![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
They are supposed to be. Centering and any damage are factored into the final grade.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Both PSA and SGC have criteria for centering on the back of cards. Any damage or imperfections should / would affect the grading of the card whether on the front or back of the card.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Now, as to the weight of the back in determining what the grade will be, is a whole different conversation. Blank backs, imo, should carry less weight but that is not usually the case, from my experiences.
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
it happens all the time, cards get knocked down because of back flaws...the weight i'm not sure of either....back is 40% overall grade??35 %??
![]() I think severe back miscuts should up the grade ![]() ![]() ![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
this got a 1.5....but in my world it's a gem mint 10
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think they take the backs into consideration every time, at least with PSA and SGC. It's possible that something might slip by occasionally, but there is no doubt in my mind that the back condition factors into the final grade.
Here are three of my T206 cards. Look at the card, then look at the grades they received: ![]() ![]() ![]() If the backs were not considered, these would be undergraded, imo (especially the Tannehill). But when you look at the backs, they are accurately graded because of tape stains, and a small amount of paper loss on the Rucker. I feel the back issues may have lowered the overall grade by a whole point. ![]() ![]() ![]()
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Bill, those are all really nice but that Tannehill is absolutely beautiful! (2.5?!?!)
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks, guys. I like them a lot.
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Grading Companies | EvilKing00 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 11-29-2012 08:07 AM |
Grading Companies | Ben Yourg | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 02-04-2010 10:38 AM |
What if grading companies could do this??????? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 11-20-2007 09:17 PM |
What Grading Companies are the Best? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 03-14-2007 01:40 PM |
Grading Companies 1-10 | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 11-19-2003 11:37 AM |