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

[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?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

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

Yes, many series come on different cardboard. That's common for all the 50's sets and even some 60's. I didn't know High number 52s had the difference too. Probably because I only have one high number.

The 1.5 has a texture that makes me think water damage, but I'd probably go for the 1.5 as well.

Steve B