How Far does the CU dictatorship go to silence whisleblowers?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Perhaps it is possible for a card in an 8 holder to be regraded a 10, but in the case of the Art Shell card in question it did not merit a 10 grade. Even from a scan there were minute flaws that could be easily detected with the naked eye.

So the issue isn't is it possible for an 8 to be regraded a 10, which I imagine in rare cases could happen, but why did that particular card receive a 10? That's the issue we've been debating.

I understand Barry.....without going back and looking at that card I think I remember it being a weak 10, at best. But hey, anything above a 3 is high grade for me so don't count on me for this high grade debate. Here is one of the nicer "10"s I have!!

[jstef]

I'd rather own a card from the Lionel Carter collection anyday. In fact, IMO the Lionel Carter collection is the only collection that merits recognition.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by jstef

I'd rather own a card from the Lionel Carter collection anyday. In fact, IMO the Lionel Carter collection is the only collection that merits recognition.

+1 I'd add Jefferson Burdick to that short list.

[glynparson]

There were altered cards in Mr. Carter's phenomenal collection. Only mentioned because many feel this provenance should carry extra weight for the card being unplayed with. While this is true of cards he acquired in years of issue he did trade for years and years and years and not all trading partners were as honest as Mr. Carter.

[barrysloate]

Hey Leon- how can you have a weak 10? With all due respect, you can't have a weak 10. Another term for a weak 10 is a misgraded card.

As I remember the Art Shell, it had two corners that were imperceptibly touched, and there were two surface print flaws. That's a total of four things wrong with it. Even if they are tiny, that's a strong 8 at best.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Here is the Shell card in question. The registration on the card is way off. Notice the white numbers on the front of the jersey and his socks around the calf area. Both are blurry.

Also, the big fish eye on the back.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Hey Leon- how can you have a weak 10? With all due respect, you can't have a weak 10. Another term for a weak 10 is a misgraded card.

As I remember the Art Shell, it had two corners that were imperceptibly touched, and there were two surface print flaws. That's a total of four things wrong with it. Even if they are tiny, that's a strong 8 at best.

Imperceptibly (impossible or difficult to perceive by the mind or senses) IMO meets the requirements of four sharp corners. If you can't perceive it, how can the corners be imperfect then?

And PSA's own granding standards details that while a card to meet PSA 10 must be free of staining "an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card." I tend to agree with Leon that it's a weak 10, I don't think the printing imperfection imparied the appeal of the card. There are many other PSA 10's from the 1970s and 1980s that exhibit similar printing imperfections, but as their own grading standard says, it can be allowed even on a PSA 10.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by markf31

Imperceptibly (impossible or difficult to perceive by the mind or senses) IMO meets the requirements of four sharp corners. If you can't perceive it, how can the corners be imperfect then?

And PSA's own granding standards details that while a card to meet PSA 10 must be free of staining "an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card." I tend to agree with Leon that it's a weak 10, I don't think the printing imperfection imparied the appeal of the card. There are many other PSA 10's from the 1970s and 1980s that exhibit similar printing imperfections, but as their own grading standard says, it can be allowed even on a PSA 10.

That said, I think the Shell is an 8.5, or a weak 9. It's not a 10. You may feel free to disagree.