Psa centring parameters (expecially psa 10)

I’m curious about what you think of the parameters on the psa card centering 10. Psa writes:
“The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse.”
This parameters is too permissive?
I have attached two photos to show what those numbers mean (expecially the back to my eyes)
Many thanks to those who will express their opinion.

1 Like

60/40 on the front doesn’t bother me at all, but 75/25 on the back is a little rough.

I’m glad exact ratios are specified. You can measure the border ratios accurately by scanning the card and measuring the yellow border pixels. This allows you to quantitatively prove your card has PSA 10, 9 etc centering. All the other grading criteria are more subjective.


There is no doubt about the verification: you said a very valid method. There is also an transparent paper with all the centerings as far as I know is very good. But my point is psa 9 on the back is 90/10, psa 10 is 75/25 and oc who know also. But 75/25 is too off center to my eyes. Or I’m too restrictive?

It’s your personal preference. If you don’t want 75/25 centering on the back, then shop around and find one that looks good to your eye. I would think the majority of PSA 10s have much better back centering than 75/25.

my idea is that psa
had to be more restrictive with centering. Otherwise it seems that the centering with respect to side corners egres surface is the last wheel of the wagon that cares very little.

1 Like

my post is an general analisis of parameters. Not in particular for me. But psa idea of centring.

1 Like

To be honest I’d love to see a PSA 10 with such bad centering. I agree with you that these parameters don’t make sense…

I know that for example Japanese cards get insta 9s if theyre slightly OC and I’m not talking 60/40 or even 75/25 here.

By the way you’re right it is the least important subgrade as opposed to Beckett where a light played card could get 9 or 9.5 because the centering is 10.

That’s highly doubtful. In order for a card to get a 9.5. It would need to have all 9.5 or higher subs except for one being no less than 9. That’s not an LP card. Same goes for a 9. It would have to have all 9 or higher subs except for one not being lower than 8.5 Also not an LP card. But it’s fun to think that way!

I was exaggerating, but I’ve seen such 6-7 quality cards earn a 9. 9.5 might have been pushing it. Sorry I insulted your grading company of choice.

My below card got a 9. It had flawless edges, corners and surface and I know the difference. So I sent it in for an explanation/review. It came back as you see. The front side to side centering didn’t fit the PSA parameters for a 10. WHAT???
You be the judge…


The majority of my cards are psa 10 :blush:. I was just clarifying your mistake, as I don’t think people who don’t know about Beckett would have read that as an exaggeration.

That’s 10 worthy.

I feel like the whole 60/40 front and 75/25 back thing might apply to 50 years old sports cards or whatever, but it would be nice if PSA updated their actual standards.

One issue is I don’t think they’re measuring the centering most of the time especially bulk orders.

1 Like

Here is a nice example. This is absolutely inside the 60/40. So since mathematics is not questionable it cannot be an element of reduction of the degree. The reality as gary showed. The reality as gary showed is that he came back 9 also in the review. Psa has decidedly confused ideas: strandard write A and graduator write B.


I don’t know what you guys are talkin’ bout.

This is what PSA 10 Centering looks like…


This seems to show that PSA isn’t necessarily consistent with it’s values/parameters. Unless of course these kinds of things were graded at considerably different times.


Consistency for grading parameters shouldn’t change over time.

A PSA 10 now should be consistent with a PSA 10 from 2000.


Gary’s example is definitely within the parameters. You can scan it, measure it and prove it quantitatively. That’s a clear mistake made by PSA.