***The Official "This Card is OVER GRADED" Thread***

[Jagsfansunshine]

Looks like a pile of garbage to me. But, yeah let's give it a 9 because the card typically has rough edges.

[Gary]

Originally Posted by Jagsfansunshine

Looks like a pile of garbage to me. But, yeah let's give it a 9 because the card typically has rough edges.

Quick story,this may sound crazy but it actually happened to me a few years ago,I bought a bunch of 84 opc from BBCE,pulled a donnie baseball,the cut was really nice,so off to PSA it went,thinking 9 at worse as it was well centered ect,Got it back alt.i called PSA to ask about it.the card was the right size i pulled it from a BBCE pack even showed the the receipt from BBCE for the packs.They admitted the cut was to smooth to grade in their opinion.No matter what i could show them they were not going to do anything.

I then called SGC to ask them,giving SGC the whole story,i was told i could send it but more than likely it would get a "sheet cut" label if it was to smooth.I didn't opt for that option and sent it,came back just like PSA sent it.

Just pointing out that the OPC "ruff cut"isn't typical its more like almost all of them.I cant fault PSA or SGC for it,it still sucks but i understand.I would probably have done the same thing.In fact to be honest any OPC card that i didn't pull from a pack myself i wouldn't trust,if it had a smooth cut.Even if its in a slab.

[rohara99]

Originally Posted by Jagsfansunshine

Looks like a pile of garbage to me. But, yeah let's give it a 9 because the card typically has rough edges.

I'm not defending how PSA grades old OPC Hockey cards... but that's how they grade old OPC Hockey cards. Every hockey collector knows this.

[Jagsfansunshine]

I get it - kind of like how they grade SI cards with perforated edges. I just find it inconsistent to grade one card a certain way just because it's cut a certain way by the manufacturer. Edges should be accounted the same with all cards. Why does minor chipping on my card deserve a 8 while a rough cut, which is on all of the old OPC hockey cards automatically zero out as a 10? Sorry for the rant.

Originally Posted by rohara99

I'm not defending how PSA grades old OPC Hockey cards... but that's how they grade old OPC Hockey cards. Every hockey collector knows this.

[PepperDean]

Originally Posted by Jagsfansunshine

I get it - kind of like how they grade SI cards with perforated edges. I just find it inconsistent to grade one card a certain way just because it's cut a certain way by the manufacturer. Edges should be accounted the same with all cards. Why does minor chipping on my card deserve a 8 while a rough cut, which is on all of the old OPC hockey cards automatically zero out as a 10? Sorry for the rant.

I used to think exactly like this but have since realized you can't treat cards this way. For example, the card stock used on vintage cards is a lot more uneven and lumpy than that used on any modern card, including paper ones. If a modern card a surface like a 1960s Topps baseball card, it would and should get a PSA 4. Meanwhile, if you expect any card from the 60s to have the pristine, even surface of a card from today, every card from back then would get a low grade; card manufacturing has changed dramatically over the years, including the ways the cards were cut. There absolutely needs to be a curve when grading.

[rjp087]

Originally Posted by PepperDean

I used to think exactly like this but have since realized you can't treat cards this way. For example, the card stock used on vintage cards is a lot more uneven and lumpy than that used on any modern card, including paper ones. If a modern card a surface like a 1960s Topps baseball card, it would and should get a PSA 4. Meanwhile, if you expect any card from the 60s to have the pristine, even surface of a card from today, every card from back then would get a low grade; card manufacturing has changed dramatically over the years, including the ways the cards were cut. There absolutely needs to be a curve when grading.

This just serves to illustrate that all grading is completely and unequivocally subjective and relatively pointless. If people--nevermind companies--can't agree on the nature of grading, how can any grade from any company be taken seriously?

People shouldn't have to go through a list of cardstocks to understand why a card got the grade it received. If we start playing this game the situation just gets worse and worse. Universality is the only way to go with regards to grading, and unfortunately as time passes we get further and further away from any chance it'll ever happen.

Why shouldn't older cards be held to today's standard? They're old. The cardstock is inferior. That's why we don't use it anymore.

[MarsAttacks]

Originally Posted by rohara99

I'm not defending how PSA grades old OPC Hockey cards... but that's how they grade old OPC Hockey cards. Every hockey collector knows this.

Even non hockey collectors like myself know this! That is a classic OPC rough cut.

[PepperDean]

Originally Posted by rjp087

This just serves to illustrate that all grading is completely and unequivocally subjective and relatively pointless. If people--nevermind companies--can't agree on the nature of grading, how can any grade from any company be taken seriously?

People shouldn't have to go through a list of cardstocks to understand why a card got the grade it received. If we start playing this game the situation just gets worse and worse. Universality is the only way to go with regards to grading, and unfortunately as time passes we get further and further away from any chance it'll ever happen.

Why shouldn't older cards be held to today's standard? They're old. The cardstock is inferior. That's why we don't use it anymore.

I have to disagree there, and I'm not sure that conclusion makes a lot of sense. Why should the grading companies or people in the hobby have to agree on the nature of grading - which I assume you to mean the criteria - for it to be taken seriously? I can take an SGC 9 as seriously as a BGS 9.5 all the while knowing the companies have different standards. If I (or any other individuals) agree with the standards, then I (we) invest value in the grade(s) they assign; if I (we) don't, then I (we) don't. And that's fine.

The second paragraph is just fundamentally wrong. People should have basic knowledge of the hobby they are in, and it isn't too much to ask that people should know modern card stock is different from/superior than vintage card stock. Demanding universal standards renders grading utterly pointless, because it won't have a function for either (a) all modern cards, or (b) all vintage cards. There needs to be different standards in place to adjust.

Also, I'll remind you, you've got it all backwards. Grading was invented for vintage cards, which exhibit a much wider range of wear and printing issues; in its nativity it was never meant for modern cards. The standards were changed to fit the modern market and the growing desire to grade cards fresh from the pack. So, grading for modern became much more nitpicky, in order to differentiate between minute differences in condition that fundamentally don't impact the overall quality of the card. To flip your question on its head, why shouldn't we hold modern cards to vintage standards? Because then they'd be all 10s, and grading would be pointless; grading had to be adjusted for modern. Now if you want to argue grading is pointless for modern cards, that's a whole other argument, but if we move forward with the idea that it has a use (and I definitely fall into this camp), then it has to be adjusted from the original formula.

Finally, your last point makes no sense. Just because we don't use something anymore doesn't mean it can't be graded. Grading is an assessment of cards against a synthetic scale. We choose the criteria. If we choose to come up with a set of guidelines (as many companies have) to assess the conditions of vintage cards relative one another, we certainly can. And if you don't invest value in it, and think all vintage cards are roughly equivalent conditions, then don't buy their slabs.

[imbluestreak23]

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

HGA should be excluded because HGA...

[Oachs83]

I was a bit bummed but okay with my express card just coming back a 9 until I saw this thread. Under a 10x microscope I couldn’t find anything wrong with my card except maybe possibly a “not as sharp” corner as the other three. UGH this thread hurts.

[sh403]

The PSA 9 to that OPC Gretzky might be a bit generous but overall the card's a blazer, at least an 8 and if I was asked what the grade was just by looking at the card I'd say an 8.5. Anyone who thinks that is a 4 has no clue what they're talking about. Only the upper left corner makes the 9 grade a bit questionable. The registration is precise as it gets for the issue -- if you look at the evenness of the spacing of the circle within the circle around the Oilers logo and the oil drop in the circles, it doesn't get much better

[OPChockey]

I wondered about this card, because of the black spot on the left side (on the back of the card).
Is this type of flaw allowed for gem mint, or is this questionable?
I ask since PSA mentions that a PSA 10 "must be free of staining of any kind".
Still a pretty sharp card.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/384654548991

[OPChockey]

Here is the link again, as the previous one above didn't work when I tried it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/38465454899...EAAOSwbEdh0zHY

Ebay number is:
384654548991

[edogg]

Imho that Gretzky is an 8 or 7 not from corners or edges but print defects/ink spots on the front and back

[edogg]

Here is one that I purchased on ebay and only noticed when I received in the mail. Some really bizarre things happening. Corners are awesome, centering is pretty bad but it looks trimmed if you ask me. Why? Top shows an apparent diamond cut. But none of the other borders look diamond to me. Hard to see in the photo but there is even a bit of space in the upper-right between the card and the black mat. If I had to guess the card had some good qualities but one really bad defect or damage on the top edge and it was trimmed off. I don't know how this wasn't returned as trimmed or at least Authentic.

[brev87]

Originally Posted by edogg

Here is one that I purchased on ebay and only noticed when I received in the mail. Some really bizarre things happening. Corners are awesome, centering is pretty bad but it looks trimmed if you ask me. Why? Top shows an apparent diamond cut. But none of the other borders look diamond to me. Hard to see in the photo but there is even a bit of space in the upper-right between the card and the black mat. If I had to guess the card had some good qualities but one really bad defect or damage on the top edge and it was trimmed off. I don't know how this wasn't returned as trimmed or at least Authentic.

I don't know about that, looks like the same cut as this PSA 6. And your card looks better imo

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36368133057...8AAOSwsSRh11NA

[here2havefun]

Think this is my most notable over-graded card. It's an acetate card, check out the right edge. It looks like it sat in a top loader exposed to air for 20+ years. I subbed it just because I wanted it slabbed, didn't expect it to gem lol.

[Banks8181]

I’m glad PSA jacked up the prices. There’s a million cards out there that never should have been graded.

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by Banks8181

I’m glad PSA jacked up the prices. There’s a million cards out there that never should have been graded.

I guess everyone should just ask you what and how they should collect.

[Banks8181]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

I guess everyone should just ask you what and how they should collect.

Probably should. If they did the whole PSA mess could have been avoided. Sorry if you think getting garbage cards graded for profit is good for collectors.

[newcokeandtaco]

Not sports but GPK. This one looks off to me:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/11517851748...4AAOSwa9xh2gsJ

[OPChockey]

Here is a surefire overgraded card.
What do you think the actual grade should be on this one?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/265518292934

https://www.ebay.com/itm/26551829293...IAAOSw4mFh8Gah

[ChaseUA]

Originally Posted by newcokeandtaco

Not sports but GPK. This one looks off to me:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/11517851748...4AAOSwa9xh2gsJ

That’s a 7 IMO.

Originally Posted by OPChockey

Here is a surefire overgraded card.
What do you think the actual grade should be on this one?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/265518292934

https://www.ebay.com/itm/26551829293...IAAOSw4mFh8Gah

Beautiful card. I’d had assumed it was a 9 without seeing the label given the centering.

[KepCards]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

This card I came across today and it really made me do a double take. If you have any examples of cards that you feel are over graded, please share!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14395011871...wAAOSwuQpgKzZK

how can a grader miss those corners, unless they were damaged after the card was graded? Grades like these make me upset with the whole grading process...no way should corners like that be missed, I don't care how many cards the grader has graded that day..