|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Anyone else find it odd that some instances of added color only merit note as a (MK) qualifier while others reduce a card to 'A' status -- especially when, on purposely altered cards, the marks are usually less obtrusive than accidental markings? I guess it all depends on where the mark happens to be. If it's strategically placed in a matching color and is hard to see it's bad. If it's occurred randomly and easy to spot it's merely a footnote on the grade.
Not passing judgement of the legitimacy/acceptability of doctored OR marked cards, just that I find it to be sort of a double standard among TPGs that one form is OK while the other doesn't even merit a grade. They're both instances of foreign matter being applied to a card. It's as if the graders are assuming and grading the intent rather than the actual condition.
__________________
In progress -------------------------- 1970K NMMT 56/75 (75%) 1971T NM+ 498/752 (66%) 1954B EXMT+ 82/225 (36%) 1975T NMMT 207/660 (31%) 1968T NM 173/598 (29%) 1969T NM 127/664 (19%) 1971OPC NM 108/752 (14%) |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hobby question bowman and topps question 1950 to 1953 | Bigdah | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 12-20-2016 06:55 PM |
1955 Topps Trivia Question - Updated with Question #2 | toppcat | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 9 | 01-03-2012 07:51 PM |
SGC grading question (possible dumb question) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 09-08-2006 12:36 AM |
Player question & a set question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-13-2004 06:41 PM |