Does this Old Judge deserve a SGC 40grade?

[D. Bergin]

The grade is definitely debatable, but if anything I think it serves as an example that you should always see a card before you buy it, regardless of the grade.

Even if the grade is technically correct, many buyers would obviously have buyers remorse for paying an SGC 40 price on this card once they had it in hand, if they hadn't seen it ahead of time.

Disregarding the player, I've seen many Old Judge A's, 1, and 2's recently on this board alone, I would prefer to have over this card, strictly from an aesthetic sense.

Others, I am guessing wouldn't mind. It's all in ones particular tastes I guess.

[oldjudge]

The photo is not faded, but it is anything but sharp. I think blurry photos like this are very undesireable and I also believe the card is overgraded. IMHO there should be more of a tie between grade and appearance.

[barrysloate]

I agree with Jay completely. Eye appeal is virtually ignored in the grading process; and isn't that a part of what grading should be about? Besides technical considerations such as creasing and corner sharpness, how an Old Judge looks is a huge factor in its desirability, more so than with a printed card such as a T206. There are so many things that can go wrong in the photographic process, but this is not even a factor when an N172 is graded. Hate to keep harping but it is a flawed system that needs to be rethought.

[Cat]

When I first saw this card on the auction site, the first thing that struck me was the blurriness of the name and advertisement. It doesn't appear that his image is as burry as his name, etc. The cut is extremely distracting, but I think I could overlook the cut if the name and advertisement didn't give me a headache when I look at them for more than a split second.

[BCauley]

So I was at a card show today and came across this very card. I thought that it was the one that I saw in this thread but not certain until I came back to this one.

I always view cards differently in person than on the computer for some reason. In person, the card is great....other than that cut on the left. For myself anyway, it was a large distraction from the rest of the card. BUT, we all have our likes/dislikes so to each his own.

(And no, they were not selling it at the show, only had it on display for the upcoming auction.)

[Wesley]

Darren, I just assumed the blurry name and advertisement on the bottom were due to a bad scan. But now looking at the SGC label with the clear text, I think you are right.

Bill, In person, was the image or the text off-register like in the scan?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Wesley

Darren, I just assumed the blurry name and advertisement on the bottom were due to a bad scan. But now looking at the SGC label with the clear text, I think you are right.

I believe Barry came to the same conclusion earlier in the thread.

[Cat]

Originally Posted by Wesley

Darren, I just assumed the blurry name and advertisement on the bottom were due to a bad scan. But now looking at the SGC label with the clear text, I think you are right.

Bill, In person, was the image or the text off-register like in the scan?

I always look at the flip for comparison. I have picked up cards with pretty fuzzy images off of EBay with blurring in the flip and when received they were very nice. Someone had just made a terrible scan of the entire card/holder. The only savior for this card is if someone bumped the scanner while it reached the bottom portion of the card...but it doesn't look like that happened since the black insert isn't blurred.