December 2023 Pickup Thread

[jchcollins]

Finally have these back in hand this afternoon. My Priority package from SGC had sat at the USPS distribution center 30 miles up the road for three solid days, and I was starting to get worried...

The Aaron I thought could have been a 1, but it has tape and paper loss on the back. Still a great looking card that now looks even better in a tux. The Ryans are part of my early base card run that I've been meaning to get holdered up forever. The '71 Seaver is my head scratcher for this order: Part of an EX-MT+ overall set I bought a couple years ago; I thought that one was going to be at least an 8 with a shot at higher. Corners are pack fresh to put it mildly. Oh well. Love them all!







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Wow, nice stuff!!!
Real hard to find a 1969 Ryan so nicely centered. Well done. And you're preaching to the choir about the 1971s. Is there a single human being who has ever gotten the 'correct' and deserved grade on a 1971 card??? I think not. Those black bordered bee-yotches are a nightmare for all submitters.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Wow, nice stuff!!!

Real hard to find a 1969 Ryan so nicely centered. Well done. And you're preaching to the choir about the 1971s. Is there a single human being who has ever gotten the 'correct' and deserved grade on a 1971 card??? I think not. Those black bordered bee-yotches are a nightmare for all submitters.

Thanks Elms.

Attached below is a pic of the back of the '69 Ryan. PD to say the least, and he also has print dots on his sleeves on the front. But agreed, the centering and also the lack of the "missing pixel" on the front made me go for this one anyway when I bought it raw a few years ago. Also the image is focused. All too often on the '69 - Nolan has lipstick on or multiple sets of bushy eyebrows. I think if this card didn't have the PD it would have been at least a 5.5.

Couldn't agree with you more on the '71's. And sorry, but no grading company - including SGC - knows what do do with them. This Seaver is considerably sharper than a duplicate '71 Clemente #630 that I sent them in the previous order. They gave that card a 7.

Either way I will take it, these cards are all for my PC.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Thanks Elms.

Attached below is a pic of the back of the '69 Ryan. PD to say the least, and he also has print dots on his sleeves on the front. But agreed, the centering and also the lack of the "missing pixel" on the front made me go for this one anyway when I bought it raw a few years ago. Also the image is focused. All too often on the '69 - Nolan has lipstick on or multiple sets of bushy eyebrows. I think if this card didn't have the PD it would have been at least a 5.5.

Couldn't agree with you more on the '71's. And sorry, but no grading company - including SGC - knows what do do with them. This Seaver is considerably sharper than a duplicate '71 Clemente #630 that I sent them in the previous order. They gave that card a 7.

Either way I will take it, these cards are all for my PC.

Plus, there's the additional charm of him pretending to have just thrown the ball...yet, it's still sitting in his mitt. What a silly goose!!!

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Nice stuff, John!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Plus, there's the additional charm of him pretending to have just thrown the ball...yet, it's still sitting in his mitt. What a silly goose!!!

#Deleted. Speaking of silly gooses, apparently I can't remember what I post from one night to the next morning.