|
Beautiful Low Grade Cards
2 Attachment(s)
I thought this one was pretty nice for a "2". Show off your unexplainable 1s and 2s.
|
WOW, Paul, looks like a 5 or so to me............
|
I would say it looks like a 6!
|
2 Attachment(s)
Presents much nicer than a 2.
|
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/4284435463/" title="1910 Set of 30 E 98 (Blue) by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2683/4284435463_a846b41045_o.jpg" width="450" height="758" alt="1910 Set of 30 E 98 (Blue)"></a>
|
|
?
|
Nice cards Pat. I remember that trio well.
|
|
N/T
|
Quote:
GB |
2 Attachment(s)
Here's a couple..
|
One of my best and brightest signed T206 cards....
<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/9JThsZG2x8u9YDxbx6mrFDiJm_Z5QsNdec5_I7WHZRE?feat=e mbedwebsite"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iQ_phCjfIIU/S7FELuCjRqI/AAAAAAAAJ6Y/xE6ymo7l4wM/s800/Clarke%2520Batting%2520Auto%2520SGC%252010.jpg" height="800" width="499" /></a> |
|
1 Attachment(s)
''
|
E94 Wags PSA 1
1 Attachment(s)
Beautiful image, but the pinhole is a bummer...
|
Quote:
|
E94 Wags
Quote:
|
from a hobby friend who asked me to sell a part of his collection. there's some small paper loss on back, it's psa so i'm surprised they didn't give it a 4.
http://photos.imageevent.com/fisherb...le/CJplank.jpg |
I just sold this - not sure if a board member bought it or not. There is a really, really small faded "D" in front of the Jones on the bottom (you can't even see it unless you're looking for it - even then it's hard to see).
This card is beautiful for a 4 - http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1909-1911-Dav...BEg~~60_12.JPG |
Don't understand, but it is what it is
2 Attachment(s)
Just back from SGC. I have graded cards with creases in them that got higher grades then these two beauties.
|
1 Attachment(s)
F due to back damage from removal...on an otherwise blank back!
|
|
1 Attachment(s)
My contribution - I will take cards like this one all day!
|
2 Attachment(s)
Sharp card a 5+ if it didn't have the tape on the back.
|
nicest "good" I own
This one has tiny microcreases or crazing prevalent with the issue, It seems the T213-2s were practically doomed to suffer from these no matter what care their owner gave them, as they are certainly not due to improper handling (damn set practically creases if you even breathe on it). You can spot them easily in hand when held at an angle, but they they can be tough to see on screen.
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...14t213ford.jpg |
2 Attachment(s)
Nice cards everyone. I thought this would get at least a 3....
|
2 Attachment(s)
Purchased this at the 2010 National in Baltimore. Still have no idea how it only got a grade of 2. No creasing that I can see and no paper loss. By far my best looking 2.
|
2 Attachment(s)
I REALLY want an explanation on the Peckinpaugh - NOTHING obvious to me on this one at all, in the case or out, and the back is just as clean!
|
|
2 Attachment(s)
Here's a couple of nice ones.
|
Quote:
|
Who knows why...
I have a few NM graded cards that aren't this nice...no creases, no marks, no paper loss that I can see, clean back...the "lines" on the front are on the slab, not the card.
http://www.collectorfocus.com/images...5-cracker-jack |
I have a slew of 1910 Obaks which look like they came from the Black Swamp Find and which are graded as 40s and 50s. Granted they were graded back when SGC was knocking grades down for the purple numbers stamped on the back 100 years ago but c'mon!!!! :mad:
|
Quote:
There are no creases on the either card, but the cards were removed from an album, so they were probably docked for some slight glue stain or residue on the back that you cannot see unless the card is under magnification. I don't see any flaws, front or back, now, or when I submitted the cards for grading. I also have an ungraded Gehringer on the BST that I didn't send in for grading because you can barely see some light glue residue when you turn the card in the light. My beef is that cards with creases on them, or major stains, or corners that are rounded often get grades that are higher than the grades given to all of the beautiful cards displayed on this thread. For example, I have a E93 Hal Chase with two huge creases on the front, and visible caramel stains on the back that PSA graded a 4. It doesn't display well next to my Greenburg & Ott, but it will probably sell for more than both cards put together because of the grade. As for my two Diamond Stars, I'm just happy to have them in my collection even with the low grade. I just think it is unfortunate that grading companies don't take the overall appearance of a card as the main consideration when assigning a grade. Instead they seem to use a checklist approach that docks each card for minor flaws even though overall appearance of the card is outstanding. In the grading company's defense they are trying to be objective. I'm sure that they try to be as fair as possible. Best regards, Joe |
1 Attachment(s)
Though PSA 4 not a real low grade, card looks so much better
|
|
3 Attachment(s)
those darned pinholes on Simmons...and some back damage on Youngs...and some paper loss on front of Yaz...
I love cards that get low technical grades but are beautiful to the eye. Well, let me re-phrase that - - I love cards that get low technical grades but are beautiful to the eye WHEN I'M THE BUYER!! |
Psa 2?
1 Attachment(s)
PSA 2 Bill Malarkey T206.....ridiculous!
|
WaJo
2 Attachment(s)
T206 WaJo
|
Honey Boy Heilmann
1 Attachment(s)
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39 PM. |