PWCC Certified High End

[CrackaJackKid]

I guess however you wanna break it down so that it makes more sense.

If someone told me they had a high end example of a certain card, the last thing to come to my mind is a really nice looking 1 or 2 example.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the whole HE thing is a gimmick across the board, just saying it's equally as valid or invalid at whatever grade you apply it IMO.

[bobbyw8469]

I've had 1's that look like 6's....I've cracked out 2's that came back 5's.......so why not??

[CrackaJackKid]

Agreed on the whole gimmick statement.

I’ve just never heard anyone else apply that terminology to that low of a grade.

[MattyC]

High End "1" is not an oxymoron to me; in fact when I hear someone has a high-end card, my first hope is that it is a 1 like the card below. I sure think one of these two cards below is high end for the grade.

My beef is with the likes of SGC and PSA, who can look at us collectors with a straight face and say these cards are in effect "the same." Insults our intelligence and only exposes their arbitrary, outmoded criteria.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

I guess however you wanna break it down so that it makes more sense.

If someone told me they had a high end example of a certain card, the last thing to come to my mind is a really nice looking 1 or 2 example.

Low end technical grade can still be a higher end card...

[MattyC]

I'll call this "High End 1" Exhibit C for the thread.

[111gecko]

Wonder if it would help to add a (PH) pinhole and (PL) paper loss qualifier.? Then a regular card grade could be assigned.

[CrackaJackKid]

So decent/good looking cards graded 1s with a pinhole can now be assessed at the high end level for their grade. I guess I better get with the program. Lol

“High End” to me rypically refers to the most expensive example of all examples. But when you categorize by grades I guess anyone can call anything they want.

I just wouldnt feel right saying I had a high end example of a card when it’s recieved the lowest numerical grade. To each their own.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

So decent/good looking cards graded 1s with a pinhole can now be assessed at the high end level for their grade. I guess I better get with the program. Lol

“High End” to me rypically refers to the most expensive example of all examples. But when you categorize by grades I guess anyone can call anything they want.

I just wouldnt feel right saying I had a high end example of a card when it’s recieved the lowest numerical grade. To each their own.

He isn't saying it's a high end card. He is saying it's at the high end of a 1 grade.

[irv]

Whenever I see a "HE" designation, it means to me they think the TPG missed the grade by a mile.

1's are super tough as that is the lowest number you can go but like what has been shown here, the spread between some is huge.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

So decent/good looking cards graded 1s with a pinhole can now be assessed at the high end level for their grade. I guess I better get with the program. Lol

“High End” to me rypically refers to the most expensive example of all examples. But when you categorize by grades I guess anyone can call anything they want.

I just wouldnt feel right saying I had a high end example of a card when it’s recieved the lowest numerical grade. To each their own.

Would you feel right saying you had a high end example of a card if the flip said 7 or 8 and it cost a ton, yet it had tilt or was OC or had a weak corner or a focus/registration issue? Because a card can certainly be the most expensive based on its flip and still exhibit those eye appeal flaws— which to those who stress the card over the pricetag, would not make it the highest end example.

Unless you think both of those Shoeless Joe Jackson CJs are equal cards in all respects, there certainly is a spectrum within each grade. Some call it the high and low ends. The market readily acknowledges that all 1s are not the same by the prices they command, and so collectors simply follow suit in terms of language.

[CrackaJackKid]

Referring to the JJs I would classify one as very rough and the other as a nice looking example but not high end.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

Referring to the JJs I would classify one as very rough and the other as a nice looking example but not high end.

That's certainly fair; it just seems a case of preferred language. The evolving jargon has become, "that's a high-end 3," for example. I have also heard a "strong 2," etc. All saying the same thing.

What PWCC has done is take the terminology that evolved among us all and monetize it— though I have some friends who would say weaponize, lol

[Leon]

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

Referring to the JJs I would classify one as very rough and the other as a nice looking example but not high end.

I think a large majority of collectors would disagree as to that 1 not being a high end 1. I have learned, over the course of time, that if I say the sky is up there will be some that disagree. It's America!!