Seeking perspectives on an SGC grade

[ClementeFanOh]

playball-

I will begin by saying your card is a beauty, I'd be proud to own it. As some
on these boards know, I have consistently expressed a preference for SGC
over PSA for prewar, and I continue to hold that belief.

I am astounded your card didn't receive the 2 grade. Per the standard, it is
a 2. I own 2 prewar cards that are lesser value than yours, yet still desirable,
and in the same grade neighborhood. One is an E98 Bill Dahlen SGC 1.5 due
to reverse paper loss that is minor. The other is a 1915 CJ Nap Rucker
graded SGC 30 due to paper loss that is truly negligible; in fact, you have
to look hard to find it. Your WaJo appears better than both of mine.

I wish there was some way to factor the size/surface area of these
apparently "devastating" flaws (not what I'd call them, but how the major
TPGs seem to view them). Hard to tell from your photo of course, but it
looks like the written "8" covers no more than 1% of the card's back. I'd
rather own a card with the "8" defect than one bisected by a horizontal
crease that fully penetrates one side, yet which bears a 2.5 grade. The
hypothetical crease would be easily more distracting than the "8", yet still
will often pull a higher grade. Although it's an unscientific phrase, these
discrepancies don't "feel right".

The good news- if you wish to call it that- is that PSA would have further
wrecked your WaJo with an obnoxious "MK" qualifier that would have
fouled up the card's value even more.

Trent King