Does this Old Judge deserve a SGC 40grade?

Wesley · #1 10-31-2009, 01:06 PM

This card will be sold in an upcoming auction. I know N172s come in different sizes and shapes, but the left border on this card looks outrageous to me.

The image is very clear, so perhaps SGC rewarded this card for image quality, as many collectors believe they should.

HRBAKER · #2 10-31-2009, 02:01 PM

Appears to me to be generous. If it were mine I would be ecstatic over the grade. Also over owning the card.

pete zouras · #3 10-31-2009, 02:05 PM

The bottom border of this card has a slanty cut, not to mention the crease. I submitted this card for on-site grading at Reading a few years ago, and thought a VG/3 was generous. Perhaps their on-site grading is more lenient.

HRBAKER · #4 10-31-2009, 02:08 PM

Seems also to be a significant amount of paper loss on the right border but that may be my 50 year old eys. In any event, a great card.

cozmokramer · #5 10-31-2009, 02:16 PM

Definitely over graded.

That would be PSA Authentic every time.

barrysloate · #6 10-31-2009, 02:25 PM

OJ's do come poorly cut but that one appears to cross the line. I saw it in the auction and my first reaction was I didn't like it. It could be a natural cut but it's not a 40. It's either trimmed or a 30. Nice image though (I assume the blurriness is the scan).

Nope, it's not the scan. The card is way out of focus. I don't like it so much anymore.

Bicem · #7 10-31-2009, 02:39 PM

yuck

paul · #8 10-31-2009, 05:10 PM

Even if that was the original cut of the card, I thought the grading companies would not give a numerical grade to a card like that. Don't they have a minimum size requirement, and something similar like a maximum size difference between top and bottom, or maybe a maximum curvature of an edge?

slidekellyslide · #9 10-31-2009, 05:30 PM

At least it's not a reprint.

bigfish · #10 10-31-2009, 07:06 PM

I do not see an issue with it. The image is a 6 or a 7. The cut is alittle off. I would question a grade of a 5 or 6. I think it is fine. I have seen PSA 6/7 with stock loss on the back of the card. That is a legitimate issue.

Matt · #11 10-31-2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfish

The image is a 6 or a 7. .

It's all blurry...

3-2-count · #12 10-31-2009, 08:23 PM

With that miscut should be an Sgc-20 or 30 IMO.
I still wouldn't mind having it though.

chaddurbin · #13 10-31-2009, 08:58 PM

lax(er) grading at SGC. some front scraping, missing left border. at best a 20/30 because of the miscut, at worst SGC A. great image, there's prolly no price difference between an A grade or a 20/30, but a 40 is a stretch.

bigfish · #14 10-31-2009, 09:11 PM

Matt,

That image is outstanding. We all have our opinions. I think the grade is fine and would love to own the card. If you do not like a card you should not buy it for the numerical grade assigned.

Wesley · #15 10-31-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

lax(er) grading at SGC. some front scraping, missing left border. at best a 20/30 because of the miscut, at worst SGC A. great image, there's prolly no price difference between an A grade or a 20/30, but a 40 is a stretch.

Quan,

There is a world of difference between prices for SGC A grade cards and those that receive numerical grades. I would much rather have a SGC 1 card than one that has been trimmed or tampered with.

This card should be no more than SGC A for the horrible miscut. I don't like PSA for prewar cards, but PSA would have either given this card a 3 MC or rejected for not meeting minimum size requirement.

Wes

Matt · #16 10-31-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfish

Matt,

That image is outstanding. We all have our opinions. I think the grade is fine and would love to own the card. If you do not like a card you should not buy it for the numerical grade assigned.

Yikes - I just disagreed with your statement that the image is a 6 or a 7 - it's terribly blurry at the bottom, especially by the text. Doesn't mean it's not a nice card or I wouldn't want to own it. Serenity now...

chaddurbin · #17 11-01-2009, 12:45 AM

wes, i agree with you about pricing for A vs numerical...i just meant in this case for the delahanty it might not be. of course being a potential bidder i'm all for SGC to "get it right" with the popular opinion in this thread....the difference between an A and a 40 here is probably multiple Ks.

edhans · #18 11-01-2009, 08:26 AM

I'm OK with a 3 for that card. The superb photo quality more than compensates for the other defects.

D. Bergin · #19 11-01-2009, 08:51 AM

The grade is definitely debatable, but if anything I think it serves as an example that you should always see a card before you buy it, regardless of the grade.

Even if the grade is technically correct, many buyers would obviously have buyers remorse for paying an SGC 40 price on this card once they had it in hand, if they hadn't seen it ahead of time.

Disregarding the player, I've seen many Old Judge A's, 1, and 2's recently on this board alone, I would prefer to have over this card, strictly from an aesthetic sense.

Others, I am guessing wouldn't mind. It's all in ones particular tastes I guess.

oldjudge · #20 11-01-2009, 09:24 AM

The photo is not faded, but it is anything but sharp. I think blurry photos like this are very undesireable and I also believe the card is overgraded. IMHO there should be more of a tie between grade and appearance.

barrysloate · #21 11-01-2009, 09:58 AM

I agree with Jay completely. Eye appeal is virtually ignored in the grading process; and isn't that a part of what grading should be about? Besides technical considerations such as creasing and corner sharpness, how an Old Judge looks is a huge factor in its desirability, more so than with a printed card such as a T206. There are so many things that can go wrong in the photographic process, but this is not even a factor when an N172 is graded. Hate to keep harping but it is a flawed system that needs to be rethought.

Cat · #22 11-01-2009, 11:27 AM

When I first saw this card on the auction site, the first thing that struck me was the blurriness of the name and advertisement. It doesn't appear that his image is as burry as his name, etc. The cut is extremely distracting, but I think I could overlook the cut if the name and advertisement didn't give me a headache when I look at them for more than a split second.

BCauley · #23 11-01-2009, 11:43 AM

So I was at a card show today and came across this very card. I thought that it was the one that I saw in this thread but not certain until I came back to this one.

I always view cards differently in person than on the computer for some reason. In person, the card is great....other than that cut on the left. For myself anyway, it was a large distraction from the rest of the card. BUT, we all have our likes/dislikes so to each his own.

(And no, they were not selling it at the show, only had it on display for the upcoming auction.)

Wesley · #24 11-01-2009, 11:49 AM

Darren, I just assumed the blurry name and advertisement on the bottom were due to a bad scan. But now looking at the SGC label with the clear text, I think you are right.

Bill, In person, was the image or the text off-register like in the scan?

Matt · #25 11-01-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley

Darren, I just assumed the blurry name and advertisement on the bottom were due to a bad scan. But now looking at the SGC label with the clear text, I think you are right.

I believe Barry came to the same conclusion earlier in the thread.

Cat · #26 11-01-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley

Darren, I just assumed the blurry name and advertisement on the bottom were due to a bad scan. But now looking at the SGC label with the clear text, I think you are right.

Bill, In person, was the image or the text off-register like in the scan?

I always look at the flip for comparison. I have picked up cards with pretty fuzzy images off of EBay with blurring in the flip and when received they were very nice. Someone had just made a terrible scan of the entire card/holder. The only savior for this card is if someone bumped the scanner while it reached the bottom portion of the card...but it doesn't look like that happened since the black insert isn't blurred.

BCauley · #27 11-01-2009, 12:29 PM

It did have a little blurriness. For whatever reason though, it didn't look AS bad in person. Now, this scan is obviously bigger than the actual card and the lighting is better than when I looked at it so I think it's safe to assume that this scan is in fact accurate.

Keep in mind now too, I don't have perfect vision and my short term memory is shot ever since getting back from Iraq in December. Just ask my wife.

barrysloate · #28 11-01-2009, 01:07 PM

I came to the same conclusion in the same way..the flip was clear but the text on the card was a double image.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Let's do some Boxing Card trading...	butcher354435	Boxing / Wrestling Cards & Memorabilia Forum	11	11-14-2009 06:25 PM
SOLD - 1887 Old Judge - Ned Hanlon HOF Rookie Card (SGC 10)	Archive	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	4	06-29-2008 05:27 AM
1915 Cracker Jack low grade partial set SGC PSA Cobb Matty	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T	17	01-11-2008 05:45 PM
1887 Old Judge N172 - Jumbo Schoeneck - SGC 50 VG/EX 4	Archive	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	0	06-13-2007 10:06 AM
1914 and 1915 CRACKER JACKS	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T	14	12-08-2006 11:49 AM