What grade grade am I

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

Back due to popular demand! If you know, Please do not mention the auction company from where these came from. A little hint... They are all SGC graded.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Based on SGC's grading scale, cards with "skews" (mis-cuts) that are "more evident" can still grade an 80/6, maybe higher if there are no other issues. For these cards, it would depend on how much SGC downgrades for more significant mis-cuts.

Initially, I thought these were trimmed, but noticeable mis-cuts with rough edges might get SGC 50/4 (assuming no back damage, or creases that do not show in the scans), give or take a grade depending on how diamiond cut the card is.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

7's..........

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

It depends upon the backs. With SGC you'll probably not get a grade above SGC30 if the OJ has back damage (glue residue, writing, scaping, etc). If you can provide back scans we can probably guess at what the grades are. If there is evidence of trimming then the designations will be A (Authentic).

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

all 10s due to back damage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

All the cards have a number grade on them and none have been trimmed other than some mis-cuts (not to be confused with trimmed). Just by judging the fronts what would the grades be?

I understand the backs will influence the grade. Blank backs from 19th century do not make that big of a difference unless you are a registry gurue and just buy for the grade or slab.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...trimmed to me. And if they aren't, then I'm not sure how one would ever distinguish a trimmed OJ from a non-trimmed OJ.

I also disagree that backs aren't important for blank backed cards, and I'm guessing SGC agrees with me on that one -- all SGC 30's or lower. I suspect they were all removed from the same scrap book.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

70, 60, 60, 50, 60

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

sgc 84..should be sgc80

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

AUT

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Without back damage I'd guess the following:

Tebeau = 60
Whitney = 70
Slattery = 60
Andrews = 40
McAleer = 80

That's my guess at what the grading companies would give the cards. If it were up to me I'd drop them further because of the image quality, but that's just me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

Here you go... Remember the ole saying.. "Buy the card and not the holder". I think that 19th century cards with blank backs with scrap book removal or writing should not be scrutinized as much as postwar cards. Thus more of a premium should be paid for those 19th century cards without any defects as well. I'm sure any registry collector would have stayed away from this lot but me being a collector could not resist..

1.



2.


3.


4.


5.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

JC,

Nice 20's.... Take a look at the Radbourn in the other thread you started, it's an SGC10 because of scrap book residue...

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

So what do I win for being closest?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

Cobby, you win the knowledge award which you can proudly display on Ebay and on this board. I proudly present you the knowledge award publicaly infront of all your peers. This award will go with you on every transaction you do. Many people try a lifetime to have knowledge and many come up short. Proud to have you on my sideand thanks for participating! JC

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...I was the closest:

"all SGC 30's or lower" is much closer to "all SGC 20's" than "AUT"

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

These OJ's are exactly why I don't like getting cards graded but I like buying graded cards. Say you're in the rat race of ebay and you see SGC 20 come up for these cards... some people may not even bother looking at the auction... but the cards themselves present incredibly well. "Buy the card, not the holder" should be lesson #1 to anyone starting to collect pre-war.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Actually, I believe my response - "all sgc 10s" is closer to all sgc 20s since I at least got the "1" right.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

<<"Buy the card, not the holder" should be lesson #1 to anyone starting to collect pre-war.>>

Just understand that if you buy cards with paper loss that you will encounter that problem at resale.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

Nice cards JC, I'd gladly add OJs of that caliber to my collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Dave,

I agree with you completely. Some of the best deals I've found were on low-graded cards that present well. I actually do eBay searches for graded cards with low grades. It amazing what's out there ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Many of the main auction houses now state that the grades they assign OJs are without regard to any back damage because (in their opinion) the backs of the cards are of little or no significance. I kind of agree with them on this (up to a point) but I also believe that they should provide scans of the backs in the item descriptions. The back scans are available upon request but I think they should place the back scans in the item description so people understand the extent of the "damage" without having to ask.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I don't necessarily mind cards with back damage, but in my opinion it CERTAINLY is relevant to the grade.

If someone says a card is "Near Mint with writing on the back", that is the same thing in my opinion as saying "Near Mint with a big, nasty pinhole right through the player's face."

I realize that this is just one knucklehead's opinion (mine), but I agree wholeheartedly that a card with writing on the back should be given a very low grade. In some cases, I'll buy the card anyway - but I expect to pay an appropriate price given the damage to the card. This doesn't mean it's a bad card - not at all - it just means that the technical grade is very low. I've got plenty of cards like that, and I'm proud to have all of them.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Al,

I'd have to say I agree with you on the back damage (writing) but (as I'm sure you're aware) the OJs are blank backed cards. I have a big thing about cards with back damage when the back is not blank. I guess I'm more tolerant of OJs because I really don't look at the backs too much.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

So, anyone who is not bothered by back damage, what about rebacked Old Judges. Even if you are bothered by back damage, do you want a rebacked OJ in your collection? I'll include Gypsy Queens here also.

Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Joe, rebacking is a little bit different (to me, at least) than run of the mill back damage.

I'd take the card if it has a nice appearance and a "period" paper was used as the new backing. I'm sure others may have a different opinion but I think rebacking of OJs affects the price much more than typical back damage. I suppose if it were an Anson in uniform that was rebacked then I wouldn't mind so much...

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Fred:

I'm aware that OJs are blank-backed, though I don't have any in my collection. There are lots of 1930s issues that I like to collect that are also blank-backed, though (Goudey and Chicle premiums, Gold Medal Foods, etc).

If I had the opportunity to pick up a nice OJ HOFer for my HOF collection, and it had back damage, I still might be inclined to latch onto it. But I would certainly want the back damage factored into the seller's assessment of condition. I don't mind descriptions like "The card presents as EX-MT, but has damage on the back that detracts from the grade", but to try and pass off a damaged card - even if it's blank-backed - reeks of overgrading and trying to pull one over on the buyer, IMO.

Lots of people don't mind cards with back damage - like I said, I have plenty of T205s, T206s, and others that would fit that description. But in my opinion, a damaged card is a damaged card.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Agreed!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

Agreed on many points. Re-backing on any card is a form of altering the card. I think on most 19th century cards if they are blank backs there should be some leniency. For that time period it was common to have the owners name on the card or a little writing on the back (normally in pencil ). I think anything from the 40's and up with writing on the reverse should be more scrutinized.

Being a post card collector, I do not down grade the card for having writing on it or being postmarked. Actually I prefer a validation on the back. Same thing goes with residue on the back. If a 19th century card has "extra" paper on it from being pulled out of a scap book then that is OK by me. If there is paper loss on it then I buy accordingly. Many people know how to take off residue and excess paper along with pencil marks. But I'm sure that is another topic for another day.... JC

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

JC- Your OJs are sweet! Who cares about a little back damage when the fronts are so nice? I can probably match you on some otherwise gorgeous E94s which are graded SGC 20 because of back paper loss/writing, but otherwise look like 80s. Since E94s, particularly in the colors I need, are scarce as hen's teeth, I adjust to the backs, pay less for them, and go on.
Nice cards.
Tbob