![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree that many cards with a tiny bit of paper loss should not be downgraded so much. The grading houses have decided that paper loss is much worse than a worn corner. Cards that have blank backs with glue marks should not receive downgrades to a 30 because of that, if the front is an 80 or 84. It seems like the standard is decided by the grading companies but I do not agree with it. We, the collectors, have been told by grading companies that a great looking card is really a bad card.
In the pre-slab grading days my guess is many of those cards would be graded Ex-MT and described as having a minor paper loss or glue on back. In that era most of us would have wanted an aesthetically pleasing card and would have accepted paper loss products much more readily. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SGC Grading Question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 04-06-2009 04:57 PM |
Question about grading complete sets | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 02-25-2009 07:31 PM |
SGC Grading Question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 04-08-2008 06:43 PM |
General Question about grading (opinion) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 11-17-2005 07:55 AM |
sgc grading question for y'all | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 11-16-2005 04:32 PM |