![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks everyone for commiserating with me, I (kinda) feel better. The card does have the slight color shift or bleed along that top-right edge, but definitely no creases or other surface damage at all. I’m really disappointed with this one.
Darren |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If there's no wrinkle, then I don't understand the grade at all. The mildly sloppy registration issue should take it down a little bit, but not all the way down to a 2. I see worse 4's every single day, in both major grading slabs.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.
5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.
__________________
Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube Channel, The Stuff Of Greatness. New videos are uploaded every week... https://www.youtube.com/@tsogreatness/videos |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Darren |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Meanwhile, there's stuff like this floating around out there (this was graded July 2023) lol
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The only real exception was the 1952 Redman cards, which graded significantly below where we both thought. I was pleasantly surprised on the '55s, but my wife called those ones perfectly. We both guessed 4 on Rucker because, after thinking about it, we figured the new grader would have the fact that PSA already graded it a 2 in the back of his mind and wouldn't go too far out on a limb to disagree with that previous grade, for fear of making a mistake. The biggest problem with grading is that its all completely subjective, and the standards vary greatly from one grader to the next. They're like MLB umpires -- some are pretty good at adhering to the standards, while others are Angel Hernandez. Last edited by Ima Pseudonym; 05-16-2025 at 11:21 PM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The card companies are getting us trained - we’re trying to figure out why a card is a PSA 2 - light discoloration ? Tiny print dots ? Hidden wrinkles ?
Microscopic surface wear ? Imperfect centering ? registration ? These are all the things that used to be (& should be) allowed on 5s .. even 6s |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here is a 1967 "Topps" Mantle graded a PSA 6 with very obvious paper loss on the reverse.
I say "Topps" because the card is actually an O-pee-chee, so it was mislabeled as well.....lol. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
For that matter, a similar dynamic plays out when we are suspicious that a card has been overgraded or a submitter is getting preferential treatment from the grading companies.
__________________
Trying to wrap up my master mays set, with just a few left: 1968 American Oil left side 1971 Bazooka numbered complete panel Last edited by raulus; 05-17-2025 at 09:41 AM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Lonnie Nagel T206 : 216/520 : 41.22% |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
T206 Sale ++ Davidson ++ Tolstoi | mybuddyinc | T206 cards B/S/T | 0 | 08-25-2022 01:40 PM |
WTB: T206 Davidson Sweet Cap back | bbcard1 | T206 cards B/S/T | 0 | 07-18-2016 09:07 AM |
T206 Davidson Indianapolis SGC Fair | GrayGhost | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 06-23-2015 02:36 PM |
FS: t206 Davidson TOLSTOI SGC 50 price cut | GregMitch34 | T206 cards B/S/T | 3 | 07-31-2013 08:47 AM |
T206 BL 350 Davidson and Murray Carolina Brights | bigfish | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 08-29-2009 08:44 PM |