I am leaning towards the 2 cards talked about as not being authentic but as I have said, certainly not sure. And hopefully they are good. I think all of the TPG's are careful with very fragile cards. They tend to be safe and that isn't unwise.
That all said, I would try SGC first if it were me. Yes, they advertise here but they were my grader of choice long before running this forum. Good luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinlenane
So i have these "Goudey" cards that i pulled from the scrapbook - they check all the boxes I can find on whether they are authentic and though I suspect Leon and others are probably right that they are not real - it feels prudent to at least spend $20 to get them proven to be reprints. I have two questions though. First, the Ruth is pretty fragile - is there a grader that is more likely to grade a fragile version of the card? Ive seen rejections by just refusing to grade based on fragility from SGC. Is this a common issue? Second, I actually have a couple 1941 Playballs i did not spend a ton of money on because they have some small tape stains - Im not going to try to fiddle with them but I've read that SGC has a 2 minimum on cards w tape stains while the PSA has a 3 minimum. Is that generally the rule there? My feeling right now to go to SGC is pretty strong given the PSA's lack of scrutiny but I also know that a bump on a grade in the Joe Dimaggio PB would be significant in terms of overall value. Then again im kind of getting attached to all these cards so it may not really matter. So the two questions are
1. Is there a TPG that is more likely to grade a fragile card?
2. Which TPG is more friendly to pesky tape stains on otherwise decent looking cards.?
|