|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Some great looking cards being posted. This Aaron while correctly graded per PSA standards (very tiny wrinkle at the very top of card) it certainly looks under graded.
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
I love threads like this. I don't have any pre-war items that fit the bill, so here's some vintage. Some wax on the 58 Brooks. I'd put this 57 Kaline up against a lot of 8's and 9's that I've seen from that set. My 71 Kaline shows the drastic change in standards on post-war issues with challenging borders (71 Topps, 62 Topps, 55 Bowman). 10 years ago, I bet that's at least a 6, maybe a 7.
__________________
Bought from: orioles93, JK, Chstrite, lug-nut, Bartholomew_Bump_Bailey, IgnatiusJReilly, jb67, dbfirstman, DeanH3, wrm, Beck6 Sold to: Sean1125, sayitaintso, IgnatiusJReilly, hockeyhockey, mocean, wondo, Casey2296, Belfast1933, Yoda, Peter_Spaeth, hxcmilkshake, kaddyshack, OhioCardCollector, Gorditadogg, Jay Wolt, ClementeFanOh, JollyElm, EddieZ, 4reals, uyu906 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
T206 Cobbs
Here is my contribution to this thread. One which is way undergraded and the other well it is a Green, so I'll take it, but comparisons to the red? The Red was sent for review and I was told it is 2.5 because of the corners, still shaking my head....
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
I guess you could argue that my red Cobb has a correct technical grade due to residue on the back, but I don’t think it would look out of place in at least a 1.5 holder… Likewise with my E95 Plank, back staining and a tiny defect on the front left border account for the grade, but I’ve seen 4s that don’t look nearly as good…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nufcedcards/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOd...OlzJxdgP56pxvg |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Re: 58 Brooks - I'm not sure on the technical rules of wax on the reverse of cards. But the top right and bottom right corners are dinged pretty well. Given that, it's a 5 at best. Without the wax, it's one of the best looking 5's. As is, it's one of the best looking 2's.
__________________
Bought from: orioles93, JK, Chstrite, lug-nut, Bartholomew_Bump_Bailey, IgnatiusJReilly, jb67, dbfirstman, DeanH3, wrm, Beck6 Sold to: Sean1125, sayitaintso, IgnatiusJReilly, hockeyhockey, mocean, wondo, Casey2296, Belfast1933, Yoda, Peter_Spaeth, hxcmilkshake, kaddyshack, OhioCardCollector, Gorditadogg, Jay Wolt, ClementeFanOh, JollyElm, EddieZ, 4reals, uyu906 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Here is a Broad Leaf card that looks to be completely devoid of wrinkles, creases, or paper loss. The only issues I can find are a bit of staining and some excess printing of some kind along the front border area. Otherwise, it looks like a 5 to me.
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Undergraded cards
Hi all- I lack your tech expertise to upload here, so I'll just comment that
the most consistent thing I'm seeing from both PSA/SGC is brutal treatment of cards that have even the most faint creasing. I own a 71 Topps basketball Oscar Robertson that got a 4 from PSA (new label). I buy the card not the holder, so I'm happy own it- but it's grotesquely undergraded. Turns out that, if you hold it against a window at high noon and train the Hubble telescope on it just right, you can make out a wrinkle that is the size of an ant. Great... I wish slabbers would adopt the "call overturn" language from NCAA football (or is it NFL?). Unless a flaw is "clear and convincing", it doesn't count against! And, just like with those replay idiots in the booth, if it takes 3 minutes and 6 camera angles to maybe find a problem, it is NOT "clear and convincing"- no flaw:!! I feel better. Trent King |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Nice BL, Rob. They may have dinged it for tobacco stains and pencil writing? Top right?
To me, grading is for Topps era cards. Here's one I got yesterday in Sterling. Not a bad card for a 3.
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades) Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you. I got it from a fine member here a couple of years ago. Regarding that mark in the upper right border area, I'm not sure if it's due to ghosting or imprinting after factory production, but I am certain it isn't a pencil, marker, or pen mark. That much I'm sure of. The grade is a real head scratcher, so anyone else can feel free to chime in with their own opinion as well. Should tobacco stains be enough to downgrade it to a "fair" condition? Well if so, then what about all of those multi-stained Polar Bear examples on the market that have graded much better? And it isn't just PSA being PSA either. I bought the card in an SGC 2 holder and decided to cross it over, so the 1.5 is what I wound up with.
And by the way, that Tinker card is stunning! No way should it be only a 3. Last edited by robw1959; 06-28-2022 at 11:08 PM. |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
Psa
PSA seems brutally tough on cards where their review process detects a little glue residue from scrapbook removal. If you can feel the residue with your fingers on the back of a card, you are likely to get a PSA 1 or 2, even if the card has no creases. I've had 3 cards where I've cracked them back out and I could feel some residue I hadn't noticed before. I had a couple of PSA 2's that I thought were likely to get a PSA 6.
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
I no longer own this card, but I bought it as an SGC 5, busted it (when this picture was taken...) and then sent it to them again and they gave it a 6.5.
Definite NM qualities in terms of eye-appeal; what confused the grade I think was a tiny but definitely there scratch / light cut in the surface of the upper right corner. I don't think you can even see it here. Needless to say, I benefited from the 1.5 bump when I sold it at the height of the bubble. I chalked the discrepancy up to SGC's internal turmoil at the time, and what must have been a lot of newbie graders to train. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Bowman / Topps Cubs team sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 07-05-2022 at 09:06 AM. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Coming soon to an auction near you.
__________________
Check out https://www.thecollectorconnection.com Always looking for consignments 717.327.8915 We sell your less expensive pre-war cards individually instead of in bulk lots to make YOU the most money possible! and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thecollectorconnectionauctions |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Not sure how I missed this thread the first time. Some of you posted some great examples of cards appearing 2 grades nicer than their assessed grade...Leon's Cobb, the 57 Kaline and the 54 Aaron 4 are a few that come to mind.
My frustration with the inconsistency in grade and appearance is when no matter how much I look at the cards prior to grading and after grading I cannot figure out why it graded as it did. The assumption is that I missed something which I just cannot believe is the case every time. Scott, the 49 Paige is a great looking example but I think it is graded right. The two top corners and there is a tiny wrinkle on the right edge just above Paige's shoulder.
__________________
( h @ $ e A n + l e y |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is this undergraded? | JTysver | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 2 | 09-21-2016 08:23 AM |
Is it just me or do these seem undergraded ??? | Joshchisox08 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 10-31-2015 06:33 PM |
Undergraded Cards: Show Yours | GasHouseGang | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 25 | 02-02-2014 12:30 PM |
Undergraded??? | wolfdogg | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 02-15-2013 06:51 AM |
Undergraded? | Chicago206 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 21 | 03-25-2010 01:10 AM |