PWCC Certified High End

[pokerplyr80]

[QUOTE=CrackaJackKid;1763596]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I still feel labeling a 1 with a pinhole,paper loss etc. high end is inaccurate. But to each his own.

A nice 1 with a small amount of paper loss on the back or a well hidden pin hole that doesn't take away from the eye appeal of the card is the definition of a high end 1. Such a card could easily sell for twice the price or more of the VCP average for the beater 1s.

[MattyC]

What's pretty interesting (while procrastinating at work, at least) is to examine the notion of what really constitutes "one of the best examples" in the world of a given card. I would offer that the reductive grading system belies the subjectivity in the matter...

For example, someone could brandish a high grade flip and say that based on pop report and cost it is one of the best— yet to many collectors with seasoned eyes, the card does not merit the grade. Would this hypothetical card then be one of the best and thus high end? I suppose to a Registry or flip-driven collector/buyer, sure, they could say it is and it would be valid. Yet others who want the best card might not even want to throw a bid at the card, so to them it is not one of the best.

Another interesting hypothetical would be someone pointing to a high grade card, say a PSA 8, deeming it one of the best examples of a card— yet let's assume it is a card that is rarely centered or always blurry, and the PSA 8 exhibits these usual flaws to the fullest extent the technical grade will allow.

Now let's say an anomalous PSA 5 or 6 comes along that is dead centered— with superior focus and color as compared to the 8 as well. Let's further postulate just for conversation's sake that this PSA 5/6 sells at auction for PSA 7+ money. Wouldn't this hypothetical 5/6 then be one of the best examples, even though several are graded higher, and certainly better than the hypothetical 8?

End of the day, what some grader at his cubicle is instructed to think and weigh most is simply not what the collector has to think and weigh most. For example, for some what constitutes best may factor in the value proposition; i.e., if there's a hypothetical freak 1.5 for $10,000 (think a tiny speck of paper loss or a microscopic pinhole) that presents identically to the eye as an 8.5 that costs $100,000, some collectors might say that the 1.5 is the best example around, in terms of providing eye appeal for the dollar.

Point being there is a lot of personal preference that goes into what is high end or "best," and we collectors certainly don't have to blindly agree with what a card grader says is best— much in the same way we don't have to have unanimity on such topics, despite our shared enthusiasm for cards themselves.

[pokerplyr80]

Well said Matt. I could never hope to match your eloquence but couldn't agree more with the post above. As a collector with expensive taste and a limited budget a 10k card with the eye appeal of a 100k card meets my definition of high end.