![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Although I don't understand qualifiers at all, I can attempt to understand the "off center" and "print defect" type qualifiers because, as bobbyw8469 said, they are factory defects. But to have "stain" and "mark" as qualifiers, that's even more illogical than OC and PD. At the end of the day though, whether the factory or an owner caused the card to be in a certain condition, it is in that condition. It's like trying to get a premium for your car with hail damage because the hail damage occurred at the dealership.
__________________
Collecting Pre-1920 HOF Postcards (single subject, not team postcards) @TreyCumby |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
MK and ST(for after the fact stains), probably shouldn't be used.. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I couldn't sell these fast enough , just to get them out of the house ; yet they drew a lot of bids and surprisingly-high final prices and glowing thank-yous in feedback........beauty is in the eye of the beholder.... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This beauty is in my collection only because of the (ST). The price was right.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Unless the back stain looks much worse in hand than on the scan, giving a card that nice a "Q" is ridiculous. Nice p/u! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Great Herzog IMO. I wouldn't think twice about having that card in my collection
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I totally agree. I had to do a double take to notice.
__________________
Tackling the Monster T206 = 213/524 HOFs = 13/76 SLers = 33/48 Horizontals = 6/6 ALWAYS looking for T206 with back damage. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Is it me, or do cards with qualifiers seem over graded?
__________________
Tiger collector Need: Harry Heilmann auto Monster Number 520/520 |
![]() |
|
|