 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2
05-07-2014, 10:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Breaking News; Stevie Wonder gets hired by the PSA Grading Co.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1915-Cracker...item5affb9e9d8 I don't know what's sadder; the grade or the fact the guy wants $425 for it .... 
|
|
#4
05-08-2014, 03:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
if that CJ
was a T206 = I think 12,000. would be about right. I have the recent CJ book but unfamiliar with the known "error" population of the cards and while I admire the way the set presents I've never collected Cracker Jacks - too new. I have a couple 19th century examples of printing anomalies in my sets as I think they're neat. In fact to me the type of printing error on the card is way more interesting than other types of errors that aren't graphic in nature. If I collected the set - I'd want an example like that - just not at a premium beyond 15 - 20% fair market value of a regular version of the card. That's just me. Collectors often want something a little different, a little more special than what the other guy has got - cool looking card no matter what - I'm graphics driven.
As for the grading - it's an interesting problem to grade that card if in fact it isn't trimmed on the right side and/or trimmed from a sheet. It's hard to tell from a scan and in a tomb on the interweb. I'm not sure if that's what you meant (trimmed) or just the glaring off register and missing inking. If it isn't altered or hand cut - what should the grade be? I agree excellent might be a stretch :-) A grade is supposed to convey the physical state of the card as defined by the company on a global level and in the trenches as executed by an employee. That doesn't always happen. I'm probably alone in the idea that the card should be authentic even if it's not trimmed regardless of which company or individual is grading it. As a result of problems in the printing process the card stands as an incomplete representation of the intended card. I'm surprised PSA doesn't have a rule or qualifier to treat this kind of situation as it must come up often enough. Not busting chops - just trying to understand something that's probably obvious to everyone but me. Wouldn't be the first time. What I did notice is that there's no scan of the back, the card can't be enlarged without putting it in your own photo program, and the scan isn't clear. My kind of seller.
|
|
#5
05-08-2014, 10:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com Last edited by Leon; 05-08-2014 at 10:37 AM.
|
|
#7
05-08-2014, 06:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Leon,
My apologies - I will, in the future sign my name when posting against something or someone. My post wasn't inferring that these sorts of cards were not collectible – particularly if you’re unconcerned with the grade. Hey, different strokes for different folks. What I was stating (sarcastically) which I stand by, was that the card in question, did not deserve the grade of “EX 5”. I see three or four significant issues with this card (registration – perhaps the worst I’ve ever seen, the border itself – one third of it is present while the balance is missing as it is clearly miscut). And we haven’t even seen the back – although one would think that if it does look OK that the seller would have been better served to include a scan of it. Heck, I might even be tempted to make it the main listing photo lol. From PSA’s site: EX 5: Excellent On PSA EX-5 cards, very minor rounding of the corners is becoming evident. Surface wear or printing defects are more visible. There may be minor chipping on edges. Loss of original gloss will be more apparent. Focus of picture may be slightly out-of-register. Several light scratches may be visible upon close inspection, but do not detract from the appeal of the card. Card may show some off-whiteness of borders. Centering must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back. The card does not look “slightly” out of register... PSA 5’s for 1915 no name players are fetching $200 – $200+. Though some may feel that such a card is worth a premium, I’m not one of them. But to list the card for 100% more than what a 5 should go for, is in my opinion, ridiculous. BTW... I made this post with no particular intent to slam PSA. My collection is comprised of PSA and SGC and like/dislike each company for different reasons. They both have their goods and bads... Herb Kane. Last edited by HerbK; 05-08-2014 at 06:19 PM.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
