Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
i disagree. Bobby's point is that SGC, like PSA, has overgraded and undergraded cards, and I would add graded cards that should have been rejected. That we don't happen to have a specific example of this within an artificially narrow category of errors doesn't negate the general proposition. Both companies make mistakes.
|
This is not "an artificially narrow category of errors." You say that "SGC, like PSA, has overgraded . . . cards." A lot of what "overgrading" means is subjective. It's in the eye of the beholder. PSA fans think SGC is soft on corners, for example.
But, in my view, overgrading means giving a card a grade without noticing paper loss or a crease. Where this would be "overgrading" would be at the EX level and above. We are looking for examples of this.
I do not think this is a "narrow category." Just because there are so far no examples does not mean that a category is "narrow."