Finally, a description that is short, sweet and correct

[Leon]

Short, sweet and correct description. I like the honesty and succinctness of "very poor"

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-M101-4-...item2326ab0878


.

[frankbmd]

VG - You can still clearly read the last name.

[RCMcKenzie]

I think we need qualifiers below sgc 10 poor these days, as sgc 10 cards are what I used to call g+.

We could have poor, near poor, very poor, awful etc.

[freakhappy]

You don't get too many opportunities to be able to accurately grade your card and be 100% correct...this is one of those instances

[conor912]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I think we need qualifiers below sgc 10 poor these days, as sgc 10 cards are what I used to call g+.

We could have poor, near poor, very poor, awful etc.

+1
I always thought that "poor" should be reserved for a card that can't get any worse.

[Chris Counts]

I've seen far worse cards rated "poor."

[Leon]

The lower on the grading scale the more subjectivity there seems to be. We have all seen a lot of technically poor cards be really nice looking, being 3-5 grades better in eye appeal.