![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
.
Last edited by Orioles1954; 09-16-2022 at 06:28 PM. Reason: Nevermind. I see the paper loss now. |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I like that he thinks I'm a PSA homer. That's funny.
Calm down, newb. If you keep freaking out like this, you probably won't be a member very long.
__________________
-- 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. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The grading companies appear to be consistent on this issue. Five of the six coupons graded by PSA are slabbed "1" or less, and both SGC examples are graded "A". The coupons were exposed to direct contact with the gum, which left rather severe staining throughout. I would not be surprised if they are given a "1" on that basis alone, apart from any paper loss. Here's mine, which fares no better:
![]()
__________________
Now watch what you say, or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.- Ulysses S. Grant, 18th US President. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This is one of the big failings with numerical grading as it's done. For the upper grades, there's some degree of consistency. While there's differences between one card and another, most 8s will look similar. If they're different it's along the lines of "that's nicely centered, too bad about that one corner" Or "nice corners, too bad it's not centered all that well"
But at lower grades, there's lots more room for differences. On Quillen I was expecting better than a 3, but missed an erasure on the back. (Like never saw it in over 30 years missed it) Young was a pleasant surprise, I was expecting a 1, maybe a 2 because of the crease. even lower grade cards can be much farther apart. |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
As other people have alluded to, there's the technical grade and then the eye appeal of a card. The TPGs grade on a technical scale, obviously.
That's why it's annoying when people on Youtube compare 2 cards and are like "how is this card the same grade as this carrrrddd@*LH@JHKL!*E^Y(@*." Now, does that mean the TPGs are always accurate and fair in grading technical defects? Nope! You know what could be a good idea, or maybe terrible? What if a grading company offered a Technical Grade and Eye Appeal grade? Would probably muddy the waters.
__________________
~20 SUCCESSFUL BST (1 trade) on Net54 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Seems like we need more stickers for eye appeal...
__________________
Trying to wrap up my master mays set, with just a few left: 1968 American Oil left side 1971 Bazooka numbered complete panel |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
This is one reason I personally choose not to grade my cards. PSA obviously got this one right, according to their published standards. But their grading scale is ridiculously skewed to identify preposterously minute (often microsocpic) differences in cards graded 7 - 10, while the variance in cards graded 1 - 4 is enormous, and all over the board.
If they evened out the standards between each numerical grade, I'd be more open to the whole concept. I've also seen little-to-no accounting for focus and registration, with many 8s having less eye-appeal than 4s and 5s. This is a huge factor to me when evaluating a card, and PSA won't acknowledge it. I guess the bottom line is that I would rather be the evaluator of my cards than an inconsistent and often wrong third party. I realize that sellers, flippers and PSA apologists have a whole different mentality, and that's fine. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1933 Uncle Jacks Candy | bigfish | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 09-18-2019 07:47 AM |
FS: 1933 Uncle Jacks - Cuyler | markf31 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 08-24-2014 09:16 AM |
Wanted: 1933 Uncle Jacks HOF Type & 1933 DeLong's | Orioles1954 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 03-04-2010 09:51 AM |
FS: 1933 Uncle Jacks Bottomley (Green) and 1933 Tattoo Orbit Mack! | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 12-12-2008 01:29 PM |
Wanted: 1933 Uncle Jacks Candy | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 09-15-2007 06:59 PM |