Overgraded or just me?

[Cozumeleno]

Somehow a stain visible on front and back and fraying/discoloration on borders with even light paper loss on back upper right corner is considered NM? Maybe it's just me, but I see more of this stuff with PSA than the other graders.

Or maybe this really is NM and I'm nitpicking.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1934-Goudey-...item4ae344abdc

[Bigb13]

Ex at best

[Eric72]

I can't believe the seller put, "great looking card for the grade" in the title.

[Beatles Guy]

"Tremendous" is a pretty strong word. You are just asking for criticism using that word for that card.

[Econteachert205]

so this seems as good a time as any... do you think tpgs actually view grades like nrmnt as universal terms? like can you picture a 1972 topps card in such condition ever garnering such a grade? I honestly don't get it.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

so this seems as good a time as any... do you think tpgs actually view grades like nrmnt as universal terms? like can you picture a 1972 topps card in such condition ever garnering such a grade? I honestly don't get it.

Absolutely not - and that's kind of my beef, to be honest. Imagine if you went to a card shop and they were selling a card a few years old with stains, paper loss, etc. as NM. It'd be utterly ridiculous. You don't need to look far to find that the grading is clearly eased up for older cards. For example, here's a Barry Bonds 1987 Topps PSA 7, which is pretty perfect with the exception of some very light wear to some corners. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1987-Topps-B...item3ceec6f144

I'm not in favor of it, but I can live with them allowing for some discoloration - but that's really it for me. NM should be NM regardless of year. That's why NM cards from that era command such premiums. A good example of why the grades should not be fluid is a Beckett Price Guide, which lists a pre-1948 card (I believe that's the cutoff, anyway) as 100% of the book value in EX condition. If it's NM, it is 300%. If you use that pricing, there's no way that they should be more flexible with grades for older cards.

IMO.

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I can't believe the seller put, "great looking card for the grade" in the title.

He meant to say great grade for the card.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

He meant to say great grade for the card.

Well met. I agree completely.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

He meant to say great grade for the card.

Kind of funny.....but unless it's a registry card would the number matter when it's actually sold? A lot of vintage seems to sell for what it actually is rather than what the number says about it. Centering, and other attributes which don't show up in a "number", can significantly determine the value of our gems. The best cards bring the best money, again, unless it's a number-on-a-slip-of-paper kind of thing, which is ok too if that is what you are into.

[yanks4]

That is so off ..was it switched somewhere along the line?

As Leon says if someone pays 7 money for that card .....they are buying numbers not cards........

Irishdenny is there info online about Psa's serial numbers? or would you care to share your knowledge....

Thanks, Marty

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Somehow a stain visible on front and back and fraying/discoloration on borders with even light paper loss on back upper right corner is considered NM? Maybe it's just me, but I see more of this stuff with PSA than the other graders.

Or maybe this really is NM and I'm nitpicking.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1934-Goudey-...item4ae344abdc

Not nitpicking, not a 7.