 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-03-2001, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: Kevin Cummings
or is this grading job by SGC far more generous than I'm used to seeing on cards like this? 
|
|
#2
11-04-2001, 06:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: leon
First of all I am not the defacto expert on N172's as some are that are on this board. I am thinking that SGC took into account that some of the N172's were either made with the pinkish tint or ended up that way in the process. I have read, a few times, how/why these tints were made but I forget exactly how. If SGC did not ding for that AND they were generous that day then I see how this can happen. (I have a common SGC 50 N172 that you can barely see the player at all, it is so light.) The corners on this card do look pretty good. I am not sure about the sellers description as most will make their own judgement on the "great clarity and contrast" the seller mentions. I would grade that card a 50....(just my opinion)....I sure wish the grading companies would "authenticate" only. I have debated with several at SGC and I don't see it ever happening while the sr. graders that are there are still there.....they are very nice and do a better job than the competition though......best regards
|
|
#3
11-05-2001, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: David
The natural color for albumen print photographs (the kind used on all the 19th century real photo tobacco cards) was ordinarilly white with purple/brown colors that, with age, yellowed to the typical sepia color that we are now familiar. In the 1880s, there was invented a process where they could add a dye during the process of making the photograph. While other colors (blue, green, yellow, etc) could be added, pink was technically the easiest. In my experience, the pink albumen prints often, though not always, have too light images. I suspect that the pink Old Judges were experiments. The photographers probably decided that adding the dye was too much trouble and/or the images didn't turn out well.
|
|
#4
11-05-2001, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: MW
David,
|
|
#7
11-06-2001, 05:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: Kevin Cummings
I have a couple of these pinkish cards myself and I think the coloring process may have impacted the photo quality since both of mine tend to appear faded and hazy......which brings me back to my original question - doesn't anyone else think SGC's grade on this card is too high?
|
|
#8
11-06-2001, 08:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: Tom Boblitt
I have a couple N172's that are pink hues that are graded. One is a 60 and one is an 80. I think that SGC tended, on these cards, to grade the corners and back at a higher rate than the front. Don't know what the correct answer is. As someone submitting, obviously I'd like to get as high a grade as possible for potential sale in the future (if I do). The pink hued cards have far less photo clarity than do the normal sepia tinted cards. I wondered if the pink hued cards were as a result of the manufacturing process and I find the idea of adding a dye to the chemicals pretty intriguing (sp?). Or wondered if the pink hued cards just don't hold up as well over the years. If that's the case, what'll they look like in another 50 years? Guess I probably won't have to worry about that...........I kind of like the pink cards (if the photo quality is somewhat decent). I've gotten SGC84 on sepia cards that also don't have the best clarity but have razor sharp corners. I don't think that there's any REAL rhyme or reason to grading when it comes to N172's. While I don't like PSA overall, I do think they take into consideration the clarity of the photo more than SGC. Enough rambling for today. I think it's a little strong of a grade. I would have tended in the SGC60-SGC70 range before an 80. Based on previous auctions of Mordecai's, I'm sure the price is in the $250-300 range which I would say is fair for a regular SGC80 but maybe high for this card.
|
|
#9
11-06-2001, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: David
I agree with you on the grading. I think grading companies (and many card collectors) miss the boat on the photographic cards. The essential part about a photograph is the quality of the image itself, not stuff like edge wear or centering or existance of pencil marks on back. I don't hang a photograph on my wall so I can admire the lack of corner wrinkles.
|
|
#10
11-06-2001, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: Trevor Hocking
I always thought exposer to light was the cause to the pinkish toning, but after reading this discussion and seeing this card I'm really confused. I have about 20 or so with pink toning and all have poor photo quality. This is what made me thing exposure to light had something to do with it all. As for the SGC 80 graded card of Cub Stricker, I just needed him for the set. (An impossible task, I know) 292 so far.
|
|
#12
11-06-2001, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is It Just Me ..........
Posted By: Jay Miller
Julie--This is clearly a case where the judgement of a grading service exhibits a marked departure from the judgement of the collecting community. My perception is that most collectors find pinkish cards less desireable than "normal" Old Judge cards. Also, most collectors place paramount importance on photo clarity. Personally, I would rather have a Stricker with rounded corners and minor faults but a nice photo than this card. I would grade this card no more than good, and possibly less. Unless a buyer were blind to everything but the number on the holder, I would guess that this card would sell for less than a VG card with a nice photo.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
I do think the grade is a little generous, but hay, like so many people have said on this board before, "Buy the card, not the holder!" Who cares what is printed on top. Especially with 19th century material.
Linear Mode
