1933 Goudey Gehrig
 

Obviously not a hobbyist seller.....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lou-Gehrig-1...-/330708916815



.
.

Thats a very nice PSA 3:)

Thanks for the chuckle. That's like a kid making a fake ID and having his birthday as 1996.

I am told
 

Interestingly I am told, by a reliable source, that this holder is only an old PSA holder and it is fine. Learn something new every day.

I presumed you saw this, but my comment above was directed at the fact that this is labeled as "Good" with a numerical grade of 3. New/Old/Future holder - I don't think PSA ever has had a grading scale where a 3 is anything other than VG. This is not BCCG.

Didn't even noticed that Matt. PSA's database shows that label #, but lists it as a VG 3 - not 'Good'... Old label mistake?

I have seen this twice before, both coming from one consignor, and both had "Good 3" on the labels. He was a collector who went way back and I questioned him about them. He told me he remembers being told it was an issue with the number of letter characters they could use. "Very Good 3" couldn't fit in the second line which is why they went to using grade abbreviations like "VG" and "EX".

Can't confirm it is true but that would explain it.

But... they didn't use "VG" here - they used "Good." To believe that story, we'd have to swallow that no one back then thought of using "VG" as an abbreviation when they recognized "Very Good" wouldn't fit and decided they should proceed with a "Good 2" and a "Good 3" as a result. VG has been a mainstream hobby grading term a lot longer then PSA has been around. I'm not buying. This is all aside form the fact that the card looks like it took a swim in the toilet and wouldn't qualify for a 3 anyway.

Well if, "Very Good 3" didn't fit that does mean they didn't use it at all. They still had to use something for the "3" grade level so all you saw on the label was "Good 3." They always had "Good" for "2" and I'm sure there are labels with "Good 2" but as you can see the confusion it causes.

This card is legit. Very early on, early in the long bar code days, for a short while, PSA at the lower grades used a different scale.

Why wouldn't they use "VG 3"? Are we to believe no one thought to abbreviate Very Good as VG? That having "Good 2" and "Good 3" was better then having "Good 2" and "VG 3?"

Really? This is news - what was the lower scale? 1-P, 2-F, 3-G? What about above that? if we continue, 4 is VG, 5 is VG-EX, 6 is EX...
I do find this option more plausible then the one Pete mentions above.

I had a 34 Gehrig that was a VG 4. I think they had omitted the VG EX grade and it then went to EX 5.

same source
 

I will post a pic of a PSA VG 4 later as the person sent me a scan. He sent me this original message....

"FYI, the Gehrig is a legitimate 1933 World Wide Gum card ("English Only" variation). And the PSA holder and label are also legit and untampered. In the very early days of PSA, the scale was as follows:

1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Very Good
5 = Excellent

There wasn't a VG-EX grade. This was changed shortly after to:

1 = Poor to Fair
2 = Good
3 = Very Good
4 = Very Good to Excellent
5 = Excellent
"

Yes. This is correct.

That makes more sense to me than this being the result of a textual limitation on the slab. Never knew about this - I wonder how often these cards surface and if PSA makes an effort to reholder them for free given the confusion they cause.

Looking at the back scan, NO WAY in H**L is that card a '3'. Buy the card, not the holder.....

I like the card, its a nice "2", but should be removed from that strange slab as soon as possible...