Should be interesting CSG 52 Topps Mays

[bcbgcbrcb]

Forgetting about the holders themselves, the PSA 1 card for comparison presents far inferior to the CSG graded card. Rightfully so, the PSA card should sell for substantially less and I bet it would and it’s not because the other card is in a 2.5 holder.

Looking at things from the viewpoint of a grading company that bases it’s overall grade on the 4 sub-grades mindset (as Beckett and CSG do), the final grade can only be a half grade higher than the lowest sub-grade unless there is a very significant difference in sub-grades with the lowest being far worse than the others. In that case, the final grade can be one full grade higher than the lowest sub-grade. The seller’s pics are poor but I would estimate that the corners on this card would grade around a 3, edges around a 3/4, centering around a 2 (keep in mind they don’t have qualifiers such as MC, O/C, etc.) and surface a 1/1.5 for the creasing/scuffing but no significant paper loss. So based on the sub-grades, a 1.5 would be more than reasonable and on a good day, a 2.0 does not seem out of the realm of possibility.

Although they don’t all report their individual findings publicly like Beckett and now CSG on their flips, all of the TPG’s are using these same four facets to grade cards. I can see where the eye test might lead one to look at this card and say it looks like a 1 but in reality, the technical grade should be a bit higher based on the somewhat more positive traits that it does have. Many times we like to present a card when we are selling it as looking much better than it’s technical grade, right? In this case, the technical grade might appear high based on the overall presentation of the card but is not far off based on the sub-grade weights given. Is it a half-grade too high, maybe, but we shouldn’t be badmouthing a grader for a half-point more or less. None of us are perfect, are we?