Is it just me, or is sometimes the lower graded card BETTER looking??

[pepis]

Grading companies just don't have any respect for eye appeal even know
it is the most important thing for true collectors.

[Zach Wheat]

Wow nice 1.5. I agree the 1.5 certainly has more eye appeal.

Z Wheat

[David W]

Well.... it is a 1.5 vs a 2, so the technical grade is not that much different, so you could easily have a nicer looking 1.5, depending on where the creases are, marks on back, any fading of the picture, etc.....

It probably happens a lot actually

[Paul S]

The 2 has all that surface "scuffing" on the front. What would you all choose if there were no grades? Scuffing over creases or a few more creases over scuffing?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Personally, I'd go for the 1.5 with a few more creases. That scuffing ruins it for me as it adversely impacts the eye appeal.

[darkhorse9]

The corners on the 1.5 do it for me. No way I could be satisfied with the corners and eye appeal of that 2.0

[MattyC]

I long ago lost count of how many times I preferred a lower grade to a higher grade card-- price not even being an issue. Especially when a back problem drops a card to low grade, versus a terribly OC card in a much higher holder.

Too often collectors let these grading companies tell them what is "better." Truth is we grade the graders when we choose what to buy. I'd take the better image all day no matter what some label says.

[sflayank]

why is the back of one whitish and the other dark grey?
scan bad?

[bobbyw8469]

why is the back of one whitish and the other dark grey?
scan bad?

No...I thought it was normal to see different colored backs on the 1952 Topps. Maybe someone familiar with the set can chime in?

[the 'stache]

It's not just you, Robert. The TPGs are giving technical grades. They are not considering eye appeal.

I'll take a card with eye appeal and a lower technical grade over a card with a higher technical grade, and less eye appeal any day of the week.