|
Show your high grade (oc) cards
I don't know about the rest of you but I like these cards. I know it's all about centering for a lot of you. But It does not bother me and you can get them at a fraction of the cost. Here are a few of mine.
http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/x...IMG_0004-5.jpg http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/x...on/IMG-2-1.jpg http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/x...G_0021-3-1.jpg http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/x...IMG_0002-3.jpg |
I agree with you. I care more about corners and edges than centering. Centering is important to me, but not the only consideration. You've got some great looking cards there, especially the last 2.
Here is my contribution. Got it for about 75% of VCP of a straight PSA 7. Huge score. http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/.../63F%20Yaz.jpg |
Interesting topic, thanks for starting the thread.
You are correct in that today, centering is usually viewed as one of the most important aspects of condition on nice cards. But it hasn't always been that way. Back when I first started collecting in the mid 1980's - centering as a consideration of the grade was much less of an issue. Today a lot of the cards that you included in your scans (nice, by the way; and I'm sure you did get them at bargains) would be considered duds because of the centering. It's increasingly common to see people that want only well centered cards - and even to see them give some on other aspects of condition to find those that are nicely centered. I guess it all comes down to what bothers you. For me, I don't like creases but other than that, I can deal with other condition problems as long as the cards retain eye-appeal. I went through a phase where I was buying and selling a lot of cards about 10 years ago - and got to where centering really bothered me. Interesting because when I was a kid - I don't recall being concerned about centering at all. And in looking back - many of the vintage cards that I treasured as a kid and got a ton of enjoyment out of - weren't centered that great. I will agree that on the whole - there is a point where truly bad centering can ruin the eye-appeal of a card if it's otherwise nice. But in recent years just focusing on my own collection - I've gotten to where I'm not as much as a centering fanatic as I used to be. I do know of other old school collectors who still care way more about sharp corners than they do centering at all - and I've got to think this is just a sign of the times in terms of how they grew up collecting. I really don't think centering mattered a tenth of what it does now when older cards were described for sale back in the 1980's. Remember when you could order single star cards out of magazines like Baseball Cards and just bought sight-unseen based on the grade advertised? NM, EX, VG...there weren't the "tweener" grades back then. Virtually nobody cared about the centering associated with the grade when they bought those cards. I know I was one of them as about a 12 year-old kid. I never cared. 21st century hobby problems, I guess... -John:) |
6 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Here are some of mine, '52 Jackie is super super sharp in hand, and I suspect maybe people saw the "MC" and steered clear of the '56 Mantle. The MC is because the stats on the back touch (or "graze") the bottom border. I've seen many cards with that issue as non qualified, so ended up being another opportunity for a relative bargain. |
West Rookie signed....
1 Attachment(s)
|
Wow, some great eye candy in this thread if you ask me!!
|
Quote:
I've also seen the opposite. I have a '66 Koufax that has decent centering on the front, technically is miscut on the back because of the borders, and is probably a NM card otherwise. PSA graded it a straight 6, even though that's wrong by their own standards for the back. |
Great cards, gentlemen! I'm finding that I am reaching the point that I am getting less particular all the way around. Centering used to bother me but doesn't as much anymore. In some circumstances, I have even started tolerating a crease here or there! If it isn't written on, torn, or thumbtacked (my apologies to those who love those :)) I might just be ok with it. First world problems/decisions I guess.
|
Mine
|
http://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1955/...zoom&side=back
Yeah, I was surprised to see this get a straight 5 with part of the next card on the right back border. Should have been a miscut. Maybe they're more lenient with certain issues. |
Nice cards you guys. keep them coming. Here is a couple more for you.
http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/x...iams/IMG-3.jpg http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/x...IMG_0004-3.jpg |
|
Variant
|
Horizontal cards (like that Schmidt rookie, '55 & '56 Topps) that are OC side-to-side don't bother me that much. Also regular vertical cards like that '66 Clemente that are off top-to-bottom a bit don't bother me either.
|
Damn, Andy someone at the factory totally f&*% that Connie up. The guy must of had one hell of a night before. The sheet got way off during the cutting process for sure.
I always looked at that Connie was there sitting on a toilet. |
I meant to comment on that Hassan Wood/Speaker. Awesome card!
|
1 Attachment(s)
Centering like this does not bother me, but cross-cuts or "diamond" cuts if they are bad do.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Forgot to post this beauty. Not sure if OC or MC is an apt description. It is simply just too big top to bottom and seems to have eaten some of the card above it. It otherwise has the sharpest corners and cleanest surface of any T202 I own. The writing on the back is freakishly crisp.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:48 AM. |