Quote:
Originally Posted by the 'stache
At first glance, there is little difference between the two cards. You have to really look to find the justification for the lower technical grade.
John's card has a very small wrinkle in the lower right corner (where the white border meets the blue, just above the ellipses. Then there is a slight blue smudge to the left of Lou's hat, and some very light white on the catcher silhouette. And we don't see the backs, there could be a minor imperfection that could contribute to the lower grade.
But there's no way, at least to my untrained eye, that there's two and a half grades worth of difference between these two cards. I would fall out of my chair if I had even a chance to own a card as nice as the one John is showing us. And the price difference between the two is obscene.
And quite honestly, I like John's better. I think the color saturation on Gehrig's face on the 10 is a little too strong. I also think John's card has better centering.
|
That 86 is an amazing card.
I'm not sure the lower right is a wrinkle. Maybe just a bit of a print flaw where something dragged across the sheet while wet? Wrinkles get hit a lot harder than 86, One of my cards with a bend, not even a wrinkle, and only visible at just the right angle got knocked down to 50. (despite the published standard allowing wrinkles all the way up to 70
)
There's also a slight difference in registration and a fisheye on the cheek. Hard to notice since it's in a complex area and not a dark color.
I'd still take the 86 over the 10, assuming I could ever afford either.
It's just that nice looking overall. I think it's one of the nicest Goudeys I've seen.
Steve B