![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I have a PSA 5 Old Judge card with two dots of paper loss on the front, one about the size of a pin head, one a little smaller. Got the card from a friend who just got it graded, so I know it was legit. The funny thing is I also bought a PSA 2 at the same time and it was much nicer than the 5
__________________
Please check out my books. Bio of Dots Miller https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CV633PNT 13 short stories of players who were with the Pirates during the regular season, but never appeared in a game for them https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CY574YNS The follow up to that book looks at 20 Pirates players who played one career game. https://www.amazon.com/Moment-Sun-On.../dp/B0DHKJHXQJ The worst team in Pirates franchise history https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C6W3HKL8 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
More. I honestly do not think the percentage is a lot higher the problem lies with the same horribly graded cards continue to be flipped because someone buys the card and hates it so they sell. Plus SGC is honestly more willing to admit a mistake and buy the card back. That I agree with 100%.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I understand grading is subjective, but it's cards like the Cy Young that really confuse me. Everyone has their doubts about some grades, but the ones that no human on Earth should miss are the ones that anger me and make me question the company that grades them.
I know a lot of people go back and forth on PSA and SGC about their grades not being legitimate, but as long as they comply with their set grading standards, I don't see the problem (obvious hiccups do not apply ![]() I collect graded cards from the big three and do it based on appeal and not the grade, so there is no bias over here ![]()
__________________
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 Last edited by freakhappy; 07-04-2014 at 11:11 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
OJ grades make no sense to me. The companies need to find a way to account for image quality. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Tackling the Monster T206 = 213/524 HOFs = 13/76 SLers = 33/48 Horizontals = 6/6 ALWAYS looking for T206 with back damage. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Just saw this one on eBay... it's got a qualifer for being MC, but they missed a stamp on the back "55". Guess it's a 5 MC/MK.
1955 Topps Clemente 0.jpg1955 Topps Clemente 0 back, looks like MK.jpg I have a Mays rookie that's graded PSA-5MC and a '52 Topps J Robinson that's PSA5-OC, both of which have NM or EXMT+ at worst corners/border/surface. Their only flaws are the qaulifier, but it seemed to me the grader dinged them on their numerical grades too for being OC/MC. Oh well, I bought them graded and have no interest in trying to get them bumped. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Paper loss on Front = PSA 6 | Pup6913 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 25 | 05-24-2012 05:16 AM |
PSA 5 with paper loss? | Runscott | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 52 | 01-05-2012 06:34 PM |
Flaking vs. paper loss | Orions father | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 10-13-2010 09:08 PM |
paper loss | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 01-30-2006 02:09 AM |
Crease or paper loss? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 01-01-2003 07:10 PM |