You can post scans all night long, but the standards are supposed to be:

http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm

Well,
 

Well, I'm not going to take sides on what these cards should've graded but I must say that I am really annoyed with the recent spate of cards on eBay in which the seller lists a TPG grades but puts in title "Looks like a (blank)"....

While I understand there are many cards undergraded in ;ow grade slabs it has gone waayyyy too far with sellers basically ignoring TPG grades, etc. and claiming cards "looks NM" even though they reside in a VG slab with a huge crease. 9/10 times the TPG gave the low-grade card for a reason...

I think there is a tendency for everyone to think their card is undergraded reminiscent of a parent who thinks their butt ugly kid looks Grace Kelley or Brad Pitt.

Uhh yeah “murcerfan” I think we are all familiar with the grading companies standards, but thanks for posting them just in case somebody here doesn’t have the internet or access to the TPG websites. :p

I don’t think anyone here at least Tony and I weren’t debating any third party’s rules or grading guidelines or crying the blues as we are very happy with our cards regardless of what some TPG says. (correct me if I’m speaking wrong for you Tony)

The point we were trying to illustrate via shared scans was that cards can have a visual appearance well beyond the technical grade given by any third party, and those cards shouldn’t be ignored and in many cases offer a better looking card to that of an equally or higher technically graded card. Also as Jeff pointed out if you liked the card prior to the slab or the old slab it's the same card you can still be just as happy regardless of a number.

For me it’s all about how a card looks first and foremost, regardless of the plastic tomb it’s in or the number attached.

Cheers,

John

Yep!! That was the only point I was making as well. Nothing more.
Well said John.........

That really annoys me too. Here is one that was recently listed:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1909-11-T206-Ty-...item2eb3e89f4f

It's a PSA 1, but says "Looks PSA 4" in the title. Ummm, no, it looks like a 1 because it has paper loss, Einstein.

That's how I think of it as well. I'm happy with the cards I showed no matter what grade they got. I wouldn't have bought them if I didn't like them.

But I am puzzled by the grades, especially when I see a lot of cards with VG or worse corners getting 50 or 60. I may have the ones I showed reviewed. I haven't found the flaw with 2 of them yet. The Bescher I think should be higher based on their own standards. The Smith too.
[80/20 or better centering, minor rounding or fuzzing of corners, roughness or chipping along edge (no layering), one VERY slight surface or "spider" crease may exist on one side of the card, gloss may be lost from surface with some scratching that does not detract from the aesthetics of the card.
A 60 EX 5 card with higher grade centering or corners.

The Bescher has a slight bend on the lower left corner. Certainly nothing I'd call a crease. It's only visible by looking at the card from a certain angle and tilting it. while tilting you can see a change in gloss from one angle to another. So I'd think 60 would be right.
The Smith has a very small bit of chipping on one corner. That one is a bit less clear to me.

Overall I'm happy with SGC. Most of the few cards I submitted I feel got the grades they should have, usually 40 or 50. I'd been against grading for years, but I think that now there's enough questionable stuff that's raw, and the price difference for nicer cards is large enough that I should get some graded. I'm not sending in the ones with obvious problems that would keep them in the 1-3 range, as I still see no point to that.

Steve B

QUOTE=wonkaticket;878524]Uhh yeah “murcerfan” I think we are all familiar with the grading companies standards, but thanks for posting them just in case somebody here doesn’t have the internet or access to the TPG websites. :p

I don’t think anyone here at least Tony and I weren’t debating any third party’s rules or grading guidelines or crying the blues as we are very happy with our cards regardless of what some TPG says. (correct me if I’m speaking wrong for you Tony)

The point we were trying to illustrate via shared scans was that cards can have a visual appearance well beyond the technical grade given by any third party, and those cards shouldn’t be ignored and in many cases offer a better looking card to that of an equally or higher technically graded card. Also as Jeff pointed out if you liked the card prior to the slab or the old slab it's the same card you can still be just as happy regardless of a number.

For me it’s all about how a card looks first and foremost, regardless of the plastic tomb it’s in or the number attached.

Cheers,

John[/QUOTE]

I will never get tired of seeing John or Tony's T206... <drools>!

Those sharp-cornered 3s demonstrate the true value of TPG. Indeed, every time I see one of them I think, "There's another nice-looking card with hard-to-see flaws that an unscrupulous or unknowing dealer won't be passing off as Mint."

I am allergic to paying mint prices for creased cards.

IMO these T206 cards were graded in a consistent and accurate manner.


http://home.roadrunner.com/~jspillman/mt206.htm


http://home.roadrunner.com/~jspillman/mt206h.htm

My Opinion, which is completely worthless
 

Cobb is a 3 and Johnson is a 5

The true value of TPG
 

If a flaw can't be seen with the naked eye, then who cares. I am a collector and if the card looks good in my binder in the plastic sheet, then it is for me. I don't care if it has a flaw that you can only see when it is magnified 100 times.


This used to be a hobby, before TPG

Dan Mckee

nevermind...

The borders on the Cobb aren't exactly square either. Slightly diamond cut, I'm sure that didn't help the grade any.