Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookiemonster
You know this is excaly what the issue with graded cards is.
|
Agreed. Funny how we continue to see regular grading discrepancies like this even with big name cards. Although the birth of grading with PSA and Bill Mastro's trimmed Wagner ushered in the initial controversy more than 25 years ago. PSA in particular seems to be wildly inconsistent on how they change standards over time. At the end of the day I suppose it just goes to show that excellence (or NM or VG or G or P...) is in the eye of the beholder, even among professional graders. I'll stick with how I learned to grade from hobby publications in the 1980's. I don't at all get how a card with paper loss like that (or whiteout or whatever it is...) would be a 2; any other T-206 common like that probably would have been a 1 all day long.
__________________
Prewar Cubs. Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets.
Last edited by jchcollins; 09-07-2016 at 04:10 AM.
|