I not only disagree with their "rules" but also how randomly they enforce them. This 1953 Bowman Mantle has a literal PINPOINT (perhaps a few millimeters in diameter) area of paper fading on ONE LETTER on the reverse. Barely noticeable. And it is a "lowly" 2.5. Meanwhile the front puts a beating on many a much higher graded specimen. To me, I wouldn't pay a penny to "upgrade" it to a lesser looking card they deemed superior. They don't account at all for how perhaps 1 in every 100 of this card is framed by even white borders. But fading on a letter on the back drops it to a 2.5. I certainly wasn't in the room when they codified their guidelines, and I simply reject them, philosophically.
Then there's this card. Not mine; I was the underbidder back when it sold (and it still stings, ver badly!). But the front of this card features very rare registration, which they don't at all account for. Meanwhile, yes, I concede the back is really rough, with glue staining and some paper loss. Sorry I do not have a back picture. Nonetheless, I would never slap a 1.5 on this card and another reason I simply use the slabs for protection and storage in the bank.
Then this back gets this Ruth a 1.5., yet they give this other card pictured a 2. The 1.5 is on the right, with its holder cropped out. The functioning human eye begs to differ. Any system that calls the left card better than the right is a system one can easily just laugh at and hit the mental "unsubscribe" button. A few years ago, I lost count of how many instances like this the silly grading game creates. For that reason I will never understand the grade whore mentality that lets a sticker somehow magically override the truth of what a collector's eye sees. I get deeply chagrined when I think of all the cards I could have bought, when I naively first returned to the hobby and thought high grades were everything. But live and learn, I suppose.
