 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
08-13-2005, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Why would SGC not grade this card?
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
Leon, I agree with your post. The backs are oftentimes a very interesting part of the card but, as you correctly point out, not as significant as the front. Perhaps what should occur is that any damage to the backs of cards like these should count as only 1/2 the same damage to the front of a card when grading is done. 
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| SOLD - High-Grade 1909 Ramly (T204) - Tim Murnane HOF Rookie Card (SGC 60) | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 06-30-2008 05:21 PM |
| High Grade Sale '64 SGC 84 Yaz; '68 SGC 86 Seaver; '57 SGC 80 Yanks; '67 SGC 84 BrockFlood | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 11-23-2007 09:05 AM |
| I thought SGC didn't grade restored card? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 25 | 09-28-2005 12:32 AM |
| Will SGC grade an E103 Williams Caramel card if | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 12-31-2004 02:16 PM |
| Answer to how little of a card SGC will grade | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 08-08-2002 11:20 AM |
Hybrid Mode
