[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am suggesting, stating directly actually, that the card does not meet SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. For over twenty years the grading advocates have been touting grading because it is not based on subjective eye appeal, but revealing the true flaws in a card, which is why many mint looking cards can get a 4, for that funky wrinkle you can’t even see normally. The stain does not seem to be in accord with SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. Even if we pretend the stain does not exist, the centering does not meet the published standard either. It is not my opinion that these defects should keep a card from being called a 9.5, it is SGC’s published opinion that these defects are not Mint+. And yet they gave it this grade anyway, ignoring their own standards, along with a marketing quote from that bastion of honesty (as I have learned from this thread), Mr. Mint. I do not know why they chose to do so.

We all know a Dale Coogan I submit with no backstory, marketing, or spin and the exact same damage would not get a 9.5.

Regardless what we think it does have the 9.5 and if it sells (depending if there is a reserve) then it will set the new Record for Highest Card Sold.

In person it is a beautiful card and in person at the National Show the card looked really good and presented better than the picture of it. In my uneducated humble opinion