Quote:
Originally Posted by luciobar1980
If any of you are suggesting SGC just gave this card a 9.5 on a whim or because they wanted the notoriety, I think you're crazy. I guarantee that toning isn't very noticeable or significant in person. Of course when you zoom in on it at 500% actual size it's going to look worse.
|
I am suggesting, stating directly actually, that the card does not meet SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. For over twenty years the grading advocates have been touting grading because it is not based on subjective eye appeal, but revealing the true flaws in a card, which is why many mint looking cards can get a 4, for that funky wrinkle you can’t even see normally. The stain does not seem to be in accord with SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. Even if we pretend the stain does not exist, the centering does not meet the published standard either. It is not my opinion that these defects should keep a card from being called a 9.5, it is SGC’s published opinion that these defects are not Mint+. And yet they gave it this grade anyway, ignoring their own standards, along with a marketing quote from that bastion of honesty (as I have learned from this thread), Mr. Mint. I do not know why they chose to do so.
We all know a Dale Coogan I submit with no backstory, marketing, or spin and the exact same damage would not get a 9.5.