I have very little use for graded cards in principle, but I am a big fan of the PSA 6.
A good PSA 6 card will still look like it just came out of a pack, but the centering is off just a little too much to earn a 7. Not being a centering purist, I’m happy to get a 6 for far less than the cost of a 7 or (shudder) 8, crack it out of its case and put it in my set.
1958-59 Topps is yet another set that I’m slowly poking away at, and Glenn Hall is a card that has been avoiding me.
I found this card online and it seemed to fit the bill. The corners were sharp, the surface showed minimal wear (’58-59 Topps wears really badly – not sure just why) and the centering seemed to justify the PSA 6 grade that it got. My rule is that I want a recognizable border all around the card, but I’m flexible as to just how much of it needs to be visible. This was OK in my books.
When the card got to me, I was pretty pleased with it overall. Then I turned it over:
There are three areas of paper loss on this: one over the card number, one in the cartoon and one over the ‘T’ in “Goals Against.”
Now, first of all, I was pretty ticked at the seller, who in my mind has to own up to the paper loss and not just hide behind the fact it was graded. I wrote him immediately and – surprise – never heard back. I started to fight it through eBay but decided I had enough to worry about over the holidays. So I’m lumping it.
But what on earth happened at PSA the day this thing was graded? The damage is immediately visible. This case hasn’t been tampered with in any way.
It’s possible that the damage was factory, but that shouldn’t matter. It’s not as though a factory crease gets let go.
So what gives? Was this graded at 4:59 on a Friday afternoon, or is there some caveat that they don’t have to pay attention to problems on the back? This isn’t the first time. (Note – I have to fix the images there. I guess the old hosting server is dead.)
Inquiring minds want to know.
Seems odd, as someone with a decent stock of PSA-graded vintage I’ve come across some that I thought were under-graded (http://shoeboxlegends.blogspot.com/2014/01/vean-gregg-and-case-of-psa-mis-grade.html), but never one like that that misses an obvious flaw.
Also, I can never understand why some cards get the (OC – off-centered) designation when others that seem more off-center don’t.
Who knows, nice card either way though!!!