What is the highest ever graded Old Judge card?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

SGC's grading back in the early days was much more forgiving that it has been the past 10+ years.

I think that they (tacitly) considered the set/issue and curbed the grading standards accordingly. PSA not so much but certainly a little.

I think SGC is worse today than in the past when it comes to grading OJs. I've received OJs graded by SGC with the new holder and label that I'm almost certain have alterations (reback or trim).

I have a couple PSA graded OJs that have been assigned numerical grades even though the Goodwin ad at the bottom has been trimmed off.

The only thing SGC is doing good with OJs is that they are putting the pose number on the flip. Other than that, I think they're grading of OJs has not improved at all, and neither has PSA.

None of the TPGs seems to have a clue about grading OJs, let alone anything else. Aren't the TPGs supposed to KNOW how to DETECT alterations to provide hobbyist with a subjective opinion that is supposed to protect the collector. Well, the do a shittttty job of it. TPG subjectivity is horrible and collectors are a bunch plastic addicted junkies that can't get enough of being screwed over.

Someone please pull the soap box from beneath my feet so the TPG noose can do it's job.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Fred

I think SGC is worse today than in the past when it comes to grading OJs. I've received OJs graded by SGC with the new holder and label that I'm almost certain have alterations (reback or trim).

I have a couple PSA graded OJs that have been assigned numerical grades even though the Goodwin ad at the bottom has been trimmed off.

The only thing SGC is doing good with OJs is that they are putting the pose number on the flip. Other than that, I think they're grading of OJs has not improved at all, and neither has PSA.

None of the TPGs seems to have a clue about grading OJs, let alone anything else. Aren't the TPGs supposed to KNOW how to DETECT alterations to provide hobbyist with a subjective opinion that is supposed to protect the collector. Well, the do a shittttty job of it. TPG subjectivity is horrible and collectors are a bunch plastic addicted junkies that can't get enough of being screwed over.

Someone please pull the soap box from beneath my feet so the TPG noose can do it's job.

Good points!

There are certain cards/sets that is seems useless to ever have graded, for one reason or another. S74 silks are one such set, and I would argue that OJ cards belong in that same group. Seems the TPGs don't have very good, consistent standards to begin with, and in regard to certain cards/sets the need for authentication itself seems unnecessary. I've really not seen anyone able to create a really good fake or counterfeit S74 silk, or a fake OJ card. And for certain other sets it seems totally futile as well. Like with 1921 Herpolsheimer or 1904 Allegheny Card Co. cards. There's only one of each and every card in those sets that exist, so what difference would it make how they are graded, they are all 1 of 1's, and would be the highest graded of that player's card every time. And with OJs, the way that ALL the TPGs seem to totally ignore the condition/clarity of the photo images on them is just totally bizarre and senseless.

Experienced collectors of any such sets really don't need a TPG to tell them how nice their cards/items. And the same can probably be said for sets that are very rare to begin with. In truth, the better case/need for grading is more appropriate IMO for those sets where there are lots and lots of those particular cards out there, like with the T206 or Goudey sets. Not really as necessary, and maybe desirable as well, for the rarer, more obscure sets that exist.

[Leon]

OJ grading is a crapshoot. Serious OJ collectors (I dabble) aren't as worried about the number on the flip as they are the aesthetics of the card.

[Mozzie22]

What's the story on the pack pulled O.J? Love to hear the story behind it.