Quote:
Originally Posted by deweyinthehall
I've noticed the same thing about Kit Young - when I was younger I always saw his adds, but never was into mail order. Now that I'm able to collect more seriously, I went back to him because, well "king of the commons" and all. Saw a lot of cards which looked mis graded (and priced accordingly!)
|
"King of the Commons" was actually Bill Henderson, but same type of dealer and they came out of the same era. Bill is either retired or dead; I went googling for him a while back out of sheer curiosity, but didn't find anything. Yeah, unfortunately the same type of stuff: Those guys got to where they would call anything EX, so long as there wasn't a noticeable crease. I get it based on how raw grading worked in the 1980's and earlier; this is the era I grew up in the hobby with. Unfortunately whether for right or wrong 25 years later, standards change. Yes, a card can be "below EX" with just corner problems and no creases. Happens all the time. Earlier this year, I was in a bit of a hurry and pulled the trigger on a '63 Koufax on eBay from Kit because it was centered. Advertised as "EX". The great centering aside, when the card arrived in the mail - it's probably a 3.5 at best. There is just too much corner wear on the full bleed borders for me to call it EX without lying to myself. Yes, my fault for being in a hurry - and it's still a nice enough card. But point being, this is how some of those guys grade still.