SGC is, with their new labels, balancing valuation with PSA. HARSH. Watch Video...

[luciobar1980]

Geez, It’s almost like some people are just waiting for the chance to jump at your throat. The internet.

[Orioles1954]

I think it really depends on the grader at that respective company. Some are tough while others are more lenient. With the amount of volume these companies receive I honestly don't think there is a consistent standard.

[orly57]

My rule of thumb is that if a raw card looks really good, it has probably been popped out of an unfavorable holder. But if you must take a chance, a second rule of thumb is to pay for it as if it were two grades lower than you think it may be.

[luciobar1980]

Yeah, it looked so nice and I put some faith in Probstein.

Originally Posted by orly57

My rule of thumb is that if a raw card looks really good, it’s probably been popped out of an unfavorable holder. But if you must take a chance, a second rule of thumb is to pay for it as if it were two grades lower than you think it may be.

[bensie]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

Yeah, it looked so nice and I put some faith in Probstein.

So crack it out and send to psa if sgc is too harsh.

[NYYFan63]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

Yeah, it looked so nice and I put some faith in Probstein.

My experience is to be very careful when buying ungraded cards from Probstein. He has a 30 day return policy, which is great. But he doesn’t provide a very good description like PWCC does if it is a nice ungraded card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1952boyntoncollector]

Again, all of this difference of opinion shoes the value of third party graders...man all of the returns that would happen before them on disagreements on 'EX' etc..

however, isn't a PSA 6 (st) still considered 'EX' So a PSA 4 with no qualifier can still be the same as PSA 6 'EX' with non mentioned qualifier when selling a raw card....so isn't in fact any EX card with a qualifier still considered an EX?

I have not seen anyone ever say their raw card is a 'EX-st-mk' etc...they just say EX... They just say look at the pictures etc and dont mention an 'EX with qualifier, and thats when i email them during the auction to say anything up with the card as i cant tell by the pictures...

[Pat R]

FWIW it looks like Beckett gave the Wilson a 4 in a raw review before
it was "cleaned up" a little.

Wilson Beckett 4.jpg

Wilson Goudey.jpgWilson Beckett Goudey.jpg

Wilson Goudey Back.jpgWilson Beckett Goudey Back.jpg

Wilson Goudey - Pair.jpg

Wilson Goudey Back - Copy.jpg

[luciobar1980]

Oh wow! How do you know this/how did you find that out? I mean that's definitely the card.

Originally Posted by Pat R

FWIW it looks like Beckett gave the Wilson a 4 in a raw review before
it was "cleaned up" a little.

Attachment 328148

Attachment 328141Attachment 328142

Attachment 328143Attachment 328144

Attachment 328145

Attachment 328146

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

Oh wow! How do you know this/how did you find that out? I mean that's definitely the card.

Just 10-15 minutes of research.

[The Nasty Nati]

Originally Posted by Pat R

FWIW it looks like Beckett gave the Wilson a 4 in a raw review before
it was "cleaned up" a little.

Attachment 328148

Attachment 328141Attachment 328142

Attachment 328143Attachment 328144

Attachment 328145

Attachment 328146

From these photos there appears to be a small chunk missing in the white border of the card on the right side. A few inches above the Goudey copyright. That along with the corners being a little soft, make this card in my opinion a 4. Nothing wrong with a 4 though. Solid grade for a Goudey, especially a nice centered one.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

Geez, It’s almost like some people are just waiting for the chance to jump at your throat. The internet.

This thread is either the internet hating on you or it is free, yet wise, advice regarding your assumptions about buying raw cards online. You decide.

[luciobar1980]

Everyone is taking my words and distorting them so I’ll just stop.

[vthobby]

Lucio,

What stands out to me the most (and I am being critical) is that you ask for honest opinions on your cards.......yet.........the video takes a full 80 seconds to even get to the first card...........then when you get to the Wilson, you spend a whopping 10 seconds on showing us the actual card. Well not really since you show us literally nothing significant to base our opinion on.

If you REALLY wanted our honest and subjective opinions why didn't you just re-shoot the video and actually show us something we could comment on? You admittedly tell us your camera skills were poor but you still show us the video which does not help at all.

The Wilson appears to be a very interesting card to discuss, analyze, and to give our opinions on but you don't help us at all. An Ebay page is a pretty basic tool. A nice video would have been great.

Just IMO, my 2 cents, peace,

Mike

PS In other words, your thread could have been very interesting but the tools you provided us to assist were lacking. I appreciate your effort. Nice cards BTW.

[luciobar1980]

Sorry, the video was not really meant to be a detailed look at the cards. I just thought it would be fun to show my actual reactions. I’ll post a few pics tomorrow. I’m sure there is something I’m missing on the Wilson, I should have looked over it better before sending it in for grading, I admit that.

[vthobby]

Ok, this is my opinion on the Wilson only.

Without any other defects like OC, Staining, Print Defects etc......,this card is a straight 6. I think you thought the same thing in the video?

However, it does have some slight staining on the borders, and the print dot on the front up top to the right. Print circle? I understand that 1933 Goudey's do have these issues occasionally but to me this card is a 6 PD or a 6 ST which technically puts it 2 grades below a 6. Hence the 4 grade.

I believe if this as sent to PSA it would be a 4 or a PSA 6 (ST) or PSA 6 (PD).

Now why did Probstein call it EX/MT? Because on the surface it does exhibit a strong EX/MT appearance. Of course the ST or the PD could be subjective based on personal opinion or tolerances. To each his own I guess.

Thanks for posting, Mike

[GregZakwin]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

Ok, this is my opinion on the Wilson only.

Without any other defects like OC, Staining, Print Defects etc......,this card is a straight 6. I think you thought the same thing in the video?

However, it does have some slight staining on the borders, and the print dot on the front up top to the right. Print circle? I understand that 1933 Goudey's do have these issues occasionally but to me this card is a 6 PD or a 6 ST which technically puts it 2 grades below a 6. Hence the 4 grade.

I believe if this as sent to PSA it would be a 4 or a PSA 6 (ST) or PSA 6 (PD).

Now why did Probstein call it EX/MT? Because on the surface it does exhibit a strong EX/MT appearance. Of course the ST or the PD could be subjective based on personal opinion or tolerances. To each his own I guess.

Thanks for posting, Mike

Add to that three of the four back corners have noticeable fraying without putting it under light or high magnification and on the back above the 211 there is a small bit of the top border that is flaking off.

That McCovey is nearly missing an entire border. Never gonna 6.