 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
01-20-2013, 07:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Grading Standards - New vs. Old
I have learned over the years from hobby veterans that, back in the day before 3rd party grading, condition assessments practiced by card dealers were, shall we say, more lenient.
The listing to which I have provided a link below has a description and listing title (EX++) substantially out-of-line (in my opinion) with the photo. Would this be representative of an example of grading criteria of the days of yore? Or is this just an example of "salesmanship?" http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...#ht_500wt_1288 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| T207 Grading Standards VS. Other Tobacco Cards | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 08-26-2007 02:57 PM |
| It is quite easy to voice your dissatisfaction with current grading standards, | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 18 | 07-25-2006 11:51 AM |
| What's wrong with photo cards grading standards | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 12-29-2005 09:16 PM |
| Steve Verkman grading standards? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 09-01-2002 01:36 PM |
| Old vs. New Condition Standards | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 01-27-2002 05:44 PM |
Threaded Mode