05-18-2021, 01:18 PM
|
 |
John Otto
J0hn Ot.to
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Marysville, Wa
Posts: 1,685
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins
Think about the confusion that would be added for a “PSA 7 (C)”. So, a NM card, whoops except that it’s creased? - maybe even badly - somewhere. This is bad potentially because of the range of the type of problem. How many cards raw or even graded has someone tried to describe to you as “Well, this would be mint except for…” and then of course at some point this logic becomes absurd. Yes, this Mantle would be a 9 if it were not for the missing corner and the hole through his head. Dude, who cares? So what would a PSA 7 (C) equate to in a non-qualifier world? A 3? A 2? At some point the equality-compensation math you would have to learn with additional qualifiers would just become insane. There are entirely too many people in the hobby today as it is who do not understand how to properly weigh / discount the effects of qualifiers.
Learn how to freaking grade yourself instead would be my vote…
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
Nailed it...
__________________
John Otto
1963 Fleer - 1981-90 Fleer/Donruss/Score/Leaf Complete
1953 - 1990 Topps/Bowman Complete
1953-55 Dormand SGC COMPLETE SGC AVG Score - 4.03
|