1933 Goudey Gehrig

[Matt]

Originally Posted by petecld

He told me he remembers being told it was an issue with the number of letter characters they could use. "Very Good 3" couldn't fit in the second line which is why they went to using grade abbreviations like "VG" and "EX".

But... they didn't use "VG" here - they used "Good." To believe that story, we'd have to swallow that no one back then thought of using "VG" as an abbreviation when they recognized "Very Good" wouldn't fit and decided they should proceed with a "Good 2" and a "Good 3" as a result. VG has been a mainstream hobby grading term a lot longer then PSA has been around. I'm not buying. This is all aside form the fact that the card looks like it took a swim in the toilet and wouldn't qualify for a 3 anyway.

[petecld]

Well if, "Very Good 3" didn't fit that does mean they didn't use it at all. They still had to use something for the "3" grade level so all you saw on the label was "Good 3." They always had "Good" for "2" and I'm sure there are labels with "Good 2" but as you can see the confusion it causes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This card is legit. Very early on, early in the long bar code days, for a short while, PSA at the lower grades used a different scale.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This card is legit. Very early on, early in the long bar code days, for a short while, PSA at the lower grades used a different scale.

Really? This is news - what was the lower scale? 1-P, 2-F, 3-G? What about above that? if we continue, 4 is VG, 5 is VG-EX, 6 is EX...
I do find this option more plausible then the one Pete mentions above.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I had a 34 Gehrig that was a VG 4. I think they had omitted the VG EX grade and it then went to EX 5.

[Leon]

I will post a pic of a PSA VG 4 later as the person sent me a scan. He sent me this original message....

"FYI, the Gehrig is a legitimate 1933 World Wide Gum card ("English Only" variation). And the PSA holder and label are also legit and untampered. In the very early days of PSA, the scale was as follows:

1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Very Good
5 = Excellent

There wasn't a VG-EX grade. This was changed shortly after to:

1 = Poor to Fair
2 = Good
3 = Very Good
4 = Very Good to Excellent
5 = Excellent
"

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Leon

I will post a pic of a PSA VG 4 later as the person sent me a scan. He sent me this original message....

"FYI, the Gehrig is a legitimate 1933 World Wide Gum card ("English Only" variation). And the PSA holder and label are also legit and untampered. In the very early days of PSA, the scale was as follows:

1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Very Good
5 = Excellent

There wasn't a VG-EX grade. This was changed shortly after to:

1 = Poor to Fair
2 = Good
3 = Very Good
4 = Very Good to Excellent
5 = Excellent
"

Yes. This is correct.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Leon

I will post a pic of a PSA VG 4 later as the person sent me a scan. He sent me this original message....

"FYI, the Gehrig is a legitimate 1933 World Wide Gum card ("English Only" variation). And the PSA holder and label are also legit and untampered. In the very early days of PSA, the scale was as follows:

1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Very Good
5 = Excellent

There wasn't a VG-EX grade. This was changed shortly after to:

1 = Poor to Fair
2 = Good
3 = Very Good
4 = Very Good to Excellent
5 = Excellent
"

That makes more sense to me than this being the result of a textual limitation on the slab. Never knew about this - I wonder how often these cards surface and if PSA makes an effort to reholder them for free given the confusion they cause.

[fkw]

I like the card, its a nice "2", but should be removed from that strange slab as soon as possible...

[Matt]

Originally Posted by petecld

Well if, "Very Good 3" didn't fit that does mean they didn't use it at all. They still had to use something for the "3" grade level so all you saw on the label was "Good 3." They always had "Good" for "2" and I'm sure there are labels with "Good 2" but as you can see the confusion it causes.

Why wouldn't they use "VG 3"? Are we to believe no one thought to abbreviate Very Good as VG? That having "Good 2" and "Good 3" was better then having "Good 2" and "VG 3?"