![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
God no. It is gorgeous.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
There's a speck of paper loss on the back or I think it's a 7. Again though, with the tiny paper loss why a 2 and not a 1.5?
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137748538@N02/albums Successful transactions with Sycks22, Vintageloz, jim, zachclose21, shamus, Chris Counts, YankeeFan Snapolit1 and many more. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Is not nor should it be the same as eye appeal. People need to grasp this concept. And indeed buy the card not the holder. This leads to prices not being based solely on the number on the holder which to me is a good thing. The fact is the hobby has decided not all flaws are created equal and these standards have been established over a long period of time.
Last edited by glynparson; 02-15-2017 at 10:17 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
All very true. We see this over and over and it is the way it is. It is probably the correct way if really debated. Unless you are playing registry tic tac toe then the grade should be secondary to the card.
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Whether we all agree on this board that a "paradigm shift" is "necessary" in the tpg world...not saying we do...but even if we did. It AINT GONNA HAPPEN!!!!!
As Aerosmith sang...DREAM ON! |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Personally this is a non issue as we are comparing to a 1. A 1 is unequivocally the most vast category in existence. As long as it's a real card and 90% there it will get a 1, it basically means it's real and unaltered. If this was a comparison between a 1.5 and 2 it could be a more salient topic for discussion.
__________________
- Justin D. Player collecting - Lance Parrish, Jim Davenport, John Norlander. Successful B/S/T with - Highstep74, Northviewcats, pencil1974, T2069bk, tjenkins, wilkiebaby11, baez578, Bocabirdman, maddux31, Leon, Just-Collect, bigfish, quinnsryche...and a whole bunch more, I stopped keeping track, lol. Last edited by JustinD; 02-16-2017 at 10:04 AM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
This Pastorius was previously in a PSA 2 holder. There is no paper loss but there is a paper pull on the back.
Pasorius%20hindu.jpgPastorius%20Back b.jpg Pastorius%20Back.jpg |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT: Consistent Team Batting Averages | oldjudge | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 09-26-2015 07:03 PM |
Consistent grading | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 09-25-2008 05:09 PM |
Goodwin Auction T216 Honus Wagner - consistent grading??? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 09-22-2006 10:58 AM |
PSA vs. SGC - consistent and accurate? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 45 | 02-09-2006 07:14 AM |