SGC Grading - 1963 Topps Aaron
 

I don't plan on selling this card, but I have to ask about WTH SGC is thinking.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LWdJs18uQ...0/1963_390.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aiTjnhdQ2...6/IMG_4416.jpg
I get that the surface defects are causing the card to be downgraded, but given the centering and the crisp edges and corners it would seem to fall under their criteria for a 5:

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.

Am I wrong here?

I figured you were going to say it was over graded until I read your comments. Looks like severe surface issues to me. 1.5-2 would have been my guess on the grade.

Aaron
 

You probably did good getting that grade. I would have guessed it would grade 1 to 1.5 with the surface issues. Still a good card to have.

Sorry, but I'd be very upset if I bought that as a 5. Just sayin'

I didn't. I won it in a group break already graded, so it cost me a whopping $15. It is more a point of curiosity, as the surface blemishes aren't particularly noticeable unless you examine it at an angle under a bright light. I'm going to hang on to it, in case I ever start a 1963 set, though that Rose RC is intimidating.

the grade looks to be spot on
 

Agree.

I think you got a 2.5 because of eye appeal. They got it right.

It has a flaw that’s visible without magnification?? Off with its head!!

That card has hail damage.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

a fair grade i would say

1963 Aaron
 

Agree with the others...but it has a nice personality :D

If you think that card is a 5.0, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn, as well as some Florida swamp land, I'd like to sell you. ;) :D

2.5 is about right. I think a 2.0 is even potentially justified.

I think the card is over graded but presents well anyway.

Tough crowd.

I am by no means a grading expert. My set building is strictly raw cards. I just looked at the grade description at the SGC site and it seemed to fit. But, I am now edumacated gooder.

But, to your offer, I was thinking about investing in real estate. PM me, man.

Poot
 

Poor or fair. 2.5 generous. Certain issues like this should garner automatic poor or fair designation , the other factors don't matter in terms of technical grade. If you want to say the other nicer qualities add eye appeal so be it

This is a problem with many cards that appear on eBay. When I scroll through and see a card described as "excellent," which is the condition I try to collect, I find cards with rounded corners, creases, and other forms of damage which is annoying. Even on the collector forums collectors complain if their card gets fails to receive the desired grade. So, I wonder if it is due to knowing how to accurately grade a card, wishful thinking, trying to get a top price or a combination of all of these factors.

Phil, I like to think of it as there are a lot of optimistic graders in this world.

Personally, I think you got a break with a 2.5. That card is one I absolutely would not want but thats just me.

That card is a Butter Face. Everything's nice, but 'er face.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Optimistic or delusional? It's a fine line.

I am quite happy with it, but some of us have to limit ourselves to the shallow end of the hobby pool.

Aside from my joke earlier, I would be happy with it too! Cards that have imperfections don't really bother me, especially imperfections that are only visible when light reflects off of them at a certain angle. For only $15, it's a card worth having. Congrats.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I would say that is accurately graded based on the surface. Remember, technical grade does not equal eye appeal. This card is a prime example of that.