 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17
11-18-2010, 01:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Interesting Thread!
My one comment is I just feel that the TGC's should grade the clarity and registration of a card. As was mentioned above they do for non vintage and modern cards, submit some 1975 topps baseball and see how they downgrade for print marks. I just dont understand why this is not considered in OJ's and others. I have no problem with the OJ above getting an SGC 10 from back damage and I want to see that repersented, I just think its a mistake for them to not take off for lack or registration. IMO the PSA 7 above should have graded much lower just based on the fact you can hardly see the player, maybe a 3 or 4. 
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The first published hobby article, 1935....noted here | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 07-25-2007 08:43 PM |
| Hobby Retrospect | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 02-16-2007 10:10 AM |
| PSA discussion | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 103 | 05-11-2005 12:16 PM |
| Objective card grading | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 29 | 10-15-2004 09:05 AM |
| New trend on E-Bay? Selling cards rejected by grading services as such. | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 08-27-2004 11:02 AM |
Threaded Mode