![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
sounds ethical
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I am just speculating of course, but it does stand to reason that on something so exclusive and with so low a pop in the grade PSA would be mindful of not wanting to devalue existing examples. Is there any 10 on earth that would be wrongly graded in a 9 holder? The differences to me seem minute or arbitrary. And I would bet heavily that lots of 10s in general are bumps from 9s. The 10 grade is brilliant marketing but I don't think it means much condition-wise.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 04-25-2018 at 12:41 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
"Your card is pretty much the embodiment of gem mint, but, I'm sorry, we've already met our quota for Gem Mint '52 Mantles. However, should you crack it, and have one of our best clients submit it for grading, who can say what might happen?" My eye isn't as highly developed as yours, and many of our more seasoned vintage collectors. But looking at it on HA's site, at 100% magnification, and knowing what PSA objectively considers when grading (centering, corners, surface and edges), I can't see anything on the front of the card that would downgrade it from a 10 to a 9. The centering is ever so slightly to the right, but within allowance for gem mint. If you compare Evan's card to the GEM MT PSA has on its grading standards page, the centering is nearly identical. And, maybe I'm going senile, but the 10 they utilize on the standards page seems to have a slight diamond cut; the white border on the right is thinner on the top, and gets thicker as you move down. The corners and edges are about as pristine as I could imagine for a 66 year old card. The surface looks beautiful, and the borders are a nice, bright white. It may be that the PSA example looks washed out because of a poor scan, but I think Evan's card is much more appealing. BTW, congratulations on the hammer price, Evan!
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Raw Rookies Ready for PSA or SGC | Blackie | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 06-07-2013 08:36 PM |
Raw Rookies Ready for PSA or SGC | Blackie | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 0 | 06-07-2013 08:04 PM |
Anyone else ready for the season? | Jcfowler6 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 46 | 03-18-2013 05:32 PM |
I am ready to buy who wants my money | sfacujackcat | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 09-12-2012 08:50 PM |
it is done; it is ready (shameless plug) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 12-24-2003 05:41 PM |