![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It is more valuable than a card with a very light photo so why shouldn't it cost (and sell) for more? As mentioned, isn't part of the whole grading industry to help determine value? Now, since he has that card, and the potential to have a higher number could exist in a new scenario, thereby making the card worth more....my guess is Anthony (or anyone) wouldn't be against having a more valuable card. Just sayin'......Good debate so far. If anyone thinks the top 3 grading companies don't read this board then I think they are mistaking. Keep the comments, good, bad and indifferent coming. best regards
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The first published hobby article, 1935....noted here | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 07-25-2007 08:43 PM |
Hobby Retrospect | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 02-16-2007 10:10 AM |
PSA discussion | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 103 | 05-11-2005 12:16 PM |
Objective card grading | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 29 | 10-15-2004 09:05 AM |
New trend on E-Bay? Selling cards rejected by grading services as such. | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 08-27-2004 11:02 AM |