Undergraded Cards

[robw1959]

Here's a fun post. In a salute to the "new" grading standards that we have all experienced as buyers and sellers, please post the card that you think is the most severely undergraded, and give your opinion of how many points under the norm it received. I'm not asking you to create your own grading standards; just go with what has already been established for the reputable grading companies over the long term, compare your graded card to those standards, and subtract the difference between what your card received and what the standards say it should have received in points.

I'll start with a card that should be hard to beat in terms of undergrading. As you can see, this '34 Goudey Hank Greenberg rookie card only got a 1.5. However, with no creasing, wrinkles, erasures, or paper loss, according to the PSA standards, I think it should have gotten a 5.5. So in my opinion my "under" points on this card would be a whopping 4 points. Now let's see your most undergraded card, and please stick to vintage.

[vthobby]

Beautiful Greenberg!

I wish they had graded Satch as high as 2.5. I totally understand the tape but the card is pack freash and has amazing eye appeal. Colors pop off the card!

Oh Well! I love it either way!

IMG_9108 copy 4.jpg

IMG_9108 copy.jpg

[G1911]

Greenberg seems overly punished for the toning. Paige looks correct to me

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by G1911

Greenberg seems overly punished for the toning. Paige looks correct to me

It's a thought that the card was downgraded due to toning, but I never have even considered that idea. In hand, this card looks much brighter and much less toned than the scans show. So if the downgrade was due to toning, it's quite harsh, as you say, because there just isn't that much toning on it. The borders also appear much brighter in hand.

[Collectorsince62]

Still mystified by this one (of one).

[Hirbonzig]

Beautiful cards that don’t deserve the lowball grade. Would be nice if the graders could put a note about why they arrived at such a grade.

[lowpopper]

Multiple horizontal creases

Originally Posted by G1911

Greenberg seems overly punished for the toning. Paige looks correct to me

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

Multiple horizontal creases

I don't know about that. What are you seeing that I am not seeing?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by robw1959

I don't know about that. What are you seeing that I am not seeing?

I can't say for sure that they are wrinkles but that's what they look like and what I think Greg probably sees.

012.jpg

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

Beautiful Greenberg!

I wish they had graded Satch as high as 2.5. I totally understand the tape but the card is pack freash and has amazing eye appeal. Colors pop off the card!

Oh Well! I love it either way!

Attachment 498607

Attachment 498608

Great Card Mike

[Zan]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Here's a fun post. In a salute to the "new" grading standards that we have all experienced as buyers and sellers, please post the card that you think is the most severely undergraded, and give your opinion of how many points under the norm it received. I'm not asking you to create your own grading standards; just go with what has already been established for the reputable grading companies over the long term, compare your graded card to those standards, and subtract the difference between what your card received and what the standards say it should have received in points.

I'll start with a card that should be hard to beat in terms of undergrading. As you can see, this '34 Goudey Hank Greenberg rookie card only got a 1.5. However, with no creasing, wrinkles, erasures, or paper loss, according to the PSA standards, I think it should have gotten a 5.5. So in my opinion my "under" points on this card would be a whopping 4 points. Now let's see your most undergraded card, and please stick to vintage.

Is there a wrinkle across his face and nose?

[Jobu]

My E106 Chase is probably my best candidate, a 2 that looks like a 5 and doesn't have any issues to explain the 2 that I have been able to find.

[3-2-count]

Joe, Kamm’s signature is exquisite. Beautiful card!

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Joe, Kamm’s signature is exquisite. Beautiful card!

Yes and Uncle Jimmy's collection too!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Jobu

My E106 Chase is probably my best candidate, a 2 that looks like a 5 and doesn't have any issues to explain the 2 that I have been able to find.

It looks very nice. What is that mark on the back above the O in AMERICAN CARAMEL CO? Is it a scratch?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Jobu]

That, and the stuff between American and Leagues look to me to be standard card patina - not marks or scratches.

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

It looks very nice. What is that mark on the back above the O in AMERICAN CARAMEL CO? Is it a scratch?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

I feel this is at least one grade too low.

[Gorditadogg]

Reverse grading is also fun. I don't know if you can see the crease that goes through this card, from Yogi's hands through Hank's chest and then under Mick's chin. Even without the crease, that is a lot of corner wear for a 4.

[robw1959]

That's an incredible looking 2!

Originally Posted by Jobu

My E106 Chase is probably my best candidate, a 2 that looks like a 5 and doesn't have any issues to explain the 2 that I have been able to find.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Zan

Is there a wrinkle across his face and nose?

There is something going on there.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Zan

Is there a wrinkle across his face and nose?

I don't think so. It looks too straight of a line to me, like maybe a small horizontal print line there?

[joejo20]

This auto is a 10 if you ask me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by joejo20

This auto is a 10 if you ask me.

The beauty of the signature doesn't play in an auto grade. The reason it got an 8, I would say, are the gaps in the tail of the W and the m.
And that's one reason many collectors don't care about the auto grade, or will ask PSA to just put AUTO AUTH if the auto doesn't receive a 10.

[lowpopper]

Wow @ that auto. Inkwell for days

Originally Posted by joejo20

This auto is a 10 if you ask me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Here's a fun post. In a salute to the "new" grading standards that we have all experienced as buyers and sellers, please post the card that you think is the most severely undergraded, and give your opinion of how many points under the norm it received. I'm not asking you to create your own grading standards; just go with what has already been established for the reputable grading companies over the long term, compare your graded card to those standards, and subtract the difference between what your card received and what the standards say it should have received in points.

I'll start with a card that should be hard to beat in terms of undergrading. As you can see, this '34 Goudey Hank Greenberg rookie card only got a 1.5. However, with no creasing, wrinkles, erasures, or paper loss, according to the PSA standards, I think it should have gotten a 5.5. So in my opinion my "under" points on this card would be a whopping 4 points. Now let's see your most undergraded card, and please stick to vintage.

When I see a nice looking 1.5, I immediately look for the crease / wrinkle. Almost always the reason, in my experience. I think that I see one horizontally across Greenberg's face, matching with others observations. I love 1.5's like this, great looking card for a nice discount!

[LOUCARDFAN]

The very light tape stain on the back kept this at a PSA 2. I have seen PSA 5’s that don’t look near as nice.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by LOUCARDFAN

The very light tape stain on the back kept this at a PSA 2. I have seen PSA 5’s that don’t look as nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely a nice 2.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Andrew1975]

I guess you could argue that my red Cobb has a correct technical grade due to residue on the back, but I don’t think it would look out of place in at least a 1.5 holder… Likewise with my E95 Plank, back staining and a tiny defect on the front left border account for the grade, but I’ve seen 4s that don’t look nearly as good…








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

I no longer own this card, but I bought it as an SGC 5, busted it (when this picture was taken...) and then sent it to them again and they gave it a 6.5.

Definite NM qualities in terms of eye-appeal; what confused the grade I think was a tiny but definitely there scratch / light cut in the surface of the upper right corner. I don't think you can even see it here. Needless to say, I benefited from the 1.5 bump when I sold it at the height of the bubble. I chalked the discrepancy up to SGC's internal turmoil at the time, and what must have been a lot of newbie graders to train.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk