Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   About how would these cards grade? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=143799)

zljones 11-15-2011 12:05 AM

About how would these cards grade?
 
4 Attachment(s)
I was told the Hank Greenberg is in "Good" condition; however, I have concerns because of the stamp on the back. The Greenberg is crease free but there is some chipping on the front. I am torn whether this is in "Fair" or "Good" condition.

I have a hard time grading T205s myself. I won this Clarke on ebay for cheap, as if it was going as "Good" condition, but I kinda think it might be VG.

MW1 11-15-2011 12:14 AM

Clarke -- "Good" due to well-rounded corners. It also appears that there may be a few minor creases on the obverse including one near the UR corner.
Greenberg -- "Fair" due to corner wear, stamp, and back damage (I'm assuming the white marks on the front of the card are from a photographic reflection. If the white marks on the back are of a similar nature, perhaps the card would grade as high as "good").

zljones 11-15-2011 12:42 AM

The only white mark on the front that is from the photo flash is the one near the "Lou Gehrig Says...." part, the rest are the same type of wear as the back, seems like natural wear. Thanks for the input

dstraate 11-15-2011 07:59 AM

Same with above. My guess is a 1.5 for the Goudey and 2 for the T205. Too much chipping and rough corners for a 3.

bcbgcbrcb 11-15-2011 08:01 AM

Agree with the others

smtjoy 11-15-2011 08:28 AM

Nice cards, I would guess-

T205 Clarke- 40/3

Goudey Greenberg- 20/1.5 or PSA 3 (MK)

Pup6913 11-15-2011 10:26 AM

Greenburg @ a 1.5

Clarke is a 2 with pushing the limit of a 3 being possible on a really good day. Don't get your hopes up on that but be happy if it is.

MooseWithFleas 11-15-2011 02:01 PM

Didn't look at any of the posts, just tried to grade as objectively as possible.

Clarke: 2
Greenberg: 1.5

zljones 11-15-2011 04:58 PM

Thanks for all the input everyone. Looks like I paid a little too much for that Greenberg several months ago, it was listed as "Good" condition for $125, too much, o well live and I learned.

e107collector 11-15-2011 05:31 PM

I agree
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseWithFleas (Post 939813)
Didn't look at any of the posts, just tried to grade as objectively as possible.

Clarke: 2
Greenberg: 1.5

+1

Tony

Leon 11-15-2011 06:10 PM

my guess
 
Clarke: 2
Greenberg: 1.0 to 1.5

fkw 11-16-2011 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zljones (Post 939846)
Thanks for all the input everyone. Looks like I paid a little too much for that Greenberg several months ago, it was listed as "Good" condition for $125, too much, o well live and I learned.

25 years ago your RAW R320 card was often called "Good", and the T205 Clarke would be G/VG or VG by many.

3rd party grading is very conservative on purpose, and IMO they leave no room at the bottom of their scale...

Years ago a Poor card was a destroyed card (ie torn in 1/2 taped back together, hole punches, skinned backs, no borders, etc. Fair was only slightly better.

Now with 3rd party grading, you can find nice clean (vintage) cards with anything from a 4-10 grade. Even many "1's" have nice eye appeal and should never have the word "POOR" associated with them...

ie.
http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1933r319-19psa1.jpg
VG IMO



I actually think they spin a wheel sometimes to get the number they put on the slab.... ;)

zljones 11-16-2011 05:28 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Indeed I agree some "Poor" cards are indeed not poor in my book

97manoftroy 11-16-2011 05:36 PM

Great Cards Frank and Zack. #thumbsup!

iwantitiwinit 11-16-2011 05:37 PM

PSA 2 on the t205.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27 AM.