Near Mint?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott 

Do Old Judge cards get leniency because they are so old? This has nothing to do with Brooks as a seller - I'm just looking for opinions, mostly on the upper-right hand corner.

I remember we spotted another high-graded SGC OJ recently that had a spot of paper loss, so I'm wondering what's up with this.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2731132666&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebaylargephotohosting

[Archive]

Posted By: John(z28jd)

I cant see it on my computer Scott,wheres the paper loss? I've seen it go both ways on Old Judges,sometimes theyre leniant sometimes theyre not....I personally dont think they should be leniant because if they grade every OJ with the same standards then the highest grade ones will still be the best just lower grades.If theres no nrmt ones of a certain player people who want the best will pay the higher prices for the EX or EXMT ones.

[Archive]

Posted By: John(z28jd)

I cant see it on my computer Scott,wheres the paper loss? I've seen it go both ways on Old Judges,sometimes theyre leniant sometimes theyre not....I personally dont think they should be leniant because if they grade every OJ with the same standards then the highest grade ones will still be the best just lower grades.If theres no nrmt ones of a certain player people who want the best will pay the higher prices for the EX or EXMT ones.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Those corners are in no way NRMT. Period. They missed this one.....my guess is it should be a 60-70....depending on how it looks in person as opposed to the scan.....whomever sent it in got a very favorable grade, in my opinion.....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I agree with you guys. This is not a NrMT card. I believe that SGC places too much emphasis on the back the the card(which I assume must be fine in this case) and not enough on the front. The photo on this one looks a little faded (perhaps that is the scan) and the UR corner definitely has some wear. I have SGC60s that I would bet 9 out of 10 people on the board would prefer to this card.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

that was a reference to another card.

[Archive]

Posted By: julie

....

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Looks about an 80, though, depending on the corners. The fade could be scanner-generated.

I've noticed SGC is a grade or so lenient on most OJ's I see. The only time they were not lenient with me was on the most expensive N174 I ever sent them (John L. Sullivan), naturally.

I've noticed slight SGC "overgrading" on other photographic N cards too. The reason I "" the overgrading is that I've never felt it was fair to downgrade blank backed 19th century cards as severely as cards with printed backs for light back damage when the photos are really sharp (the same goes for Zeenuts). I understand the technical grade, but I also understand the market on these cards and I'd never buy a light "40" over a back-damaged but really sharp 20 or 30.

[Archive]

Posted By: BRPPKS

GEE SCOTT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WIYH ME AS A SELLER? YOU MEAN YOU GAVE ME A FEW DAYS OF RELIEF. IF I SELL IT UNGRADED ALL YOU RULER-EYED EXPERTS YELL TRIMMED, WITHOUT ONCE EMAILING ME AND ASKING MEASUREMENTS. IF I SELL A GRADED CARD THE GRADING COMPANY SCREWED UP, NOT ONCE ASKING ME TO PROVIDE A POSSIBLE BETTER SCAN AS THE EBAY PIC SYSTEM IS KNOWN TO DISTORT THE IMAGE.I CAUGHT GRIEF OVER THE POSSIBLE SALESMAN SAMPLE NUMBER 7 CIGAR THAT I WAS UNSURE OF AND ASKED FOR INPUT IN MY DESCRIPTION.........DID I GET ANY EMAILS FROM THE EXPERTS?...NO.......... BUT I GOT A LOT OF CHEAP SHOTS ON THIS BOARD. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM. BE A MAN/WOMAN(FOR JULIE) AND STEP UP TO THE PLATE,DON'T TRY TO SUGAR-COAT IT.THERE MUST BE HUNDREDS OF CARDS LISTED ON EBAY AND MANY THAT SATRAIN THE DEFINITIONS OF GRADING................BUT YOU ARE NOT SINGLING ME OUT.................YEAH RIGHT....CLEAN UP YOUR OWN BACK YARD FIRST SCOTT

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I started by blocking you from bidding on my auctions.