![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
You have a very valid point, but this is why all grading no matter how detailed will always be subjective. You can have technical grading going into eye appeal as a guide, but eye appeal / extent of scruitny is always going to be subjective and will vary from person to person.
Personally, I would agree with you - no way that card should be less than a 6. But there are folks out there who will argue that no card should ever get a break on a technical flaw - even if only visible under magnification. Which collector is correct?
__________________
T206 Cubs. Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Crease free? | Brian Van Horn | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 11-19-2013 04:14 PM |
Our friend the crease. | atx840 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 48 | 03-14-2013 10:27 AM |
T206 CREASE(s) CONTEST | Craig M | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 36 | 02-07-2013 09:19 AM |
A crease's effect on card value | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 04-26-2004 06:43 AM |
Crease or paper loss? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 01-01-2003 07:10 PM |