|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If your luck is as poor as mine, it may come back ALT / TRIMMED. I had an Aaron RC in PSA 5. Sent it back for review and poss. bump. Came back as noted above. Good luck is all I can offer!
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
i wouldnt think most CJ collectors care so much about the slab...why not SGC?
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
That's a tough break. Did they give you the option of having the card returned to you as it was before they reviewed it?
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
So inconsistent. This is truly an issue where you "buy the card, not the holder."
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
We should have group prayers for those about to send in cards.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CJ's
Yes and no. Not everyone lives by the philosophy of buying the card not the holder. I feel 9 times out of 10 someone is gonna pay what the market value is for the numerical grade not how the card looks. It would be different had the exact same card not been graded a 4 previously. Several hundreds of dollars difference is so called "value".
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
With so few 1914 CJs floating around, I would argue that people pay for the holder and numerical grade, not the card inside.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Based on the centering and corner wear as well as the surface flaw/damage that runs through the "G" in "Kings," I would say the card is graded just right.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
If we are trying to compare resunes
I've had well over 20000 vintage cards graded. As I stated earlier eye appeal is excellent on the card that is not the same as technical grade I agree that it looks like a 7 from 1992-2000 but both psa and sgc have tightens their standards since then looks properly graded.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Without seeing the back of the CJ I like the OP's chances it comes back at least in VG. 2 seems harsh. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
So here's my take:
1) PSA forced a downgrade and should have paid off the OP with cash to cover the difference in values. 2) OP should NOT resubmit in holder for review. Either crack out or leave as is. 3) Card is awesome. "tampered" in the OP made me think the card was determined tampered (maybe an erasure, which would be a two-point drop from the four as instead of 4(MK)? 4) My weighted average if resubmitted *raw* is a 4.5
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Update
Just received the update that PSA bumped it to a 2.5. Guaranteed to be the best 2.5 out there. I will post pics when it arrives.
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In that case doesn't PSA have to give you the price difference?
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Not if you crack it out.
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Psa
It was never cracked out. I sent them the card still in the holder. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I understand and believe you when you say your case wasn't tampered. Yours is a special situation. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PSA Review | cardsnstuff | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 09-24-2016 07:39 AM |
Any luck with a PSA 'Review'? | Kzoo | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 21 | 07-24-2015 10:18 PM |
2014 In Review | Joe_G. | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 12-28-2014 07:32 AM |
55,56 topps raw review FS | zachclose21 | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 4 | 06-05-2013 07:44 PM |
PSA review question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 06-01-2007 11:28 PM |