Wwn54d?

[bbcard1]

Hey guys, I just bought this card from another N54er. It was exactly as he described it...an sgc 40 / VG. I paid around $425 for it. By way of comparison, the asking price on 2s on ebay are about that.

I crack the cases. i don't like slabbed cards and I have s completely raw set.

Here's my conflict. It's a very weak 4. If I bust it out, it would probably go as a 2. I think I can shop around and get a 2 with good eye appeal for $275 or so...that would fit into my set fine.

Have not and do not plan to ask for a refund. The guy is a collector and he used the $ to buy something else. Besides, it was what he said it was...it just doesn't look as good in person as on the scan or as the grade would indicate. Would you:

1) List it on ebay figuring someone would buy the holder

2) Bust it and don't worry about it. You probably paid a little dear for it, but you get good buys as well and it all evens out

3) Consign it

4) You paid about right. Don't worry about it.

or something else?

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee291/bbcard1/1f46313e.jpg

[Ladder7]

You're in a real conundrum there. But why does it matter that it's a N54'r? I'd think you're a real tool if I was the seller. :rolleyes:

[bbcard1]

I only mention it because N54ers are such great guys...mostly ;-)...unless the seller owned the grading company, it's not his fault.

[ullmandds]

Looks like a psa 4 to me but the insert appears to be sgc? I'd deslab it...wet and iron the corners a bit til they're sharp...and be happy with it!

[doug.goodman]

Oops, I meant option 2.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Looks like a 3 to me - a weak 3, but still a 3.

[bbcard1]

I think I'm gettin' out the buster....

[t206blogcom]

Option #1

[Leon]

Looks like a decent 3 to me....I would just crack it and keep it. Nice looking card....

[T206Collector]

Looks like a decent 3 to me....I would just crack it and keep it. Nice looking card....

+1

[Gradedcardman]

Ebay. Someone will pay for the grade without scoping the card.

[tbob]

SGC 20, maybe a 30 on a good day, certainly would never grade a 40 (3) with SGC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

SGC 20, maybe a 30 on a good day, certainly would never grade a 40 (3) with SGC.

" It was exactly as he described it...an sgc 40 / VG."

[HRBAKER]

siuamo

[mintacular]

That card should NEVER grade a VG 3, GD at best

Here's my idea of 3:

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/nollpm/Bates.jpg

And my idea of a crumby 2:
http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/nollpm/Geyer2.jpg

And of course the dreaded 1.5:

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq66/nollpm/McQuillan.jpg

Sorry for bragging :) Don't mean to derail this thread on the "eye appeal" vs. "technical grade" cause either way your Cobby should be no higher than a GD and that's being generous... Thanks Tony, love these cards

[shaunsteig]

bbcard1 -- if you don't like the way the card looks, then there's no obligation for you to keep it, even if you bought it from a Net54 collector and even if you feel you got it for below-market value for the grade. Being that you collect raw cards, neither the actual grade of this card nor the potential grade of a future purchase actually matter. You've simplified the collecting to only two variables: the card's eye appeal vs cost. And it sounds to me that you're not thrilled with its appearance. So I'd say to go ahead and sell it, in which case leave it in the holster as an SGC 40 cause you'll get more for it that way.

Patrick -- those are some fantastic appearing low-grade SGCs, congrats on finding them. But I do have to ask what the backs look like? cause obviously there must be some significant flaw on the back to warrant those low grades. And I think most of us would not consider those to be typical-appearing 20s or 40s. The Young in question, with an intact back, isn't far off from a typical 40, imho.

Thanks,
--S

[mintacular]

The backs have no paper loss or writing, or terrible o/c. Some of them have basic brown tobacco staining, a few of the front have minor marks...In short, I don't proclaim the backs are perfect which is why in most cases they did not get better grades....

[Leon]

The backs have no paper loss or writing, or terrible o/c. Some of them have basic brown tobacco staining, a few of the front have minor marks...In short, I don't proclaim the backs are perfect which is why in most cases they did not get better grades....

I feel you might be confusing eye appeal with technical grade.

[Exhibitman]

Looks like a vg card to me assuming the back is OK. Per SGC:

"90/10 or better centering, corners more rounded--but not excessive, stronger creasing may exist. Poorer focus, registration, and discoloration, and staining are more noticeable."

[mintacular]

I feel you might be confusing eye appeal with technical grade. I admit my posts of "low grade" cards with great eye appeal is confusing as per the original poster's question i.e. I realize that my 3s and worse are not typical of cards in that grade. That said, I still don't think the original card should grade a 3 and/or do not represent the average VG 3 cards I see; actually don't think it meets the requirements at all as the corners exhibit excessive wear/roundness which according to SGC is not permissable for a a 3