E95 Plank--PWCC auction

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

...
Nice card, Leon. PSA missed the check mark. As for the card itself, it has several minor creases to warrant the grade of 2.5. The proper grade would have been PSA 2.5 MK

There are no creases or wrinkles that I can see under magnification. Try another answer please. Personally I think whomever submitted it got it done without the MK and a lower grade because of it. I know what their site says...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

There are no creases or wrinkles that I can see under magnification. Try another answer please. Personally I think whomever submitted it got it done without the MK and a lower grade because of it. I know what their site says...

Look at the back. Right above "GEORGE" is a crease. Everything below "GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON" has many spider wrinkles.

A PSA 2.5 is accurate given the creases. I'm not knocking the card. I would love to own it. But it is graded accurately.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Let's stick with SGC, it makes so much more sense -- 50 55 60 70 80 82 84 etc.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's stick with SGC, it makes so much more sense -- 50 55 60 70 80 82 84 etc.

Failed attempt at sarcasm. SGC still lists the numeric 10 point grade on the flip (e.g. 55 = 4.5, 60 = 5, 70 = 5.5, etc) so what's the difference?

Don't you have another PWCC bash thread to start?

[Peter_Spaeth]

When I have one to start, David, you will see it. Now back to your gratuitous hostility...

PS A system with varying 10, 8 and 4 point gaps between full grades is odd to me, even if it's laid out on the flip.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When I have one to start, David, you will see it. Now back to your gratuitous hostility...

No hostility, Peter. I just didn't understand your ridiculous comment about SGC. Nobody is saying that SGC is better than PSA, so why even bring them up in the first place?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

No hostility, Peter. I just didn't understand your ridiculous comment about SGC. Nobody is saying that SGC is better than PSA, so why even bring them up in the first place?

Just my train of thought I guess. As I was reading about what seems to be confusion and complexity with PSA grading it occurred to me that SGC also had some quirks.

[Leon]

Admittedly there are some wrinkles (none go through both sides so to me they are wrinkles but they are there)..... still not sure about the check mark and why it still received a 2.5? Is a 2.5 card with a check mark still a 2.5?

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look at the back. Right above "GEORGE" is a crease. Everything below "GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON" has many spider wrinkles.

A PSA 2.5 is accurate given the creases. I'm not knocking the card. I would love to own it. But it is graded accurately.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Leon

Admittedly there are some wrinkles (none go through both sides so to me they are wrinkles but they are there)..... still not sure about the check mark and why it still received a 2.5? Is a 2.5 card with a check mark still a 2.5?

My guess is they missed the mark as well. The grade never would have been 2.5 mk as qualified cards do not get the half grade bump. I also highly doubt a card that was supposed to have a qualifier but was lowered to a non qualified grade would get the half grade. Half grades are quite rare with PSA and are reserved for cards that have exceptional eye appeal.for the grade level.

[Brent Huigens]

Our team has made three attempts to connect with the buyer, and to date, have not received a response. If he/she reaches out to us, we will honor our offer of a refund.

Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions

[swarmee]

What happened with the George Brett "blackless" PSA 10 that you listed even though it was just a mechanical flip error? I guess it was pulled after many people reported it to your team. Did it get returned to the owner, or did they agree to send it to PSA as a mechanical error reholder?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's stick with SGC, it makes so much more sense -- 50 55 60 70 80 82 84 etc.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Failed attempt at sarcasm. SGC still lists the numeric 10 point grade on the flip (e.g. 55 = 4.5, 60 = 5, 70 = 5.5, etc) so what's the difference?

Don't you have another PWCC bash thread to start?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When I have one to start, David, you will see it. Now back to your gratuitous hostility...

PS A system with varying 10, 8 and 4 point gaps between full grades is odd to me, even if it's laid out on the flip.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

No hostility, Peter. I just didn't understand your ridiculous comment about SGC. Nobody is saying that SGC is better than PSA, so why even bring them up in the first place?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Just my train of thought I guess. As I was reading about what seems to be confusion and complexity with PSA grading it occurred to me that SGC also had some quirks.

Pardon my interruption, Betsy. I know you are busy, but when Peter and David quibble, an intervention is often needed. David, I think Peter's point was HIS hope that SGC would adopt a straight forward grading scale such as BCCG.