2 1964 Topps Pete Rose. Which would you prefer?

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

I like the centering and overall appearance of the 7.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The centering through my eyes is off on both. The Richness of the "REDS" on the 6 has me picking that one all day long.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by hcv123

The centering through my eyes is off on both. The Richness of the "REDS" on the 6 has me picking that one all day long.

To each his own. Two nice cards...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by hcv123

The centering through my eyes is off on both. The Richness of the "REDS" on the 6 has me picking that one all day long.

It's funny...the "Richness" is actually because the card is terribly out of register and, frankly, quite flawed technically.
It's poor printing--that PSA seems to not understand, as well--that creates that effect. The NM 7 is properly focused and the plates are tight. It's interesting that collectors like poorly registered cards; but some do! I can't stand blurry or off-centered cards. To each, his own. The hobby is great like that.

The card certainly does not appear "problematic" or trimmed and I happen to agree that folks are WAAAAAY to quick to start the "Altered" commentary. It's your right to do so, but it's silly. PSA, and others, certainly miss some. There are obviously altered cards floating around, but it's not the epidemic proportion the doomsayer would suggest.

Try this...trim up a few of your cards. Film it. Document it. Submit the cards and see what happens. That's a post I would enjoy.

[Phil68]

Lucio,
How important is a '64 Rose to you? If it's a mid-level want card, go with the least expensive (both cards are beautiful). If it's a high-level "wantlist" card, then...buy 'em both and sit on them awhile and see which you like more. It's tough to pull the trigger when you're torn. I understand that one. I'm sitting on 3 '56 NM/MT Elston Howard cards that each have different qualities. One of them I'm keeping because his lips are the "most red"...Talk about a nutjob! Lol

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Phil68

It's funny...the "Richness" is actually because the card is terribly out of register and, frankly, quite flawed technically.
It's poor printing--that PSA seems to not understand, as well--that creates that effect. The NM 7 is properly focused and the plates are tight. It's interesting that collectors like poorly registered cards; but some do! I can't stand blurry or off-centered cards. To each, his own. The hobby is great like that.

The card certainly does not appear "problematic" or trimmed and I happen to agree that folks are WAAAAAY to quick to start the "Altered" commentary. It's your right to do so, but it's silly. PSA, and others, certainly miss some. There are obviously altered cards floating around, but it's not the epidemic proportion the doomsayer would suggest.

Try this...trim up a few of your cards. Film it. Document it. Submit the cards and see what happens. That's a post I would enjoy.

I agree with you. All of the quick conclusions here of "oh everyone knows it's trimmed" (when something doesn't appear practically perfect in the holder, or an edge could be a little off) has stood out to me too since I joined.

Obviously altering has been outed as more of a problem than most would have expected, but these exaggerations like "oh I know this is obviously short" and "half of the cards in existence are trimmed" seem more like anger and frustration spilling out than anything else. I'd imagine there are plenty of slight diamond cut issues and factory differences that often account for an initial appearance of minuscule edge or size variations