The Beauty of the Ungraded Card

[orly57]

I have a confession to make: I silently judged the old-timers that refuse to get their cards slabbed. I viewed them as fogies who refuse to change with the times. I mean, why not use something at your disposal that can protect your card and verify authenticity or if it has been altered???
And then I got this guy in the mail. I held it in my hand. I smelled it. I enjoyed the card in a way you simply cannot with the platic "tombs" as the old-timers refer to slabs. There really is something to holding history in your hands and feeling a 100 year old card. Fogies...you have a point. I am sorry that i judged you.

[yanksfan09]

Gorgeous card there! Some cards really do just need to be held!

[GasHouseGang]

I saw your pick-up and remembered one that appeared in the pick-ups from the National and I was struck by how different they appear. I know nothing about the Turkey Reds, but I thought it could just be the scanner settings or different printings since this is a checklist back and the other may not be. I just thought the difference was rather striking.

[orly57]

The Card Gods punished me. I got it slabbed for safety purposes. And these idiots gave it a 1.5 for minor paper loss. Not very different than the one above in mu opinion

[GasHouseGang]

Ouch! Minor paper loss will usually do that to you. That's unfortunate.

[orly57]

The back with "eggregious paper loss."

[JustinD]

Beautiful card I would love to have.

With that said, I don't know if I would call that "minor". With all four corners torn, I would say that psa and BVG would have gone with a 1. I think the 1.5 on both examples was generous imho.

[swarmee]

Yeah, four quarter sized chunks out of the back, I would say it's the right grade. Beautiful card front, but technically Poor to Fair.

And yes, the difference to me is the the image of the other Cobb is oversaturated with color by either scanner or camera preferences.

[4815162342]

The true collector despises grading (especially PSA), until it's time to cash in.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

The true collector despises grading (especially PSA), until it's time to cash in.

Just because you're a "true" collector, doesn't mean you're an idiot

[FourStrikes]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

The true collector despises grading (especially PSA), until it's time to cash in.

+ plenty, regardless of the TPG..

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by orly57

I have a confession to make: I silently judged the old-timers that refuse to get their cards slabbed. I viewed them as fogies who refuse to change with the times. I mean, why not use something at your disposal that can protect your card and verify authenticity or if it has been altered???
And then I got this guy in the mail. I held it in my hand. I smelled it. I enjoyed the card in a way you simply cannot with the platic "tombs" as the old-timers refer to slabs. There really is something to holding history in your hands and feeling a 100 year old card. Fogies...you have a point. I am sorry that i judged you.

one of the most beautiful cards even made IMO - nice pick up

[Piratedogcardshows]

I agree the 1.5 is a generous grade and the best a card with that kind of paper loss could get regardless of front condition. I recently graded 11 T210-7 I picked up very similarly damaged by scrapbooking. 9 got a SGC 10 and only 2 made SGC 20/1.5. Still a very nice Cobb. Great pickup.

Edited to add I guess I can no longer call myself a true collector after admitting to grading my cards

[orly57]

But the idea that "paper loss is paper loss" is not very logical. Paper loss on Cobb's face or arm, for example, is not the same as paper loss in an innocuous area like on my card. To put a beautiful card in the same grade category as others with pinholes and enormous flaws is just inconsistent and stupid.
Having have said that, i knew is was going to get a 1.5. I slabbed it SOLELY for protection.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Yeah, four quarter sized chunks out of the back, I would say it's the right grade. Beautiful card front, but technically Poor to Fair.

And yes, the difference to me is the the image of the other Cobb is oversaturated with color by either scanner or camera preferences.

I agree with everything you said. But read above.

[irv]

Originally Posted by orly57

But the idea that "paper loss is paper loss" is not very logical. Paper loss on Cobb's face or arm, for example, is not the same as paper loss in an innocuous area like on my card. To put a beautiful card in the same grade category as others with pinholes and enormous flaws is just inconsistent and stupid.
Having have said that, i knew is was going to get a 1.5. I slabbed it SOLELY for protection.

When I read this post yesterday, I thought the same as what you wrote above and it got me thinking. I wonder if it would be possible to have grades for the front of a card and also the back?

I personally, and I assume others as well, don't necessarily care as much about the looks of the backs as I do the fronts.

In rare/expensive cards, I can understand someone wanting a pristine card that is as perfect out back as it is on the front, but I think the majority don't really care to be honest?

[orly57]

Yeah Dale, I am with you. My suggestion would be to add a "presentation" subgrade to be incorporated along with corners, edges, surface, and centering. That way, cards that are not "technically" a 5, but present like a 5, would be a 3 instead of a 2. The presentation sub would bump up the grades of beautiful cards that have minor or hidden technical flaws.
Personally, i buy the card and not the holder and love to take advantage of these cards at lower prices. But i think that ultimately, smart collectors that arent hung up on high grades (or arent extremely wealthy), will pay the premium to buy the nicer card. My cobb will hopefully never be sold, but if it is, VCP is not a consideration in my mind. Cards that present THIS well for the grade will not and should not sell for the same price as the 1.5 that looks like a 1.5.

[Luke]

That's "minor paper loss" when you're selling, and "significant paper loss" when you're buying

All kidding aside, it's an absolutely beautiful card. I don't mind a little bit of paper loss on the edges of the back at all especially when you can pay fractions of the price of a 4 or 5 for the a card that looks just as nice on the front.

[Leon]

This reminds me of the time I was at a good hobby friends house (Hi John E.). I was perusing his binders as he is an old time collector with great stuff. As I was going through his E92 binder I noticed all kinds of backs, Crofts and Allen, Crofts Cocoa, Dockman etc.... He doesn't care what is on back he only collects those by the fronts. He has the player for the set....check. No need to look at the backs .... (however, I have always been a back collector too so of course looked)

Originally Posted by irv

When I read this post yesterday, I thought the same as what you wrote above and it got me thinking. I wonder if it would be possible to have grades for the front of a card and also the back?

I personally, and I assume others as well, don't necessarily care as much about the looks of the backs as I do the fronts.

In rare/expensive cards, I can understand someone wanting a pristine card that is as perfect out back as it is on the front, but I think the majority don't really care to be honest?

[irv]

Originally Posted by Leon

This reminds me of the time I was at a good hobby friends house (Hi John E.). I was perusing his binders as he is an old time collector with great stuff. As I was going through his E92 binder I noticed all kinds of backs, Crofts and Allen, Crofts Cocoa, Dockman etc.... He doesn't care what is on back he only collects those by the fronts. He has the player for the set....check. No need to look at the backs .... (however, I have always been a back collector too so of course looked)

I understand, for the most part, I think, the rare backs of some of the cards you speak of so I can understand the importance of those being in good shape.

I think of my card, as an example, with the paper loss on the front and if it were on the back instead.

I believe, based on what I have read/seen, that in either case, my card would come back with a PR-1?

I guess, depending on the mindset of the collector, I would have more buyers and likely higher bids if it were on the back instead of the front, but at the same time, I think paper loss on the back should be graded slightly different, or with a qualifier which states that, than what it would be if the paper loss were on the front?

Not likely to happen based on what I said above, but it is something, imo, for the TPG's such as SGC, PSA and BVG to consider.