![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
View Poll Results: Which one should I submit which COULD be a 10 | |||
Left |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 10.53% |
Right |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Both, hope for comparision |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 10.53% |
Neither, be happy with 9s |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
15 | 78.95% |
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Depends on how the judge the centering on this issue. If the frame is the border (not intentionally off-centered), I don't think either get it. Both are off left-to-right. Both also have light corner wear that would preclude 10s, IMO.
As to authenticity, this card was manufactured differently than the rest of the unsigned cards. The ones numbered to 40 were actually signed by Peter Max prior to the gloss layer being applied, so they would be easier to authenticate since their production was different. And since these were technically pack pulled manufacturer autos, I don't think they actually required PSA authentication. But flow of autographs, starts/stops, are used by the authentication companies. It's not foolproof.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
|
|