Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
(Post 1770557)
If this was graded after the 3 10s I think it may just be a decision by PSA not to give any more 10s. I doubt it's anything specific on the card itself.
|
That's a pretty crappy thing to do, if true. I know you're just hypothesizing, Peter, but a card should be graded on its merits, alone; population should have absolutely
no bearing, whatsoever.
"Your card is pretty much the embodiment of gem mint, but, I'm sorry, we've already met our quota for Gem Mint '52 Mantles. However, should you crack it, and have one of our best clients submit it for grading, who can say what might happen?"
My eye isn't as highly developed as yours, and many of our more seasoned vintage collectors. But looking at it on HA's site, at 100% magnification, and knowing what PSA objectively considers when grading (centering, corners, surface and edges), I can't see anything on the front of the card that would downgrade it from a 10 to a 9. The centering is ever so slightly to the right, but within allowance for gem mint. If you compare Evan's card to
the GEM MT PSA has on its grading standards page, the centering is nearly identical. And, maybe I'm going senile, but the 10 they utilize on the standards page seems to have a slight diamond cut; the white border on the right is thinner on the top, and gets thicker as you move down. The corners and edges are about as pristine as I could imagine for a 66 year old card. The surface looks beautiful, and the borders are a nice, bright white.
It may be that the PSA example looks washed out because of a poor scan, but I think Evan's card is much more appealing.
BTW, congratulations on the hammer price, Evan!
