appear tilted (Choke King, Eviltime, Jerkitol, etc.) but PSA doesn’t really penalize that.
-
So an OC card is not OC because the manufacturer erringly put it on the sheet incorrectly? That makes no sense to me. The guides for centering are pretty clear if you take the time to measure the image and edges of the card to find the proportional centering; I don't think any manufacturing issue makes a difference. 8-Lives may or may not (not sure) have been placed on the sheet incorrectly, but that doesn't make all of those OC cards centered.
-
Clammy is a good example. To be centered on this card, you will have a portion of another card on it. Makes it look like a miscut but you get a grade that is desirable as this is the only way you can get a perfectly centered card
-
Here is an example of what I’m saying
(https://i.postimg.cc/5Hv5Tyss/C0-D01-D4-B-013-E-444-A-A3-EF-2600-AA4-A9-D56.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/5Hv5Tyss)
-
Clammy should never exist in PSA 8 or higher. If it’s centered, it’s miscut. If it’s missing the Baby Runt border, it’s OC.
-
Clammy should never exist in PSA 8 or higher. If it’s centered, it’s miscut. If it’s missing the Baby Runt border, it’s OC.
I’m with you.
Is the reason Baby Runt doesn’t suffer from the same problem as Clammy simply that it has less border space overall (on both sides)?
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8BN0MyC/0-F624349-5-A41-46-C1-9433-75-C823-CD6380.jpg)
-
There are two possible issues:
1. Cards at the edges of sheets tend to be OC and miscut more often even if their placement on the sheet is proper
2. Cards are placed on the sheet in such a way as to be OC when properly cut
#2 is much less common than #1. Most of the high grade condition rarities are of #1 type. I believe there are a few that fall into #2 (8-Lives, Capn Crud) but to be sure I would have to examine an actual sheet as the imperfections are very slight. There are definitely a few titles that were placed slightly tilted on the sheet so that their cards almost always appear tilted (Choke King, Eviltime, Jerkitol, etc.) but PSA doesn’t really penalize that.
This categorization seems spot on and again, in both cases the "grade" flaw is manufacturing not a degrade after manufacturing. Our hobby just happens to have more manufacturing flaws which are found to be annoying as opposed to sought like with coins even though it seems clear to me there would be fewer manufacturing flaws for a given title than ones without manufacturing flaws hence manufacturing flawed titled would be more scarce but again in our hobby not more sought.
-
So an OC card is not OC because the manufacturer erringly put it on the sheet incorrectly? That makes no sense to me. The guides for centering are pretty clear if you take the time to measure the image and edges of the card to find the proportional centering; I don't think any manufacturing issue makes a difference. 8-Lives may or may not (not sure) have been placed on the sheet incorrectly, but that doesn't make all of those OC cards centered.
Just because it irks you, doesn't make it untrue. If the manufacturer definition of centered results in image to edge differences, that is still centered and your eye appeal examples are off centered per manufacturer specifications. This all feeds into my stance that I think it is nuts that you guys want to pay someone else to tell you to like the eye appeal of a card. You all clearly have a great eye for grading and don't need someone else to sign off on it for you.
-
Here is an example of what I’m saying
(https://i.postimg.cc/5Hv5Tyss/C0-D01-D4-B-013-E-444-A-A3-EF-2600-AA4-A9-D56.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/5Hv5Tyss)
wow, that is incredible that PSA ignores the presence of the other card on this and really obsessed with border to edge centering.
-
Just because it irks you, doesn't make it untrue. If the manufacturer definition of centered results in image to edge differences, that is still centered and your eye appeal examples are off centered per manufacturer specifications. This all feeds into my stance that I think it is nuts that you guys want to pay someone else to tell you to like the eye appeal of a card. You all clearly have a great eye for grading and don't need someone else to sign off on it for you.
I simply just do not follow your logic. Each card is hypothetically the same size, so the image is either centered or not on each. The size of the image proportionally measures out to define how centered it is per the entire card. I don’t understand how the sheet placement changes that. Yes, good centering enhances eye appeal but centering is quantifiable.
-
wow, that is incredible that PSA ignores the presence of the other card on this and really obsessed with border to edge centering.
Daryl Swiggart convinced them to do it, I think it’s ridiculous.
-
I simply just do not follow your logic. Each card is hypothetically the same size, so the image is either centered or not on each. The size of the image proportionally measures out to define how centered it is per the entire card. I don’t understand how the sheet placement changes that. Yes, good centering enhances eye appeal but centering is quantifiable.
Yes, exactly how the image came to be centered as it is on the card seems like behind the scenes irrelevance. It is how it looks.
-
Dave,
I agree with you that it looks terrible. I personally see it as a detraction from the card. I do though see why Darrell fought to make it that way as the centering on it needs to be cut at that line. I take it as subjective, you either like it or not. However to get the higher grade if you are a registry collector you need to "play the game" I will say before this one, the highest I had was a 7, however it did not have the other card in the border.
-
To me, that card should not objectively have gotten that grade. No matter if Darryl begged them to or not, it is still miscut. No matter how subjective the eye appeal is on that Baby Runt border, objectively the card should not score that high.
-
You are spot on with your assessment..... I may have a few examples of exceptions in my keeper set... 8)
-
To me, that card should not objectively have gotten that grade. No matter if Darryl begged them to or not, it is still miscut. No matter how subjective the eye appeal is on that Baby Runt border, objectively the card should not score that high.
but my other brother "Dariel" told me.....
-
Clammy should never exist in PSA 8 or higher. If it’s centered, it’s miscut. If it’s missing the Baby Runt border, it’s OC.
This declaration by you and Dave is exactly why my point is right. To declare a certain card can't possibly be PSA10 is ridiculous.
-
Yes, exactly how the image came to be centered as it is on the card seems like behind the scenes irrelevance. It is how it looks.
Manufacturing specifications are not irrelevant. A perfectly cut card with perfect manufacturing specifications is a perfect card just because you don't like the manufacturer decision to not center the image doesnt make it less than perfect.
-
Daryl Swiggart convinced them to do it, I think it’s ridiculous.
who is Daryl Swiggart and why does he or anyone have "pull" on how PSA grades a card? That is extremely alarming.
-
who is Daryl Swiggart and why does he or anyone have "pull" on how PSA grades a card? That is extremely alarming.
There are plenty of people who spend lots of money with PSA that are invited to special events with them. There they can discuss the hobby and things like the card I showed you.
-
Ernie,
We can agree to disagree, but here’s how I view it.
Getting a wacky pack card into a pack is a multi-step process. The artwork is prepared, the sheet is prepared, the sheet is cut, the pack is assembled. Any error that causes an imperfection in the card in any one of these stages should be treated the same way from a grading perspective. The sheet can have errors in layout, it can be cut improperly. The corners of a card could be dinged inserting it into the pack. These are all errors that are part of the manufacturing process, and should all be treated equally, which is to say the card should be downgraded by PSA for any manufacturing error that causes an imperfection.
-
There are plenty of people who spend lots of money with PSA that are invited to special events with them. There they can discuss the hobby and things like the card I showed you.
that seems to seal the deal that PSA is a sham! Discussing the hobby is one thing but someone who spends a lot of money dictating how a card is graded just threw out the integrity of the grading process.
-
Ernie,
We can agree to disagree, but here’s how I view it.
Getting a wacky pack card into a pack is a multi-step process. The artwork is prepared, the sheet is prepared, the sheet is cut, the pack is assembled. Any error that causes an imperfection in the card in any one of these stages should be treated the same way from a grading perspective. The sheet can have errors in layout, it can be cut improperly. The corners of a card could be dinged inserting it into the pack. These are all errors that are part of the manufacturing process, and should all be treated equally, which is to say the card should be downgraded by PSA for any manufacturing error that causes an imperfection.
....but you just claimed a perfectly manufactured card according to its own specifications can result in a non perfect grade in regards to clammy. Which is it? an error in the manufacturing process is a variation in the currency world and its desirability is measured by the volume of the error versus the correction. I don't think I have ever seen a 1955 double die penny downgraded because it is a double die. I get it, the card grading system is different and much more haphazard as we have seen evidenced in this dialogue where you have declared a certain card can be manufactured perfectly according to specifications and never touched by human hands can't be graded as perfect.
-
....but you just claimed a perfectly manufactured card according to its own specifications can result in a non perfect grade in regards to clammy. Which is it? an error in the manufacturing process is a variation in the currency world and its desirability is measured by the volume of the error versus the correction. I don't think I have ever seen a 1955 double die penny downgraded because it is a double die. I get it, the card grading system is different and much more haphazard as we have seen evidenced in this dialogue where you have declared a certain card can be manufactured perfectly according to specifications and never touched by human hands can't be graded as perfect.
No, the Clammy is not a perfect card according to its specifications. There is a manufacturing error in laying out the sheet that results in an ugly card most of the time. It’s a layout error rather than a cutting error, but it is an error nonetheless. What makes a miscut card undesirable is that it’s ugly. The Clammy is just as ugly, even though that ugliness has a different root cause. It should still be given the same grade as a miscut card because it is equally ugly and undesirable.
As for errors being desirable to collectors, that’s really for the marketplace to decide. eBay sellers are always trying to convince buyers they should value severely miscut junk, more power to them for trying.
-
No, the Clammy is not a perfect card according to its specifications. There is a manufacturing error in laying out the sheet that results in an ugly card most of the time. It’s a layout error rather than a cutting error, but it is an error nonetheless. What makes a miscut card undesirable is that it’s ugly. The Clammy is just as ugly, even though that ugliness has a different root cause. It should still be given the same grade as a miscut card because it is equally ugly and undesirable.
As for errors being desirable to collectors, that’s really for the marketplace to decide. eBay sellers are always trying to convince buyers they should value severely miscut junk, more power to them for trying.
Once a blueprint(layout) is set, that is the specification. Again, just because you don't like the layout doesn't mean it is not perfect just because it doesn't align with your need for eye appeal. For you grading is not about perfection, it is about eye appeal, I think have stated that perhaps 100 times throughout the various discussions. I hold firm in my assertion that because your approach results in certain stickers not possibly having a perfect rating no matter what means your approach is flawed. Quite honestly, PSA10s being handed out like candy is a sham that of course will soon wipe out all PSA values. Truly MINT means from manufacturing process straight to preservation. I think even finger prints on the surface should preclude an item from being truly MINT!
-
I think Dave and I buy more strictly on eye appeal in juxtaposition with grade. Grading is a function of perfection though. A perfectly centered Clammy is not perfect for Baby Runt’s border is present - making it miscut. Seems pretty simple. The guidelines for grading miscuts should not change because of one exception out of the entire trading card world (even though there are likely more).
Oh, and also, PSA 10’s are not being handed out like candy. Not sure where you got that inclination however yes I agree PSA does misgrade a lot of cards. That is to be expected considering Wacky Packs are not their strong suit.
-
What’s happening right now with sports cards is that hedge funds are buying PSA 10s as investments, driving prices to ridiculous, unsustainable levels. Just last night, a PSA 10 1973 Tom Seaver sold for $67,000. Yes, 1973. To put that in perspective, I paid $125 for my PSA 9 in 2018. Here are the two cards. Clearly, my 9 is nicer, and paying $67,000 for this diamond cut, mediocre card with the expectation of appreciation is insane.
So there is definitely something broken in this system.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zw1vCH4/8-D979931-089-F-4-F3-D-9-C6-A-77-ED7-BC850-F9.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k547vdYm/D5-E1-EF2-E-4069-4627-B6-D9-31145-EA12188.jpg)
-
I think Dave and I buy more strictly on eye appeal in juxtaposition with grade. Grading is a function of perfection though. A perfectly centered Clammy is not perfect for Baby Runt’s border is present - making it miscut. Seems pretty simple. The guidelines for grading miscuts should not change because of one exception out of the entire trading card world (even though there are likely more).
Oh, and also, PSA 10’s are not being handed out like candy. Not sure where you got that inclination however yes I agree PSA does misgrade a lot of cards. That is to be expected considering Wacky Packs are not their strong suit.
You continue to insist perfectly centered as determined by eye appeal should determine grade vs perfection from a manufacturing attempt point of view so that does explain your misperception this is "pretty simple". "miscut" means an aberration from planned cutting yet you decided it simply means bad eye appeal. You are in for a rude awakening on the PSA10s, if people who spend "money" can sway PSA grades, the money needs people like you to keep buying up their PSA8s and PSA9s as they will their way to creating and owning PSA10s. You are sorely under-estimating how terrible it is that someone who spends money with PSA can influence any grade at any time.
-
What’s happening right now with sports cards is that hedge funds are buying PSA 10s as investments, driving prices to ridiculous, unsustainable levels. Just last night, a PSA 10 1973 Tom Seaver sold for $67,000. Yes, 1973. To put that in perspective, I paid $125 for my PSA 9 in 2018. Here are the two cards. Clearly, my 9 is nicer, and paying $67,000 for this diamond cut, mediocre card with the expectation of appreciation is insane.
So there is definitely something broken in this system.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zw1vCH4/8-D979931-089-F-4-F3-D-9-C6-A-77-ED7-BC850-F9.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k547vdYm/D5-E1-EF2-E-4069-4627-B6-D9-31145-EA12188.jpg)
is your scan correct? Your card looks like top is wider than bottom. Yes, the system is broken because you have no way to know if money willed that PSA10 is the rich's mans game of manipulation.
-
is your scan correct? Your card looks like top is wider than bottom. Yes, the system is broken because you have no way to know if money willed that PSA10 is the rich's mans game of manipulation.
That’s just the result of the card not laying completely flat, it is cut properly and normally sized both top and bottom. And this 10 was originally graded fifteen years ago and recently reholdered, it would not be given a 10 if graded today as it is mediocre. Inconsistent grading across the years that PSA then has to stand behind is yet another of their problems.
-
You continue to insist perfectly centered as determined by eye appeal should determine grade vs perfection from a manufacturing attempt point of view so that does explain your misperception this is "pretty simple". "miscut" means an aberration from planned cutting yet you decided it simply means bad eye appeal. You are in for a rude awakening on the PSA10s, if people who spend "money" can sway PSA grades, the money needs people like you to keep buying up their PSA8s and PSA9s as they will their way to creating and owning PSA10s. You are sorely under-estimating how terrible it is that someone who spends money with PSA can influence any grade at any time.
Perfect centering is *not* eye appeal. You can measure centering. Miscut in this case is *not* eye appeal. The border of another card is present, making it miscut. I understand some hobbies exist where people will “create” PSA 10’s but I simply do not see that happening with Wackys. And, guess what? I don’t need the highest grade. The more 10’s, the cheaper my 8’s and 9’s!
-
Perfect centering is *not* eye appeal. You can measure centering. Miscut in this case is *not* eye appeal. The border of another card is present, making it miscut. I understand some hobbies exist where people will “create” PSA 10’s but I simply do not see that happening with Wackys. And, guess what? I don’t need the highest grade. The more 10’s, the cheaper my 8’s and 9’s!
yes, you are almost there.....that PSA9 Clammy IS MISCUT despite it's borders being "perfectly centered" for proper eye appeal. The PERFECT clammy with PERFECT cut doesnt meet your eye appeal but that doesnt mean it is lower grade when PERFECTLY cut per manufacturing specifications. Sorry, your claim that there can be no version of the card that is PSA10 just opens the door for card grading to be more erratic than it already is.
-
I am simply lost. I have repeated that the Clammy issue is not about my eye appeal. Yes, I don’t want one that has part of the Baby Runt border. That doesn’t change the fact that there is no legitimate way to obtain it in perfect condition at any given moment.
Should we not penalize toning? The manufacturer did choose the paper stock after all!
-
I am simply lost. I have repeated that the Clammy issue is not about my eye appeal. Yes, I don’t want one that has part of the Baby Runt border. That doesn’t change the fact that there is no legitimate way to obtain it in perfect condition at any given moment.
Should we not penalize toning? The manufacturer did choose the paper stock after all!
Keep repeating your statement that it's impossible to get that title in perfect condition maybe at some point you will realizes that's ridiculous every single title can be perfect you just have the wrong interpretation of perfect.
-
Well considering we agree that perfect centering proliferates miscut on Clammy, and miscut proliferates imperfection, we’ll agree to disagree.
-
but my other brother "Dariel" told me.....
Is that supposed to be "Darrell" or "Daryl" instead of "Dariel"?
-
it is just Darrell, no other spellings
-
it is just Darrell, no other spellings
Yeah, I thought so. Thanks!
So,you'll have to fix on your post. If you please, sir...
-
Well considering we agree that perfect centering proliferates miscut on Clammy, and miscut proliferates imperfection, we’ll agree to disagree.
I never agreed that perfect centering is a miscut Crammy...I have consistently stated perfect centering is per manufacturing specifications...that irks you because that "perfect centering" on Crammy lacks the "eye appeal centering" you require. So in summary, I am stating there is a perfect Crammy card that can and should be graded PSA10, it will lack your desired eye appeal centering but it will be perfectly centered per manufacturing specifications. You have declared no such perfect PSA10 crammy card exists under any circumstances. So yes, given that, we have no choice to agree to disagree. How many other cards have you declared can't possibly under any circumstances exist as PSA10?
-
I never agreed that perfect centering is a miscut Crammy...I have consistently stated perfect centering is per manufacturing specifications...that irks you because that "perfect centering" on Crammy lacks the "eye appeal centering" you require. So in summary, I am stating there is a perfect Crammy card that can and should be graded PSA10, it will lack your desired eye appeal centering but it will be perfectly centered per manufacturing specifications. You have declared no such perfect PSA10 crammy card exists under any circumstances. So yes, given that, we have no choice to agree to disagree. How many other cards have you declared can't possibly under any circumstances exist as PSA10?
Totally agree with you on this.
If the Topps layout artist placed Clammy (or whatever title) onto the sheet layout without perfect centering, then a true cut card is one with that exact same imperfect centering.
If for example that Clammy was set with 30/70 alignment, then a real PSA10 is one with that exact same 30/70.
Constraining PSA10 to only be a 50/50 card is forcing these grossly miscut cards to be the only ones with a high grade, when all those supposed perfect cards should really be marked OC or downgraded.
-
Totally agree with you on this.
If the Topps layout artist placed Clammy (or whatever title) onto the sheet layout without perfect centering, then a true cut card is one with that exact same imperfect centering.
If for example that Clammy was set with 30/70 alignment, then a real PSA10 is one with that exact same 30/70.
Constraining PSA10 to only be a 50/50 card is forcing these grossly miscut cards to be the only ones with a high grade, when all those supposed perfect cards should really be marked OC or downgraded.
Excellent follow up example, worse yet someone with money influenced PSA to declare the miscut Clammy is the better Clammy so the whole PSA grading process took another hit on top of its many other flaws.
-
Totally agree with you on this.
If the Topps layout artist placed Clammy (or whatever title) onto the sheet layout without perfect centering, then a true cut card is one with that exact same imperfect centering.
If for example that Clammy was set with 30/70 alignment, then a real PSA10 is one with that exact same 30/70.
Constraining PSA10 to only be a 50/50 card is forcing these grossly miscut cards to be the only ones with a high grade, when all those supposed perfect cards should really be marked OC or downgraded.
It all depends on what you believe the purpose of grading to be. I believe it to be an attempt to quantify the desirability of a card to collectors compared to all other examples of the card. I don’t believe it to be an attempt to rate how closely a card comes to being perfectly cut from a sheet. A Clammy with part of another sticker on it is not likely to be highly rated by most collectors in terms of desirability. As a result, I don’t believe it deserves a high grade. I don’t believe any Clammy should be graded a 10, because that grade, for lack of a better term, should represent the Clammy of my dreams, a card which just can’t exist.
Let’s have a poll. How many people would rather have a noticeably OC 8-Lives (because it is perfectly cut based on sheet placement) than a “miscut” 8-Lives that appears perfectly centered? The grade should reflect the answer to that question.
-
No one with money influenced PSA to make the change. Every year there is an invitation sent out to their best customers (people who use their service a lot)it is to talk about the current industry. Yes they (the invitees) can give their opinions on what should be done, however the final decision rests with PSA. There is no collusion or nefarious things going on. We need to pull that out of our argument. Stating something like that is just trying to influence the argument with a personal bias. Also I will go on record as saying I would rather have the perfectly centered 8lives but I do know that is actually an OC card according to the card cut placement. However PSA does have the limits of the centering to get a grade and on the 8-lives you are not getting another card on it if it is miscut and has a more perfect centering like my clammy. I use PSA to determine a value of a grade, If I use them for some grades I like I have to use them for all. I can not pick and choose and then stand behind or against them. Your either all in or completely out. Can't be sort of pregnant.
-
No one with money influenced PSA to make the change. Every year there is an invitation sent out to their best customers (people who use their service a lot)it is to talk about the current industry. Yes they (the invitees) can give their opinions on what should be done, however the final decision rests with PSA. There is no collusion or nefarious things going on. We need to pull that out of our argument. Stating something like that is just trying to influence the argument with a personal bias. Also I will go on record as saying I would rather have the perfectly centered 8lives but I do know that is actually an OC card according to the card cut placement. However PSA does have the limits of the centering to get a grade and on the 8-lives you are not getting another card on it if it is miscut and has a more perfect centering like my clammy. I use PSA to determine a value of a grade, If I use them for some grades I like I have to use them for all. I can not pick and choose and then stand behind or against them. Your either all in or completely out. Can't be sort of pregnant.
A declaration was made that "daryl" convinced PSA that the "miscut" clammy shouldn't have a qualifier nor grade drop due to being miscut. People who use their service enough to be invited to this type of session are likely to have money, we can debate that but I am pretty sure I am right....picking a few high spending collectors to determine guidance on graded hardly is a model to please the masses....
-
It all depends on what you believe the purpose of grading to be. I believe it to be an attempt to quantify the desirability of a card to collectors compared to all other examples of the card. I don’t believe it to be an attempt to rate how closely a card comes to being perfectly cut from a sheet. A Clammy with part of another sticker on it is not likely to be highly rated by most collectors in terms of desirability. As a result, I don’t believe it deserves a high grade. I don’t believe any Clammy should be graded a 10, because that grade, for lack of a better term, should represent the Clammy of my dreams, a card which just can’t exist.
Let’s have a poll. How many people would rather have a noticeably OC 8-Lives (because it is perfectly cut based on sheet placement) than a “miscut” 8-Lives that appears perfectly centered? The grade should reflect the answer to that question.
No, "Grading is assessing the quality and condition of a trading card using PSA's 10-point grading scale" It is exactly what the word means, to measure condition of the item. Desirability is driven by many other factors and PSA7s were once "desired" and now they are not, soon PSA8s will saturate the market and fall into the same fate. Their falling desirability has nothing to do with the condition of the card. Your survey about personal preference has nothing to do with the grade of a card. I prefer PSA10 Bum over PSA10 Bon Ami, both are perfect cards.....desirability has nothing to do with it.
-
No, "Grading is assessing the quality and condition of a trading card using PSA's 10-point grading scale" It is exactly what the word means, to measure condition of the item. Desirability is driven by many other factors and PSA7s were once "desired" and now they are not, soon PSA8s will saturate the market and fall into the same fate. Their falling desirability has nothing to do with the condition of the card. Your survey about personal preference has nothing to do with the grade of a card. I prefer PSA10 Bum over PSA10 Bon Ami, both are perfect cards.....desirability has nothing to do with it.
I said desirability of the card compared to all other examples of that card, not other cards.
And whether you like it or not, grading of collectibles has always been about desirability and trying to quantify it. Why would higher grades bring more money if the card were not perceived as more desirable?
-
Let’s have a poll. How many people would rather have a noticeably OC 8-Lives (because it is perfectly cut based on sheet placement) than a “miscut” 8-Lives that appears perfectly centered? The grade should reflect the answer to that question.
The grade absolutely should not reflect the answer to that question.
I'm surprised you would even want high grades to be based purely on subjective measures and not objective ones.
Much like the Avengers movie may have been the most popular in their years, they cleary did not make the cuts in the category of Best Picture of the Year either release.
But they did make the most money for their years...
- which would allude to PSA grading really being all about the money (for themselves and for submitters), and the grading is not about being technically right.
And that is absolutely true in the case of the 8-Lives, as the PSA MC designator should apply, per their own definition, to "Any and all cards that exhibit an atypical cut for the issue". A ample bordered 8-Lives is definitely an atypical cut, and should be called out for that with an MC.
-
However PSA does have the limits of the centering to get a grade and on the 8-lives you are not getting another card on it if it is miscut and has a more perfect centering like my clammy.
but you absolutely *are* getting another card on that 8-Lives. It just happens to be white in color.
-
I said desirability of the card compared to all other examples of that card, not other cards.
And whether you like it or not, grading of collectibles has always been about desirability and trying to quantify it. Why would higher grades bring more money if the card were not perceived as more desirable?
Your cause and effect are completely backwards. The card is not desirable first and then gets a grade based on that. It gets a grade and desirability is based on the grade.....then of course money follows desirability and hence my analogy is perfect and applies to all scenarios not just limited to selections of one card.
-
The grade absolutely should not reflect the answer to that question.
I'm surprised you would even want high grades to be based purely on subjective measures and not objective ones.
Much like the Avengers movie may have been the most popular in their years, they cleary did not make the cuts in the category of Best Picture of the Year either release.
But they did make the most money for their years...
- which would allude to PSA grading really being all about the money (for themselves and for submitters), and the grading is not about being technically right.
And that is absolutely true in the case of the 8-Lives, as the PSA MC designator should apply, per their own definition, to "Any and all cards that exhibit an atypical cut for the issue". A ample bordered 8-Lives is definitely an atypical cut, and should be called out for that with an MC.
at least out of this is the admission that money, value and desirability is a key part of the desire to grade cards.
-
but you absolutely *are* getting another card on that 8-Lives. It just happens to be white in color.
EXACTLY!!!
-
EXACTLY!!!
Exactly, and I and most of those looking for nice cards don’t care as long as the card looks nice. The Clammy looks like crap. Maybe you guys don’t appreciate the importance of that distinction because you don’t collect and are not interested in high grade cards.
-
Your cause and effect are completely backwards. The card is not desirable first and then gets a grade based on that. It gets a grade and desirability is based on the grade.....then of course money follows desirability and hence my analogy is perfect and applies to all scenarios not just limited to selections of one card.
Why has grading been used in all collectible hobbies going back centuries? Because a way of quantifying condition and eye appeal based desirability was needed. That is all a grading system is. Before anyone ever saw an uncut sheet, why would they care whether 8-Lives had a perfect sheet cut? This is getting silly.
-
Exactly, and I and most of those looking for nice cards don’t care as long as the card looks nice. The Clammy looks like crap. Maybe you guys don’t appreciate the importance of that distinction because you don’t collect and are not interested in high grade cards.
Which crammy looks like crap? The PSA9 miscut which Patrick and I both said should have the qualifier?
-
Before anyone ever saw an uncut sheet, why would they care whether 8-Lives had a perfect sheet cut? This is getting silly.
I have to admit that this thread has a high entertainment value like an episode of Jerry Springer, only without the shoe throwing and the bouncers to hold everyone back. Since I don't have a horse in this race, I haven't commented until now. I think it would be almost preposterous to expect PSA to have an uncut sheet of every series, lay out the perfect cut lines, then come up with an individualized grading standard for the centering of each card. For most sets that wouldn't be necessary since there is symmetry everywhere, and in those cases, every card's standard would be the same. Apparently for Wacky Packages, and other sets without fixed borders, that might not be the case.
I can see arguments for both sides here, and that's part of the reason why I don't collect graded cards. It's just not that important to me, and I certainly don't see where ridiculously (bordering on foolish?) amounts of money are being thrown at PSA 10s. I do see the aspect of the registration and the competition, but I'm just not that competitive either. Of course, I don't understand the infatuation with Crypto or NFTs either, so maybe I'm just too old school.
-
Why has grading been used in all collectible hobbies going back centuries? Because a way of quantifying condition and eye appeal based desirability was needed. That is all a grading system is. Before anyone ever saw an uncut sheet, why would they care whether 8-Lives had a perfect sheet cut? This is getting silly.
the silly part of this is a criteria that declares certain titles can't possible exist in perfect form.
-
the silly part of this is a criteria that declares certain titles can't possible exist in perfect form.
You’re entitled to your opinion. If sheets were produced so that every Clammy had print streaks, I would say the same thing. If one doesn’t exist that is free of production defects, so be it.
-
I have to admit that this thread has a high entertainment value like an episode of Jerry Springer, only without the shoe throwing and the bouncers to hold everyone back. Since I don't have a horse in this race, I haven't commented until now. I think it would be almost preposterous to expect PSA to have an uncut sheet of every series, lay out the perfect cut lines, then come up with an individualized grading standard for the centering of each card. For most sets that wouldn't be necessary since there is symmetry everywhere, and in those cases, every card's standard would be the same. Apparently for Wacky Packages, and other sets without fixed borders, that might not be the case.
I can see arguments for both sides here, and that's part of the reason why I don't collect graded cards. It's just not that important to me, and I certainly don't see where ridiculously (bordering on foolish?) amounts of money are being thrown at PSA 10s. I do see the aspect of the registration and the competition, but I'm just not that competitive either. Of course, I don't understand the infatuation with Crypto or NFTs either, so maybe I'm just too old school.
You are exactly right, PSA can't possible know sheet configurations but given they have specific documented guidelines in terms of "atypical cuts" getting an MC qualifier, then the "perfectly border centered" Crammy must have such a qualifier....but maybe with the billions of $ PSA makes they should be expected to be experts in everything they grade and should have a clue about non sport cards with peculiar cuttings.....
-
I can see arguments for both sides here, and that's part of the reason why I don't collect graded cards. It's just not that important to me, and I certainly don't see where ridiculously (bordering on foolish?) amounts of money are being thrown at PSA 10s.
I don’t care about the registry. I don’t care about the distinction between PSA 9 and PSA 10. I just like nice condition wackys. I hunted down the nicest wackys I could find for ten years before I even considered submitting a card to PSA. PSA is just an imperfect means to an end. What we are talking about here is what it means for a card to be high grade. As you say, for many years no one even knew what an uncut sheet looked like, so fidelity to some sheet based ideal is unrealistic and meaningless.
-
You’re entitled to your opinion. If sheets were produced so that every Clammy had print streaks, I would say the same thing. If one doesn’t exist that is free of production defects, so be it.
Thousands of Clammys exist with typical/perfect per manufacturer cuts. It just so happens they irk your eye appeal. Those Clammys don't have flaws in either of the categories you called out, not a manufacture flaw nor handling flaws. Is eye appeal a third grading category validating your theory that none can be perfect?
-
You are exactly right, PSA can't possible know sheet configurations but given they have specific documented guidelines in terms of "atypical cuts" getting an MC qualifier, then the "perfectly border centered" Crammy must have such a qualifier....but maybe with the billions of $ PSA makes they should be expected to be experts in everything they grade and should have a clue about non sport cards with peculiar cuttings.....
You may be right that PSA’s published grading standards are inconsistent or foolish. Again, I’m just talking about what I think high grade should mean, and what I think PSA should do.
-
Thousands of Clammys exist with typical/perfect per manufacturer cuts. It just so happens they irk your eye appeal.
Thousands of Clammys don’t exist that are free of production defects. I guess your definition of defect differs from mine, if that is the case, there is nothing further to discuss.
-
Thousands of Clammys exist with typical/perfect per manufacturer cuts. It just so happens they irk your eye appeal. Those Clammys don't have flaws in either of the categories you called out, not a manufacture flaw nor handling flaws. Is eye appeal a third grading category validating your theory that none can be perfect?
Laying out the sheet is part of the manufacturing process. The Clammy problem is the result of a manufacturing/production error.
-
Laying out the sheet is part of the manufacturing process. The Clammy problem is the result of a manufacturing/production error.
Error only because you said so, the output of their process was clammy didn't sit aligned per your need for eye appeal. If after 1800 messages, you only now discovered that I have been saying this all along and only now have declared there is nothing more to talk about, that is odd.
-
Error only because you said so, the output of their process was clammy didn't sit aligned per your need for eye appeal. If after 1800 messages, you only now discovered that I have been saying this all along and only now have declared there is nothing more to talk about, that is odd.
Ernie, if you actually believe that off center cards are downgraded because of a lack of fidelity to the proper sheet cut rather than because of poor eye appeal, I don’t know what else to say. You’re right, I probably should have realized the futility of this discussion pages ago. 🙂
-
Ernie, if you actually believe that off center cards are downgraded because of a lack of fidelity to the proper sheet cut rather than because of poor eye appeal, I don’t know what else to say. You’re right, I probably should have realized the futility of this discussion pages ago. 🙂
I refer to definitions given by the graders and you seem unhappy with the definition of "grade" and definition of "atypical cut"....neither makes any reference to eye appeal, grading is supposed to be scientific. You are right, had I known you believe subjectivity like polls and whose eye's an item is appealing are important in grading, I too should have realized this discussion was fruitless 8)
-
I have an interesting interjection. We only know that Clammy needs to be 'miscut' to be perfectly centered because we have actual full sheets to look at. So what of there were no surviving series 6 full sheets? then we would think that the 'miscut' Clammy was the perfect one, and the one with other stickers intruding on it were the miscut ones. Food for thought.
-
I have an interesting interjection. We only know that Clammy needs to be 'miscut' to be perfectly centered because we have actual full sheets to look at. So what of there were no surviving series 6 full sheets? then we would think that the 'miscut' Clammy was the perfect one, and the one with other stickers intruding on it were the miscut ones. Food for thought.
Not following, the existence of sheets is only explaining what has been found in the wild. it is not driving grading. Dave has argued regardless of the existence of sheets, neither is perfect, there is no such perfect Clammy as to center the borders requires another sticker to appear and the ones without centered borders are off center. The fact that centered borders can only exist with another sticker showing is evidence enough that the manufacturer placement of the sticker was such that the borders would not be centered on a perfectly cut one. Clearly the manufacturer specifications were not such that an intended cut would include another sticker which is the absurdity that a special high spending collector could suggest that PSA suddenly not declare such a specimen as miscut.
-
a modern title, but apparently one that can never be a PSA10, even when it is perfectly cut, and has nice, pointy corners.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jLnmL210/Peeper.png) (https://postimg.cc/jLnmL210)
-
a modern title, but apparently one that can never be a PSA10, even when it is perfectly cut, and has nice, pointy corners.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jLnmL210/Peeper.png) (https://postimg.cc/jLnmL210)
Well said! I believe you.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/LYCjtrSb/A701-C09-A-D8-C4-4-A58-9-DEB-8-EFC2-C088834.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/LYCjtrSb)
Hopefully this is how Maddie Boy is placed on a sheet so it can grade a PSA 10!
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/LYCjtrSb/A701-C09-A-D8-C4-4-A58-9-DEB-8-EFC2-C088834.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/LYCjtrSb)
Hopefully this is how Maddie Boy is placed on a sheet so it can grade a PSA 10!
Even though your post is in jest, it indicates to me that you not only disagree with the points Patrick and I have made, you really aren't digesting it either. A manufacturer would never have its manufacturing specifications cut across two titles. The real scary thing would be is if a high profile customer argues that this maddie boy should not get an "atypical cut" designation. That is the more realistic fear based on this recent dialogue.
-
Let’s summarize:
1. PSA should not make a change in how they grade Clammys because Darrell says they should
2. A card should be graded based on its standalone appearance, not what a sheet suggests should be a typical cut, as “typical cut” is well-defined only in a statistical manner and a sheet may not be available. If PSA says otherwise, they are wrong.
3. A Clammy with a piece of Baby Runt showing should be given a “miscut” qualifier; no Clammy should be graded higher than an 8.
4. Nobody cares whether a Flashback sticker gets a 10 or not, but Dr. Peeper should not get one either.
5. An 8-Lives that is well centered should get a higher grade than one with a “typical cut,” no matter what PSA’s grading policies suggest, and no matter whether a small piece of another sticker’s invisible border might be on it, since it may not be possible to determine that if a sheet is not available.
Did I miss anything?
-
Let’s summarize:
1. PSA should not make a change in how they grade Clammys because Darrell says they should
2. A card should be graded based on its standalone appearance, not what a sheet suggests should be a typical cut, as “typical cut” is well-defined only in a statistical manner and a sheet may not be available. If PSA says otherwise, they are wrong.
3. A Clammy with a piece of Baby Runt showing should be given a “miscut” qualifier; no Clammy should be graded higher than an 8.
4. Nobody cares whether a Flashback sticker gets a 10 or not, but Dr. Peeper should not get one either.
5. An 8-Lives that is well centered should get a higher grade than one with a “typical cut,” no matter what PSA’s grading policies suggest, and no matter whether a small piece of another sticker’s invisible border might be on it, since it may not be possible to determine that if a sheet is not available.
Did I miss anything?
Succinct and all-encompassing! Fantastic post!
-
Let’s summarize:
1. PSA should not make a change in how they grade Clammys because Darrell says they should
2. A card should be graded based on its standalone appearance, not what a sheet suggests should be a typical cut, as “typical cut” is well-defined only in a statistical manner and a sheet may not be available. If PSA says otherwise, they are wrong.
3. A Clammy with a piece of Baby Runt showing should be given a “miscut” qualifier; no Clammy should be graded higher than an 8.
4. Nobody cares whether a Flashback sticker gets a 10 or not, but Dr. Peeper should not get one either.
5. An 8-Lives that is well centered should get a higher grade than one with a “typical cut,” no matter what PSA’s grading policies suggest, and no matter whether a small piece of another sticker’s invisible border might be on it, since it may not be possible to determine that if a sheet is not available.
Did I miss anything?
I am sure you missed some since your summary is a subset of the many conflicting views on this and not any one point of view.
-
but my other brother "Dariel" told me.....
;D my latest son with 4 legs is named Darryl....my niece asked is that a name from the 80's? Actually it's a soul mate of mine, but he doesn't know it, who was named in the 60's. :-*
-
Just checking out your initial lists, I would add due to my own experience:
9: Stickers (did you have that one? didn't want to go back to the post....)
11: Sleepy
16: Dirty Cell
-
looking for a PSA 10 Cram..... can you help? On second thought :P
-
looking for a PSA 10 Cram..... can you help? On second thought :P
Cram does not have a different card’s border when properly centered.
-
Cram does not have a different card’s border when properly centered.
Maybe it does, it just happens to be white border as Patrick called out! >:D
-
looking for a PSA 10 Cram..... can you help? On second thought :P
Original die cut or alternate die cut?
-
Original die cut or alternate die cut?
One of each, but only humble PSA 8s….
(https://i.postimg.cc/26wC8Rft/834-CB4-F5-2-A5-F-454-A-94-B6-668-BEFE29350.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/Y9kpH2Tg/8-BDCBFCB-B355-4-B27-9076-952-EC8-C8-EB90.jpg)
-
One of each, but only humble PSA 8s…
For those relatively new to the hobby, the left one is affectionately known as the "Cram Maggie". :D It's the die-cut meant for Nastee Crush, and is named after the puppy dog of the guy who originally pointed out this die cut alternative.
-
For those relatively new to the hobby, the left one is affectionately known as the "Cram Maggie". :D It's the die-cut meant for Nastee Crush, and is named after the puppy dog of the guy who originally pointed out this die cut alternative.
this one will always and forever be the Cram-Nastee variation to me.
an obscure Delphi forum post about a well known die-cut difference is a strange way to label this, and one I will always object to.
-
this one will always and forever be the Cram-Nastee variation to me.
an obscure Delphi forum post about a well known die-cut difference is a strange way to label this, and one I will always object to.
This is also how I’ve always called it too. It seems much less confusing.
-
this one will always and forever be the Cram-Nastee variation to me.
an obscure Delphi forum post about a well known die-cut difference is a strange way to label this, and one I will always object to.
Simply an observation from the past, when I got back into the hobby. Hence the adverb "affectionately", not "officially". Call it whatever.