 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2
03-23-2010, 01:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Look at the m on the back in piedmont, could be ink added or a small gouge in the back, something happened there that I think dropped this to a 1.
|
|
#3
03-23-2010, 01:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
That Devlin looks good to me.
 Seriously, the grade is appropriate. There is either paste or glue residue on the reverse. SGC kills a card with residue and will not grade it much above the assigned grade. Last edited by Jacklitsch; 03-23-2010 at 01:59 PM.
|
|
#4
03-23-2010, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Impossible ... are you saying .....
That graders are capable of Undergrading, or Overgrading a card?
Isn't that what they use to say about some dealers in the early '80's? The graders were suppose to eliminate that, or something to that effect. The only difference that I see is ... the graders are great with corners, and sides, BUT some dealers, and collectors are better at Authentications. Is it possible, that the reason why cards were cheaper during the non grading days ... was because we didn't have a middleman Undergrading, or Overgrading our cards?  Just a thought. Joe P.
|
|
#5
03-23-2010, 04:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I bought an Emmitt Smith graded a Gem Mint 10 by some grading company i cant remember, and when i received it, it was 70-30 centering at best.. i would have given it a 7 myself.
__________________
"There is no such thing as over educated! It is better to be quiet and thought of as a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!!
|
|
#6
03-23-2010, 07:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
When I got this back from SGC I was absolutely shocked. I couldn't understand why it should be graded 20 - Fair. Started to look a little closer and there's some paper loss on Mel Harder's shoulder in the white uniform just above his name. I never noticed it before the card was graded.
|
|
#7
03-23-2010, 08:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
That's an awesome looking 4 in 1 Kevin,,way nicer than the grade given.
Clayton
|
|
#8
03-23-2010, 09:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Back residue
As others have said, SGC is particularly specific and harsh - yet relatively consistent - about residue on the back.
This was graded May 2006, and while it holds no candle to John's Devlin (stunner!) it was knocked to the same grade for likely the same reason. The tape residue is only noticeable to the naked eye when tilted to the light - it is much more noticeable in the scan. 
__________________
T207's - Sale/Trade Info T207 image collections @ ImageEvent. T207 Master/Master - stopped at 676/705 - 96%..
|
|
#9
03-23-2010, 09:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ouch Mike that hurts mine is the same thing residue only seen when held at an angle..
Super looking card Mike!
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Undergraded???....lets see 'em | wolfdogg | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 31 | 12-01-2009 09:38 AM |
| WTT: HUGE tradelist of T205, T206, T207 & E90-1 | marcdelpercio | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 9 | 08-15-2009 10:43 AM |
| For Sale: 1930 Baguer Chocolate Joe McCarthy HOF (SGC 10) UNDERGRADED!!! | bcbgcbrcb | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 06-22-2009 06:17 AM |
| Truly undergraded or trimmed? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 05-15-2008 09:31 AM |
| SOLD - 1949 Bowman Satchell Paige HOF RC (PSA 1) UNDERGRADED!!! | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 10-25-2007 04:26 AM |
Hybrid Mode
