![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't know? While the centering seems to be the main issue, It looks to be a fairly solid card. I have to respectfully disagree about using PSA and having them put the O/C qualifier on it. Anybody with any sense at all can see that the card is o/c, so I see no reason to have PSA label it as such. The o/c qualifier puts a "Black mark" on cards that puts a psycological thought in peoples heads that the card is of less quality than even another card that has similar centering.
I think the card would be much more attractive in an SGC holder without the stigma of any o/c qualfier. Just my 2 cents worth. Nice Card John |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So, If it gets graded a "5" by PSA, and I want to sell, would I have been better off just keeping it raw and letting someone else get it graded?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My thoughts are Straight 4-4.5 or "6 to 7" OC.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
May i ask you guys about MY card pic i posted. What do you experts think of it? or do with it??
__________________
1916-20 UNC Big Heads Need: Ping Bodie |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Are you looking to sell? Are you asking if you grade it or keep it raw, which would bring a higher amount? Just by looking at it, it looks to be in the 4 range, but I definitely need more details to give you a solid opinion. Nice card by the way! I've always loved Namath's rookie card.
__________________
T206's Graded low-mid 219/520 T201's SGC/PSA 2-5 50/50 T202's SGC/PSA 2-5 10/132 1938 Goudey Graded VG range 37/48 |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
1916-20 UNC Big Heads Need: Ping Bodie |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Can you give me details about the card? Creases? Overall defects on the card? It's just hard to tell from the pics. I'm a big fan of grading, so personally, I would get it graded just for protection and looks alone. From the pics you posted and without knowing further details, it looks in the "4-5" range. If it has creases, that grade would most likely dip a little.
__________________
T206's Graded low-mid 219/520 T201's SGC/PSA 2-5 50/50 T202's SGC/PSA 2-5 10/132 1938 Goudey Graded VG range 37/48 |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Many people think the qualifier is a black eye on the card and don't like it, BUT there are people that do not and that is the point. As most people know, PSA draws a huge crowd and will pay good money for the holder...actually way too much for the holder and not so much for the card as that is what they should be paying attention to. I agree that SGC's slabs look better and are more appealing, but all it takes is one person to admire the PSA "higher graded" Namath and pay the price. Although a card will be docked because of it being off center, being off center doesn't really mark the card like creasing and such. It's simply a manufacturer error and the card can otherwise be in tip top shape. Believe me when I say that there are many people that would love to have a Namath in PSA 7 or 6(oc) than a PSA 4. I for one, do not care for qualifiers but for resale, I think there's a better chance to get more out of it in this instance. All in all, you make some great points, John.
__________________
T206's Graded low-mid 219/520 T201's SGC/PSA 2-5 50/50 T202's SGC/PSA 2-5 10/132 1938 Goudey Graded VG range 37/48 |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: 1965 Topps Joe Namath RC #122 (Low-Mid Grade) | freakhappy | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 06-03-2011 11:28 PM |
1965 " Namath" Card | Ben Yourg | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 08-16-2009 08:59 PM |
New postal rate | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 05-18-2007 03:18 PM |
Is this the going rate for an E90-1 Jackson? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 01-19-2005 02:59 PM |
How does this rate... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-29-2002 07:18 PM |