![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Then I bow out. Scans are not high enough quality to render an accurate opine.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I say top is the 7
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
7 is the right, 3.5 the left. I detect a surface wrinkle.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'd take the one on the right any day of the week. That diamond cut/slant kills the one on the left and makes it very hard to look at it. Not sure how that fact impacts the grading gods, though.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The one on the bottom is trimmed
Top left corner has been shaved |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'd guess the top one is the 7. Side note- this is why I collect low-grade cards. Anything above a 4 looks the same to me.
__________________
Collecting nice-looking but poorly graded cards of legendary HOFers |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think the 2nd one (on my monitor it's on the right, or it could be on the bottom if you have a skinnier monitor) is the 7. The first one has staining on the right edge front that is distracting.
|
![]() |
|
|