![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Here's the card in-case anyone wants to see. I'm hoping for at least a 9. ![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As friendly advice, temper your expectations for the grade to avoid disappointment.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It'll be whatever it'll be. My life happiness isn't dependent on the grade this card gets but I do feel it deserves a 9.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The screw down holder might have damaged the card. I hate for you to get your hopes up, but the card will be extremely lucky to get a numeric grade at all.
PS - I am surprised they took the card. YOU were the one responsible for getting the card out of the holder and putting it into a card saver IV (or larger, as I'm not familiar with the issue). Last edited by bobbyw8469; 04-10-2017 at 08:15 AM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I never knew that was a possibility. What do suspect would be the reason for not getting a # grade? I'll update with results when I get the card back but it won't be for about another month.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I believe the holder damages the card stock and PSA always returns them as (ALTERED STOCK).
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I did some quick research after you told me about this and it seems like PSA considers it altered stock because the pressure from the screw down holder flattens out the cardboard stock which they consider altered. Hopefully since this is more of a paper stock and not a cardboard stock it won't be flattened out by the screw-down.
Last edited by TobaccoKing4; 04-10-2017 at 08:26 AM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I would not worry about the altered stock because it is such a thin card to begin with. That is more for regular cards that have been smashed for several years(decades). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think it'll be just fine. Probably not a 9 but fine anyway. I've sent a few in in toploaders which they also don't like, since I don't use cardsavers and have to save them up from stuff I bought. Didn't have a problem, and didn't get the toploaders back. Not a big deal since they were also used ones with old price stickers, yellowing etc.
I didn't send any in in the toploader/mylar sleeve combo, as the mylar had sealed itself to the toploaders and I had to cut the card out. Figured that would really bug them as it was a lot of extra work. Steve B |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm hoping this brick was not recessed. Otherwise that could put surface impressions in your card. I would kind of expect a 92 SGC 8.5 for this card, if the top right corner has the feathering it sort of looks like to me, and the nick on the top left side is just a scratch on the screwdown.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vintage and PSA's grading consistency over time | the 'stache | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 14 | 04-18-2016 08:47 PM |
How on-time are grading companies? | granite75 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 10-04-2014 07:39 AM |
First time SGC submitter question. | Mrvintage | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 03-17-2013 08:24 PM |
SGC grading question (possible dumb question) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 09-08-2006 12:36 AM |
first time I have seen this grading company | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 06-07-2003 08:20 PM |