[hcv123]

In agreement with some previous posts and a couple of points to add:

1) I think each card needs to be evaluated based on its visual merits as Darren so greatly illustrated.
2) I think the value of qualified cards as you go down the grading chain in general goes down as a percentage of the unqualified card. Take for example the 1951 Bowman Mantle 8oc that sold for almost 70K in Heritage last night - that was about an 85% discount to an unqualified 8 which had really nice eye appeal. 6's have been in the $37K-$40K range. When we are talking very low populations, like many 9oc's and some 8oc's, I don't think the "2-grade price drop" necessarily applies.
3) Not all qualifiers are equal. to me an M/C is the worst as it visually detracts the most from the card. Some "MK's" are worse than others. St's are sometimes near impossible to see (other times - glaring). there are varying degrees of o/c's.

While certainly the market has spoken and it makes a lot of sense that qualified cards should be valued less than unqualified cards, but similar to how "not all 8's are created equal", I think it should be thought of as a price range that varies with the eye appeal and supply of the card.