![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
You have a very valid point, but this is why all grading no matter how detailed will always be subjective. You can have technical grading going into eye appeal as a guide, but eye appeal / extent of scruitny is always going to be subjective and will vary from person to person.
Personally, I would agree with you - no way that card should be less than a 6. But there are folks out there who will argue that no card should ever get a break on a technical flaw - even if only visible under magnification. Which collector is correct?
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
It is still under EBAY review for those interested. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That appears to be a positive sign for you....hopefully it will work out for you.
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Is it possible the ebay scan of the reverse is a different card? It not only does not show the crease, it does not show the "black" spots in front of the "R" in Rookie.
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's the same card.
|
#57
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Update:
EBay sided with me on this claim and the card was put back in the mail today using EBays shipping label. The way I read it, I will be credited when package indicates delivered. |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Great news. Glad it worked out for you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|