 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-26-2009, 03:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Undergraded???....lets see 'em
After checking out the thread with the T206 Cy Young PSA2 I started thinking. I rememebered this '34 Goudey Gehrig card that I had graded at the 2007 National. It graded a 40 (3-VG). I was shocked. I can't find anything wrong with it...no creases.....great color.....decent centering....no back damage at all....clean card..what do y'all think?
 Also, lets see some cards that you think may be a tad bit undergraded Last edited by wolfdogg; 11-26-2009 at 03:51 PM. 
|
|
#3
11-26-2009, 04:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I/M/O undergraded
Here is one I bought raw,and sent it in to be graded.I was very suprised it only got a VG/EX grade,for I can not find a "flaw" in it,the card is so clean.......can anyone else see something I can't?Don't get me wrong,I think SGC is the best TPG,but sometimes I don't get it........
|
|
#4
11-26-2009, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
in a thread before but fits this one also
|
|
#5
11-26-2009, 05:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Considering the typical "issues" seen with 1914 Cracker Jacks, I had a hard time believing this card only reached the esteemed ranks of PSA 1......especially since, not considering finances, this is probably the most difficult card to obtain in the set. I would love hearing my colleague's opinions.
|
|
#6
11-26-2009, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
 
|
|
#7
11-26-2009, 05:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Recently crossed to an SGC 20; I thought I could at least get a 30!
Last edited by scooter729; 11-26-2009 at 05:58 PM.
|
|
#8
11-26-2009, 05:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Double P, is there some paper loss on the back of the Wheat that knocks it down to a 30? That looks nice!
|
|
#10
11-26-2009, 06:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
  SGC's criteria: 40 VG 3: 90/10 or better centering, corners more rounded--but not excessive, stronger creasing may exist. Poorer focus, registration, and discoloration, and staining are more noticeable. 30 GOOD 2: Centered 90/10 or better. This card usually exhibits one or more of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tear, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss. All I can figure is that the corner rounding is too excessive for the SGC graders to make it a 40/3. The spider wrinkle is not the problem. I don't really care one way or the other what grade it is, I love this card just the way it is, and I don't want Joe P to call me a flipper/investor, Heaven forfend, but when you see the occasional low end 14CJ Matty with skidmarks and gaping bites taken out of the side but with the same grade it just makes you wonder about this whole grading thing. Note: Large scans used to show card in detail. I'll scale 'em down if desired.
__________________
David McDonald Greetings and Love to One and All Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#12
11-26-2009, 06:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Last edited by Bobsbats; 11-26-2009 at 06:49 PM.
|
|
#13
11-26-2009, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David, that is one gorgeous Matty.
Here's one I always thought was undergraded, when I sent it in(raw) I thought it might come back a 6, however I don't really understand the grading scale, as eye appeal doesn't seem to be a big factor in the final grade. That said having cards encapsulated does make it harder for my two year old to rip it to shreads. Regardless of the grade it's one of the best looking cards I have.
|
|
#14
11-26-2009, 07:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This Ruth presents it's self extremely well for a SGC 30. I've always thought it could be up graded to a PSA 2.5 or 3 (I've seen worse PSA/SGC 3's)
  
|
|
#15
11-26-2009, 07:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets
|
|
#16
11-26-2009, 09:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Should I resubmit?
|
|
#18
11-27-2009, 04:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A little disappointed
|
|
#21
11-27-2009, 10:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
E90-2 Wagner
I thought this card would get a SGC 30 or maybe 40, but because of the ink stamp on the back, the grade was much lower than expected. Either way, I feel the card has an eye appeal of a SGC 50.
e90-2wagnerback.jpg wagner_e90-2.jpg
|
|
#22
11-27-2009, 10:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
an easy 4.... maybe 4.5..... or even a 5 on a good day.
 I have a few others that could be half grade / or possibly full grade bumps - but this cobby is the most obvious one. edit: back is clean / no marks / unused.
__________________
Joe D. Last edited by bijoem; 11-27-2009 at 10:28 AM.
|
|
#24
11-27-2009, 05:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
kevin....
those are stunners - regardless of the number on the flip. Especially with the Old Judges.... I find that 'downgraded for back damage' kind of sad and funny. The image quality of your cards is superb. I've seen old judges where the image is horribly faded out / but I guess the paper looks good.... so the faded card gets a nice high grade. Crazy IMO.
__________________
Joe D.
|
|
#25
11-28-2009, 03:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
No "respect" for Elberfeld...............
I was very disappointed with this grade........can't see a dang thing wrong, even with my 10x loupe. Oh well............
|
|
#26
11-28-2009, 05:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow they all look undergraded to me!
That is one stunning 1914 CJ Del Pratt and Matty!
__________________
I collect 1914/15 Cracker Jacks. 1915 Cracker Jack Set 99% complete. Last edited by RichR; 11-28-2009 at 06:02 AM.
|
|
#27
11-29-2009, 09:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Young
|
|
#28
11-30-2009, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That is one "shaaahp caaahd"!!! Surely sweet for a 3. Cheers, Blair
__________________
My Collection (in progress) at: http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/BosoxBlair
|
|
#29
11-30-2009, 05:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
the best poor conditioned card you will ever see
I think this might be the best poor conditioned card in the world. I wish all of my cards were this poor...Note the tiny bit of paper loss on the back, on the upper part of the "o" in Co. ......I think there is a minor wrinkle otherwise but maybe not even that... SGC said to send it back in for review but I don't see any reason to. I am happy with it...
__________________
Leon Luckey
|
|
#31
11-30-2009, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Got my first batch of cards back from grading. Very pleased overall, but a bit puzzled by this one. Green is out of register, and a tiny bit of surface loss on the lower left front corner, I'd hoped it would do a bit better.
 
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| WTT: HUGE tradelist of T205, T206, T207 & E90-1 | marcdelpercio | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 9 | 08-15-2009 10:43 AM |
| For Sale: 1930 Baguer Chocolate Joe McCarthy HOF (SGC 10) UNDERGRADED!!! | bcbgcbrcb | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 06-22-2009 06:17 AM |
| Truly undergraded or trimmed? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 05-15-2008 09:31 AM |
| SOLD - 1949 Bowman Satchell Paige HOF RC (PSA 1) UNDERGRADED!!! | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 10-25-2007 04:26 AM |
Linear Mode
