Thread: PSA or SGC?
View Single Post
  #32  
Old 05-08-2014, 03:07 AM
1880nonsports's Avatar
1880nonsports 1880nonsports is offline
Hen.ry Mos.es
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,450
Default if that CJ

was a T206 = I think 12,000. would be about right. I have the recent CJ book but unfamiliar with the known "error" population of the cards and while I admire the way the set presents I've never collected Cracker Jacks - too new. I have a couple 19th century examples of printing anomalies in my sets as I think they're neat. In fact to me the type of printing error on the card is way more interesting than other types of errors that aren't graphic in nature. If I collected the set - I'd want an example like that - just not at a premium beyond 15 - 20% fair market value of a regular version of the card. That's just me. Collectors often want something a little different, a little more special than what the other guy has got - cool looking card no matter what - I'm graphics driven.
As for the grading - it's an interesting problem to grade that card if in fact it isn't trimmed on the right side and/or trimmed from a sheet. It's hard to tell from a scan and in a tomb on the interweb. I'm not sure if that's what you meant (trimmed) or just the glaring off register and missing inking.
If it isn't altered or hand cut - what should the grade be? I agree excellent might be a stretch :-) A grade is supposed to convey the physical state of the card as defined by the company on a global level and in the trenches as executed by an employee. That doesn't always happen.
I'm probably alone in the idea that the card should be authentic even if it's not trimmed regardless of which company or individual is grading it. As a result of problems in the printing process the card stands as an incomplete representation of the intended card. I'm surprised PSA doesn't have a rule or qualifier to treat this kind of situation as it must come up often enough. Not busting chops - just trying to understand something that's probably obvious to everyone but me. Wouldn't be the first time.
What I did notice is that there's no scan of the back, the card can't be enlarged without putting it in your own photo program, and the scan isn't clear. My kind of seller.
Reply With Quote