 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23
08-21-2019, 06:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
From the pics
The cards look accurately graded from the pictures. The Ruth looks like it could be a 5 to me from the pic so a 4.5 is a tiny bit low but the others look right on point. And in hand it could easily look like a 4.5. The other 2 i honestly think PSA would have the same grades minus the .5 bumps. Cards have some definite issues. THe Johnson is nowhere close to a 7. They have nice to decent eye appeal but like i try to often point out eye appeal is not the same thing as technical grade.
Last edited by glynparson; 08-21-2019 at 06:26 AM. 
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| FS: 23 T-206 Grades PSA 3 to PSA 5 | Gradedcardman | T206 cards B/S/T | 9 | 09-10-2013 08:23 AM |
| Show Grades vs Mail Grades | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 04-16-2008 08:34 PM |
| PSA 1/2 Grades | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 02-21-2008 06:59 PM |
| SGC grading to harsh | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 38 | 01-12-2006 06:04 PM |
| PSA grades | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 01-15-2004 06:20 PM |
Threaded Mode