Grading Question

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

No disrespect to anybody, but some of you need to educate yourselves on this matter. The card has not been tampered with. It's the same card that sold in Memory Lane 4/4/09 and the same card that sold in MileHigh 2/14/08. Here are the scans...

Memory Lane 4/4/2009...


Mile High 2/14/2008...


Same card today as it was pictured nearly six years ago. Nothing's changed. Again, no disrespect to anyone, but to infer that a Top Rated seller with over 2400 feedback (all 100% positive) is selling tampered/replaced cards is very negligent IMO.

You are right David, the cards look identical in the scans....and except for the frosting along the right edge of the 09 auction card and the ebay card being slightly different appearing in the scans, the holders look identical.

This may just be a coincidence, but also sold in the same April 09 auction was a Fisk RC that this same seller is now offering for sale also. The image from the 09 auction may have been photo shopped as several print defects on the front of the Fisk RC offered on ebay do not appear on the 09 image. On the ebay card, when the image is enlarged on ebay, there is a light scratch(could be on the case, but to appears to be on the card) to the left of Cooper's head and a small print defect on the "R" in First Base" under Cooper's image. Again, this could be coincidence and caused by the editing of the image at the auction house and/or these defects may not be evident in the 09 image because of image quality.



For me, it is still hard to believe that either the Seaver with it's cut or the Fisk with the scratches and print defects were graded as 10s. If I were ever in the market for either of these cards in that high of a grade, these two 10's would not be my choice.

I am certainly not accusing the seller of anything.....he may have received these cards as is and is acting on good faith in selling these. He may be selling these cards for a consignor for all we know.