Old judge grading question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I bought this card raw at a Sun Times Show. I had it graded on site by GAI to make sure it was not altered. I did not much care other than that. It came back as a 2. I was kind of surprised. Any of you with more knowledge on how Old Judges grade, if you could maybe explain why? My thinking is because the back was toned but not damaged and in the upper left corner there is a small amount of paper missing. Thanks Paul<BR><BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1091329710.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>everything that's most important in a card. The grading companies don't care about those things, though. Corners are rounded, in the front, emulsion is flaking away at the very edges--it SHOWS WEAR. God KNOWS what they saw on the back! I have no IDEA why it should get a 2. I'd love to have it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I was very surprised to find it for the price I paid. It was one of the few deals I found at that show. It is quite the image. The scan did not show up very well. It is one of the bolder and clear I have seen.<BR><BR>Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>If you thought that was bad, you should have seen the Old Judges that John Billingsley had at the National (graded by SGC). They even had one graded 10 (on the 100 point scale=poor) that was beautiful. I think it was Getzin and that one of the board members might have bought it on the Saturday. Perhaps he can post a scan.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>Elliot I traded 2 Ramlys with John for 2 41 Goudys Bees cards and 4 OJ Boston cards; 3 were in SGC holders 1,3 and 2,2's and one PSA 3. I had the PSA crossed over to SGC and the grade dropped to 2 because of very minimal back damage. All cards are beautiful with great contrast and clear immages.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>I saw John Billingsley's Getzein card which had a superb front but was graded SGC10 due to some very minor paper loss on back from scrap book removal. I couldn't easily find paper removal but it was clearly removed from an album.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>I bought the card mostly as a novelty - who the heck would believe something this nice would end up in an SGC10 holder. There are 4 relatively sharp corners, a fairly nice image and lots of GLOSS on the front. The back definitely shows signs of scrap book removal but it appears to be somewhat minimal. You be the judge, look at the back and tell me why this came out as an SGC10. I'm not sure how much memory is alloted for each member but I think I max'd out the image size with the Getzein. I'll post another image of an N172 that was graded SGC30 and you go figure it out. <BR><BR>I guess everyone has a bad day now and then but the only person that had a bad day when the card was graded was John Billingsley. He had a case of N172 cards that were graded SGC20 - SGC30 that were similar to the Getzein. It's a shame that the cards were graded so low because if you saw them in person all you could feel was disgust with the grades and sympathy for John. <BR><BR><BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1091339622.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>The scan is of an N172 Duryea (CVG). Yes, that is a large remnant of a scrap book on the back. The card has a vertical crease that runs top to bottom. It's almost comical the difference in grades of the SGC10 Getzein and the SGC30 Duryea. I guess we could all pull out some really interesting graded N172s and laugh at how poorly the grading standards were applied. <BR><BR>PSA is no better. I have N172 cards that are PSA graded (somewhat high, 6) that have definite signs of some type of adhesive that was removed. I also have a trimmed N172 Sunday card that was given a PSA1. It was won on ebay and this bull board mentioned that it was trimmed (ad removed from the bottom). I thought that PSA would not grade trimmed card - it was another novelty graded card purchase that I had to have. <BR><BR>I hate to deviate from the main topic but I just want to relay one last funny PSA grading blunder - A T201 (Bender/Oldring) that was graded a PSA4 and inserted into a standard card holder (folded in half). I about died laughing when I saw it. I just had to have it.<BR><BR>Bottom line is buy the card - not the holder unless you like to have fun laughing (or in some cases, crying) at the ineptness of the so-called professionals that provide us with their subjective opinions about the condition of something they probably don't understand. <BR><BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1091338238.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>Paul:<BR><BR>You got yourself a nice card at a good price. Well done!<BR><BR>I, too, got one of John Billingsley's cards that was extremely harshly graded by SGC. I was actually comparing notes with Judge Dred on his Getzein and my Stemmeyer the other day. Other than some toning and the stain spots where the tape was placed, the Stemmeyer is very nice. I was shocked at the grade. My resepct for SGC aside, I love this card and could care less about the grade they assigned it.<BR><BR><img src="http://members.aol.com/kkkkandp/stem_fr.jpg"> <img src="http://members.aol.com/kkkkandp/stem_bk.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>SGC graded a beautiful OJ boxer of mine w/one of the clearest images I've ever seen a 1.5 for back scrapbook damage and a faint crease. I have come to expect at best a 3 or 4 for a card with a back stain or damage even if the front is gem mint. For blank backs grading 1.5-2, I say "bring it on"!!