|
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Eye appeal is subjective, no question about it. But so is grading. Why not look at the total picture? Seems reasonable to me.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
To me, if grading really was subjective, it would be unpredictable. I think SGC is quite predictable.
__________________
Galleries and Articles about T206 Player Autographs www.SignedT206.com www.instagram.com/signedT206/ @SignedT206 |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi JP,
Based on PSA's own grading standards, the Old Mill should have received a PSA 2. The inconsistency is what drives us crazy sometimes. Ron |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
SGC is pretty consistent. That's why I use them almost exclusively.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
PRO is consistent, a 10 everytime!
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Condolences, something is a miss on that second card grade.
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Unless its a vintage trimmed card. Then it gets a 9.
|
![]() |
|
|