![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: joe
Does anyone think grading standards should be changed to not include grading the backs of blank backed cards? Especially Old Judge cards? It would seem that cards that do not contain stats, printing, any other information on the back would matter. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
A back is a back whether it's got something printed on it or not. They have to be treated the same for grading purposes. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: identify7
Grade it all. Top, back, sides, bottom, front, corners. It is only a number. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
Collectors all prefer Old Judges with strong photos and are usually willing to overlook other faults. Very few really care about back damage, and they will not pay a premium for a card that has a high technical grade if the photo is light. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Anthony
Do any of the grading companies downgrade for pink OJ's? To me that and severe fading is way more distracting than corner wear, and certainly moderate back flaws. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Phil Garry
I agree with Barry that almost all serious collecctors are concerned #1 with the player image when it comes to OJ's and similar issues and are less concerned with the technical points that the grading companies focus their numerical grades on. I think the only way to change this is for the collectors who submit these cards for grading on a regular basis to continuously keep bringing it to the attention of the grading companies. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Silver King
The first card I ever purchased was an OJ N172 SGC 40. I didn't know anything about grading or old judges or really anything about these old cards. I only bought the card because it was a family member. When I got the card I thought it was great that I found it but I was dissappointed because it looked faded to me. I just assumed that all cards from the set were like that. Later on I found two more authentic cards, one with pin holes and the other with a crease. These two cards are a thousand times nicer to me because you can actually make out the details in the picture. In a prior post I mentioned that perhaps there should be different numbers assigned to different categories but the bottom line is that it's still just an arbitrary number. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Grading blank backed cards | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 04-06-2008 03:38 PM |
WTB E97 blank back cards | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 04-03-2007 10:45 PM |
T204 Back Type Cards, RAMLY, TTT, BLANK | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 6 | 01-26-2007 09:48 AM |
14 B&W Blank Back Photo Baseball Cards, 3.25 x 5.25 inches | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 07-15-2005 04:33 PM |
Grading vintage cards with back damage | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 10-04-2004 07:03 PM |