Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Is it just me, or is sometimes the lower graded card BETTER looking?? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=173223)

bobbyw8469 07-29-2013 09:26 PM

Is it just me, or is sometimes the lower graded card BETTER looking??
 
Wanted to compare these two and get opinions. You would think the higher graded card would be deemed "superior" and worth more money than the lower graded card. Doesn't seem so in this instance. Did PSA just overgrade one and undergrade the other? Or are the grades spot on?

http://img2.sellersourcebook.com/use.../@@_img898.jpg

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1952-Jackie-R...GQ!~~60_57.JPG

Leon 07-29-2013 09:29 PM

Backs?

Bestdj777 07-29-2013 09:34 PM

The grades are probably accurate. The top has significantly more creases than the bottom. I don't recall what PSA's grading metric is at this point, but I'd venture to say that accounted for the grade difference. The top one is definitely more aesthetically pleasing though.

bobbyw8469 07-29-2013 09:34 PM

The 1.5....

http://img2.sellersourcebook.com/use...1375155233.jpg

and the 2....

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1952-Jackie-R...49g~~60_57.JPG

pepis 07-29-2013 09:49 PM

Grading companies just don't have any respect for eye appeal even know
it is the most important thing for true collectors.

Zach Wheat 07-29-2013 10:45 PM

52 Robinson
 
Wow nice 1.5. I agree the 1.5 certainly has more eye appeal.

Z Wheat

David W 07-30-2013 12:23 PM

Well.... it is a 1.5 vs a 2, so the technical grade is not that much different, so you could easily have a nicer looking 1.5, depending on where the creases are, marks on back, any fading of the picture, etc.....

It probably happens a lot actually

Paul S 07-30-2013 12:29 PM

The 2 has all that surface "scuffing" on the front. What would you all choose if there were no grades? Scuffing over creases or a few more creases over scuffing?

vintagebaseballcardguy 07-30-2013 12:41 PM

Personally, I'd go for the 1.5 with a few more creases. That scuffing ruins it for me as it adversely impacts the eye appeal.

darkhorse9 07-30-2013 01:48 PM

The corners on the 1.5 do it for me. No way I could be satisfied with the corners and eye appeal of that 2.0

MattyC 07-30-2013 05:16 PM

I long ago lost count of how many times I preferred a lower grade to a higher grade card-- price not even being an issue. Especially when a back problem drops a card to low grade, versus a terribly OC card in a much higher holder.

Too often collectors let these grading companies tell them what is "better." Truth is we grade the graders when we choose what to buy. I'd take the better image all day no matter what some label says.

sflayank 07-30-2013 05:23 PM

robinson
 
why is the back of one whitish and the other dark grey?
scan bad?

bobbyw8469 07-30-2013 05:46 PM

Quote:

why is the back of one whitish and the other dark grey?
scan bad?
No...I thought it was normal to see different colored backs on the 1952 Topps. Maybe someone familiar with the set can chime in?

the 'stache 07-30-2013 09:23 PM

It's not just you, Robert. The TPGs are giving technical grades. They are not considering eye appeal.

I'll take a card with eye appeal and a lower technical grade over a card with a higher technical grade, and less eye appeal any day of the week.

steve B 07-31-2013 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 1164750)
No...I thought it was normal to see different colored backs on the 1952 Topps. Maybe someone familiar with the set can chime in?

Yes, many series come on different cardboard. That's common for all the 50's sets and even some 60's. I didn't know High number 52s had the difference too. Probably because I only have one high number.

The 1.5 has a texture that makes me think water damage, but I'd probably go for the 1.5 as well.

Steve B


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:58 PM.