Quote:
Originally Posted by egbeachley
Clearly you weren’t on the wrong end of one of his blatant misrepresentations, to put it nicely.
Great hobby books when there were none but that doesn’t give an excuse.
|
That's a pretty harsh take for mine.
Back in the day dealers were all over the place in their descriptions of condition.....some were on the super generous side and a vg-ex card could arrive looking ex+ or better, others called a vg card ex+. Others were what we might call more orthodox in their estimations.
As long as you knew the dealer and their tendencies you had no problem, it wasn't as if their grading assignations changed card to card or week to week.
You knew quickly that they were consistently accurate to your estimations, undergraders or overgraders and you could then decide if the price matched your valuation.
This was waaaaay pre grading companies and people had their own preferences for what made a card attractive.
Back damage wasn't as vital if the paper loss was small, and great centering/registration/color could be considered more important than vg ish corners when assigning a grading opinion.
Think it's pretty poor calling out someone from that time and generation for their take on grading, or whether they were brusk in their social interactions.
Not everyone has to want to break bread and be a hobby friend to not get the name muddied on a collector forum, especially when taking in their contributions to said hobby.