 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5
08-04-2012, 09:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets 
|
|
#6
08-04-2012, 09:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
   
|
|
#7
08-04-2012, 09:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
?
How about these 3?
  
Last edited by mintacular; 08-04-2012 at 09:47 PM.
|
|
#8
08-04-2012, 09:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nice cards Pat. I remember that trio well.
|
|
#11
08-04-2012, 10:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 GB
|
|
#12
08-04-2012, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's a couple..
|
|
#13
08-04-2012, 10:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One of my best and brightest signed T206 cards....
__________________
Galleries and Articles about T206 Player Autographs www.SignedT206.com www.instagram.com/signedT206/ @SignedT206
|
|
#19
08-05-2012, 10:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
One post max per thread.
|
|
#20
08-05-2012, 10:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 - kE9s4Z-u5hBQDGgMDBEg~~60_12.JPG)
Last edited by Davy_Kangaroo_Jones; 08-05-2012 at 11:00 AM.
|
|
#21
08-05-2012, 11:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don't understand, but it is what it is
Just back from SGC. I have graded cards with creases in them that got higher grades then these two beauties.
|
|
#24
08-05-2012, 12:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
My contribution - I will take cards like this one all day!
__________________
Looking for: Type 1 photos of baseball HOFers N172 Old Judge Portraits Will buy or trade for the above. Check out my cards at: www.imageevent.com/crb972
|
|
#26
08-07-2012, 10:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. - Ulysses S. Grant, military commander, 18th US President. Last edited by nolemmings; 08-07-2012 at 10:16 PM.
|
|
#27
08-07-2012, 11:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nice cards everyone. I thought this would get at least a 3....
|
|
#28
08-08-2012, 06:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#29
08-08-2012, 07:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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!
Last edited by scooter729; 08-08-2012 at 07:27 AM.
|
|
#30
08-08-2012, 08:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
   
|
|
#31
08-08-2012, 08:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here's a couple of nice ones.
Last edited by GasHouseGang; 08-08-2012 at 08:42 AM.
|
|
#32
08-08-2012, 12:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#33
08-08-2012, 12:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
M@tt McC@arthy I collect Hal Chase, Diamond Stars (PSA 5 or better), 1951 Bowman (Raw Ex or better), 1954 Topps (PSA 7 or better), 1956 Topps (Raw Ex or better), 3x5 Hall of Fame Autographs and autographed Perez Steele Postcards. You can see my collection by going to http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/BigSix.
|
|
#34
08-08-2012, 01:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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!!!!
|
|
#35
08-08-2012, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#38
08-08-2012, 09:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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!!
__________________
... http://imageevent.com/derekgranger HOF "Earliest" Collection (Ideal - Indiv): 244/342 (71.4%) 1914 T330-2 Piedmont Art Stamps......: 114/119 (95.8%) 1923 V100 Willard's Chocolate............: 177/180 (98.3%)
|
|
#39
08-08-2012, 09:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Psa 2?
PSA 2 Bill Malarkey T206.....ridiculous!
Last edited by tjb1952tjb; 08-08-2012 at 09:34 PM.
|
|
#41
08-09-2012, 08:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Honey Boy Heilmann
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| soaking low grade "R" cards? | buckyball1 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 10-20-2011 01:44 PM |
| FT: T206 Bell Follow Through Wet Transfer and Other Low Grade Cards | Idiottax | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 09-03-2011 09:06 AM |
| FS: Low grade 1963 Topps lot (179 cards, P-VG) - $75 dlvd | jimivintage | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 04-16-2011 11:49 AM |
| Wanted: low grade Play Ball cards from 1939,1940 & 1941! | bh3443 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 03-11-2011 07:17 PM |
| low grade cards wanted | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 03-27-2005 03:44 PM |
jk, jk
Linear Mode
