 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11
02-23-2007, 10:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: Steve M.
but this thread is an unwarranted slam at the auction house and the description of this lot. The lot consists of 153 cards of varying condition. Is it really expected that the description of a GD card needs much more than that. Does every little teensy weeny mark, wrinkle, crease, stain, remnant, paper loss, etc, ad nauseum have to be detailed for what is described as a card in GD condition? I trust that when Pete grades out a raw card as GD he has taken all faults into consideration in making that assessment. I personally don't need more than that. 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Mastronet Wow! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 59 | 11-24-2005 10:12 AM |
| mastronet | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 11-06-2005 10:00 AM |
| Thank you MastroNet!!!!!! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 07-19-2005 07:14 AM |
| Mastronet | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 05-01-2005 10:42 AM |
| MastroNet on CNN | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 11-17-2002 06:44 PM |
Threaded Mode