![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I just hope "Hole" doesn't become a qualifier. I would hate to see what the flip would show with an Authentic card and a Hole qualifier
![]()
__________________
An$on Lyt!e |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
We really don't need a .5 IMO. I mean where does it end? Then many .5s will look drastically different, etc. Leave the 1, the rest is in the eye of the beholder.
I could see a PH Pinhole designation though as a really nice example of a card with a small pinhole is wayyy preffered (for me) over a beat up 1. PH Qualifier, easy peasy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Has Beckett ever give out a 0.5? They give 0.5 on subgrades.
would quad 0.5 subgrades yield a 0.5 or would they just not grade it? I need the answer...It’s gonna bug me until I find out. And yes, a pinhole (PH) would need a clear definition. If the card has any indentations from a thumb tack it would not qualify IMO. And to get super abstract, the “hole” question for an Authentic is a good one. What’s the biggest hole we could put in a card and still get it slabbed authentic. Fun contest coming soon. Lol
__________________
EBAY STORE: ROOKIE-PARADE |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This would be a contender, but I'm not paying for it to sit somewhere for a year to find out.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm thinking:
1: POOR+ : Poor, complete card but with nice eye appeal 0.5: POOR: Poor, complete card in bad shape Authentic: Card that is missing parts or has alterations Saying that, for the registry, Authentic is already given 0.5 points, so it pretty much rules out the above. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
..the front centering is in the "3-ish" area..... "0.5 centering would be more towards 100-0 ?? .. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Brian |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hmm... so the centering would get it more than an "A"? Even with the "small "hole?
Last edited by steve B; 08-29-2018 at 11:04 AM. Reason: fixed typo |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I had to go look to see if they grade the Alex Gordon cutout card. They do, so even a rather large hole won't always prevent a number grade.
![]() |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
CGC does have a .5 grade with comics, FWIW.
__________________
Successful transactions on Net54 with balltrash, greenmonster66; Peter_Spaeth; robw1959; Stetson_1883; boxcar18; Blackie |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I literally laughed out loud...well done, sir.
__________________
Eric Perry Currently collecting: T206 (132/524) 1956 Topps Baseball (190/342) "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PSA new grading system??? | V117collector | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 02-25-2012 05:02 PM |
SGC Grading System | MattyFan | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 01-06-2011 07:39 PM |
Is the Grading System Broken? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 328 | 07-11-2007 10:09 PM |
One of the things that's wrong with the current grading system | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 31 | 01-28-2007 08:04 AM |
A new grading system | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 10-15-2006 12:40 PM |