1979 O-Pee-Chee Wayne Gretzky Advice

[usmc03vet]

Good evening,

I would really appreciate some advice and feedback regarding a couple of 1979 O-Pee-Chee Wayne Gretzky PSA 9's that I own. No comment will be discounted, please give me your honest opinions.

What I am thinking about doing is attempting a possible PSA 10 grade bump.

What I am hoping for from this community is advice, recommendations, and also "Why" you would choose one over the other.

Please go to the attached Photobucket link for high resolution scans.

1979 O-Pee-Chee Wayne Gretzky by usmc03vet | Photobucket

Semper Fi!
Joe - 626.590.0965

[rustyisin]

you won't get a psa 10 - perfect Gretzky OPC rookie don't exist.
That first one has rough edges - easy to see why it isn't a psa 10. The second one is either a trimmed or sheet cut copy. Not sure how that one got slabbed in the first place.

[glen87]

kind of surprised the first one got a 9 with those edges

[Davis]

See post here. http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/h...ky-advice.html

Normal edges grading don't apply. Rough edges don't hurt the grade on this card. It's part of the lore of 79/80 OPC set. See the PSA 10. I actually think that NOT having rough edges on this card is a bad sign.

[sbfinley]

555 - The fish eye on the top of the front will keep it from ever resting in a PSA 10 slab. That aside, the bottom right corner looks weak. Beautiful card though.

842 - I agree. I have no idea how that card was graded as there is absolutely no rough cut evident. The scan has also been cleaned up so much I can't comment on it other then there is no telling what print defects and noise the scan clean removed.

That said, both cards are great, and you should be pleased as is.

[aro13]

Wow! Beautiful cards.

The first rough cut does not prevent a higher grade. The PSA 10 is a rough cut.

The second card might be sheet cut. However, I opened a lot of packs and a few boxes back when these cards came out and it was not uncommon for one or two cards per pack to look clean cut. I just went back and looked at my set and many cards exhibit no rough cuts and they are all from wax packs.

I doubt of a card of this magnitude PSA is going to bump easily. We are talking about a huge price differential.

I would try them both once and see why they leave them in 9 holders before submitting them again.

[WilsonCollector]

First off the cards look great.

Card one has two fish eyes and a slight registration issue on the front, are those plastic bits inside the case on back or on the card? The edges of this card look awesome!

The second has some snow PD, plus the bottom right edge has some wear to it.

Good luck if you review.

[Stat Monsters]

Grading is subjective, you might turn the 9 into a 10 or it remain a 9 or lower to an 8, I'd not get to fixated by the grading #, just keep your cards, "They are what they are" and if anyone tells you they're an 8, 9 or 10, they didn't do anything to change the condition of the card, they're giving their opinion, that's it.

If you're chasing a number, go with a different grading company.

What you could do is switch to BGS, then you can get sub-grades, 'tho I'm not sure if for vintage cards the do sub-grade assignments on their labels or not.

[timber09]

Awesome cards - I have a couple Gretz rookies in my collection but yours crush the condition mine are in (and I really like the looks of mine as well).

I agree with the majority here - while your cards are in fantastic condition, the risk vs reward is just too high to try and attain, what seems to be, the mythical plateau of a 10. I know far less about grading than many around here but have seen a ton of Gretzkys and the odds would seem to be stacked against you - I have a gut feeling that you have a better chance of having them grade lower than higher.

Best of luck in your decision, regardless of what you do those are some fantastic looking cards.

Normal edges grading don't apply. Rough edges don't hurt the grade on this card. It's part of the lore of 79/80 OPC set. See the PSA 10. I actually think that NOT having rough edges on this card is a bad sign.

I agree with Davis on this point as well - the rough edges on the OPC version make the card legit, a clean edge tells me it was cut.

[Daddymc]

Originally Posted by timber09

I agree with Davis on this point as well - the rough edges on the OPC version make the card legit, a clean edge tells me it was cut.

I agree as well. Many seasoned collectors actually prefer the rough cut on OPC issues.

Nice cards. I'd keep them as is.

[Davis]

Originally Posted by Stat Monsters

If you're chasing a number, go with a different grading company.

What you could do is switch to BGS, then you can get sub-grades, 'tho I'm not sure if for vintage cards the do sub-grade assignments on their labels or not.

This would be a HUGE "no". This philosophy may stand up for most other cards, but certainly not the OPC Gretzky RC. PSA is king with this card and many hardcore collectors (only a hardcore collector is going to buy a PSA 9 Gretzky) won't touch high grade OPC Gretzky RC's unless they're in a PSA holder. See my earlier comments and analysis about sheet-cut grading here: http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/h...ky-advice.html

And even if you're lucky enough to convert a PSA 9 to a BGS or BVG 9.5, you'll be losing. A PSA 9 outsells a BGS 9.5 eight days/week.

[6celtics33]

The lone psa 10 came from a bvg 9.5 holder

[aro13]

The lone psa 10 came from a bvg 9.5 holder

That is not true. I believe they were both graded at the National but the PSA 10 is from a pack and the BVG 9.5 is (if my memory serves me correctly) from a sheet.

[6celtics33]

Originally Posted by aro13

That is not true. I believe they were both graded at the National but the PSA 10 is from a pack and the BVG 9.5 is (if my memory serves me correctly) from a sheet.

I don't have any first hand knowledge, just what I read.

PSA 10 Wayne Gretzky rookie card up for auction once again

[aro13]

Thanks for posting the link. I believe the card was never in a BVG 9.5 holder and was graded raw at a National show. So, I do think the article is not correct.