View Single Post
  #16  
Old 06-12-2016, 09:29 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orly57 View Post
[ATTACH][/ATTACH][ATTACH][/ATTACH]I personally think they should add a 5th component to the grading categories. Centering, edges, corners, surface, AND PRESENTATION. This would lower the grade of uglier, but more technically sound cards, and raise the grade of the nicer looking cards that have technical flaws. Here is an example. Mine is the SGC 4 on the left (suffers from a nearly invisible 2 inch wrinkle). The other is a psa 5 that I found online. If you gave my card a presentation subgrade of say, a 7, and the psa received a presentation sub of 2 or 3, this would help even out the disparity i think.
yeah, I think that is mostly what I'm on about. From a collecting perspective a prettier card is more desirable . From a investor/speculator perspective a more technically sound card seems to be more desirable. It's like those of us who want the cards for collectible and more sentimental reasons are at odds with those who buy them hoping to flip in 3 years when the market gets hot. (or wtvr)
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits
Reply With Quote