View Full Version : Finally, a description that is short, sweet and correct
Short, sweet and correct description. I like the honesty and succinctness of "very poor" :)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-M101-4-Blank-Back-WILLIAM-DOAK-St-Louis-Cardinals-Very-Poor-/150972598392?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2326ab0878
.
frankbmd
12-30-2012, 07:35 PM
VG - You can still clearly read the last name.:D:D:D:D:D
RCMcKenzie
12-30-2012, 07:44 PM
I think we need qualifiers below sgc 10 poor these days, as sgc 10 cards are what I used to call g+.
We could have poor, near poor, very poor, awful etc.
freakhappy
12-30-2012, 08:32 PM
You don't get too many opportunities to be able to accurately grade your card and be 100% correct...this is one of those instances :D
conor912
12-30-2012, 09:14 PM
I think we need qualifiers below sgc 10 poor these days, as sgc 10 cards are what I used to call g+.
We could have poor, near poor, very poor, awful etc.
+1
I always thought that "poor" should be reserved for a card that can't get any worse.
Chris Counts
12-30-2012, 09:41 PM
I've seen far worse cards rated "poor."
The lower on the grading scale the more subjectivity there seems to be. We have all seen a lot of technically poor cards be really nice looking, being 3-5 grades better in eye appeal.