Posted By:
Bottom of the NinthI would love for any one of you to have people watching every move you make each day at work and criticizing, jumping to conclusions and then posting on a public chat board.
First of all, did anyone ever think that Haas, as an investor in GAI, may have wanted to have his cards in GAI holders and did so early on to promote the company and show he is putting his money where his mouth is?
Maybe, Jim B, Haas has not liked what has taken place with GAI recently and was concerned about what he would get for his collection in GAI holders had he left them there. Seems logical to me.
And can any of you actually tell a 9 from a 10? I am not sure I can. Seems based on what SGC says, Barry, that the card very well could have met the criteria for the grade with two minor imperfections. Heck, their 100 grade states "virtually flawless". What is virtually flawless? See grading standards below. Were we ever told that those minor imperfections are? I certainly don't recall reading about it.
100 PRISTINE: A "virtually flawless" card. 50/50 centering, crisp focus, four sharp corners*, free of stains, no breaks in surface gloss, no print or refractor lines, and no visible wear under magnification.
98 GEM 10: 55/45 or better centering, sharp focus, four sharp corners*, free of stains, no breaks in surface gloss, no print or refractor lines, and no visible wear. A slight print spot visible under close scrutiny is allowable if it does not detract from the aesthetics of the card.
The article is a bit unclear as to whether the card was submitted to SGC through normal channels or whether Haas contracted with Forman directly and it is unclear if the card now resides in a 96 or ungraded.
I am not taking sides here. Just pointing out how easily we start drawing conclusions absent all of the facts. I do not know Haas and I like the guys at GAI and SGC very much. As an outsider in this, I am sorry it happened.
Greg