About how would these cards grade?

[zljones]

I was told the Hank Greenberg is in "Good" condition; however, I have concerns because of the stamp on the back. The Greenberg is crease free but there is some chipping on the front. I am torn whether this is in "Fair" or "Good" condition.

I have a hard time grading T205s myself. I won this Clarke on ebay for cheap, as if it was going as "Good" condition, but I kinda think it might be VG.

[MW1]

Clarke -- "Good" due to well-rounded corners. It also appears that there may be a few minor creases on the obverse including one near the UR corner.
Greenberg -- "Fair" due to corner wear, stamp, and back damage (I'm assuming the white marks on the front of the card are from a photographic reflection. If the white marks on the back are of a similar nature, perhaps the card would grade as high as "good").

[zljones]

The only white mark on the front that is from the photo flash is the one near the "Lou Gehrig Says...." part, the rest are the same type of wear as the back, seems like natural wear. Thanks for the input

[dstraate]

Same with above. My guess is a 1.5 for the Goudey and 2 for the T205. Too much chipping and rough corners for a 3.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Agree with the others

[smtjoy]

Nice cards, I would guess-

T205 Clarke- 40/3

Goudey Greenberg- 20/1.5 or PSA 3 (MK)

[Pup6913]

Greenburg @ a 1.5

Clarke is a 2 with pushing the limit of a 3 being possible on a really good day. Don't get your hopes up on that but be happy if it is.

[MooseWithFleas]

Didn't look at any of the posts, just tried to grade as objectively as possible.

Clarke: 2
Greenberg: 1.5

[zljones]

Thanks for all the input everyone. Looks like I paid a little too much for that Greenberg several months ago, it was listed as "Good" condition for $125, too much, o well live and I learned.

[e107collector]

Didn't look at any of the posts, just tried to grade as objectively as possible.

Clarke: 2
Greenberg: 1.5

+1

Tony

[Leon]

Clarke: 2
Greenberg: 1.0 to 1.5

[fkw]

Thanks for all the input everyone. Looks like I paid a little too much for that Greenberg several months ago, it was listed as "Good" condition for $125, too much, o well live and I learned.

25 years ago your RAW R320 card was often called "Good", and the T205 Clarke would be G/VG or VG by many.

3rd party grading is very conservative on purpose, and IMO they leave no room at the bottom of their scale...

Years ago a Poor card was a destroyed card (ie torn in 1/2 taped back together, hole punches, skinned backs, no borders, etc. Fair was only slightly better.

Now with 3rd party grading, you can find nice clean (vintage) cards with anything from a 4-10 grade. Even many "1's" have nice eye appeal and should never have the word "POOR" associated with them...

ie.
http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1933r319-19psa1.jpg
VG IMO



I actually think they spin a wheel sometimes to get the number they put on the slab.... ;)

[zljones]

Indeed I agree some "Poor" cards are indeed not poor in my book

[97manoftroy]

Great Cards Frank and Zack. #thumbsup!

[iwantitiwinit]

PSA 2 on the t205.