View Full Version : What Do You Guys Think of this Grade?
oldjudge
10-22-2009, 10:10 PM
I'll give my opinion in a while.
Technically correct and a flawed system. A system that might be cumbersome/costly to change too.
edited to add that it looks trimmed from the scan but I am assuming that it's not.
oldjudge
10-22-2009, 10:17 PM
Leon--It sure looks trimmed to me--they didn't start out this size
I was hoping it would be a mini-border or something ;).
3-2-count
10-22-2009, 10:24 PM
Well, if going off the ole' saying "buy the card, not the holder", I wouldn't be interested in that card. Just my opinion how I feel about it since it's being asked.
When in doubt, wait for another on a different day. It will come.
caramelcard
10-22-2009, 11:00 PM
The image definitely looks to be excellent to near mint.
To the seller/owner it's an accurately graded specimen, to a buyer or experienced OJ collector it looks like an extra generous grade. As Leon said, it's a flawed grading system (when it comes to OJs).
Steve D
10-23-2009, 12:00 AM
Both side edges look like they have just about as many waves as the Pacific Ocean.
Steve
terjung
10-23-2009, 12:35 AM
Both side edges look like they have just about as many waves as the Pacific Ocean.
Steve
Oh, no. Are you saying that El Nino is responsible for this now too???
barrysloate
10-23-2009, 04:59 AM
That's just a bad job of grading, and a bad system in place to assess Old Judges. Besides the questionable cut, the photo is muddy and indistinct. No OJ with that poor an image should qualify for an 80 grade. About three years ago Dave Forman told me that SGC was going to address the issue of how photo quality impacts the grade of a photographic issue, but I don't think they got anywhere with it. I would grade that a 40 at best, and Authentic if the edges are trimmed.
kkkkandp
10-23-2009, 05:14 AM
As has already been mentioned, given the yardstick being used probably technically correct, but aesthetically generous.
Sort of the antithesis of...
I'd give the card a grade of authentic and pass on it. An 80 is unbelievable.
Joe_G.
10-23-2009, 04:46 PM
That card does appear trimmed, but I sympathize with 3rd party graders at times with OJs. Unless you are real familiar with the set, it can be tough. The variation in card size can be substantial with the 1887 Brooklyn cards (excluding the Brooklyn minis) and the 1889/90 cards being the largest. You then have the Script cards as the smallest and the Fa/Fb cards not far behind. It's not uncommon for a single border to be cut short but this 1889 looks short on more than one side and may not even have a straight cut.
Card looks suspicious, but I'd like to see in person. W.r.t. photo quality, not so nice but we all know that doesn't factor into grade as of yet.
That card does appear trimmed, but I sympathize with 3rd party graders at times with OJs. Unless you are real familiar with the set, it can be tough. The variation in card size can be substantial with the 1887 Brooklyn cards (excluding the Brooklyn minis) and the 1889/90 cards being the largest. You then have the Script cards as the smallest and the Fa/Fb cards not far behind. It's not uncommon for a single border to be cut short but this 1889 looks short on more than one side and may not even have a straight cut.
Card looks suspicious, but I'd like to see in person. W.r.t. photo quality, not so nice but we all know that doesn't factor into grade as of yet.
I thought the same thing at first, with respect to the borders....maybe one could be thin....but not all of them :(
buymycards
10-23-2009, 05:03 PM
The scan isn't real great, but the card sure seems to be missing the borders.
Rick
nolemmings
10-23-2009, 05:40 PM
wish I was that skinny.