![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Great stuff guys! Matty, your commentary is priceless. I particularly like your note to the Clement grader! LMFAO!
Yes, your collection is all undergraded material. That's great if you're buying the card pre-slabbed. It's not so cool if you're the schmuck who submitted the card in the first place!!
__________________
... http://imageevent.com/derekgranger Working on the following: HOF "Earliest" Collection (Ideal - Indiv): 250/346 (72.3%) 1914 T330-2 Piedmont Art Stamps......: 116/119 (97.5%) Completed: 1911 T332 Helmar Stamps (180/180) 1923 V100 Willard's Chocolate (180/180) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not post-War but here's my contribution.....seems undergraded until you notice the small spot on the back. The scenario is hard to imagine, but the spot looks like a bird flew overhead and the grader didn't notice, as he was encasing the card.
Z Wheat |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Holy crap, nice cards, guys!
Love the rough cut on that Clemente, Patrick. Undergraded, no doubt! Also got a kick out of Matt's commentary. ![]() Going through some scans from my stash, not many cards are truly undergraded. Most of them have that "clutch crease" (© M@tt C1ruln1ck ![]() This Mantle was my "white whale" for a few years. I placed a crazy snipe to ensure victory when it showed up on eBay, and I expected to find a surface wrinkle when I received it. Surprisingly, no creases or wrinkles, no stains, etc. ![]() Up next is the '59 Mick. Upper left and lower right corners are touched, so I wouldn't expect a NM-MT grade, but a "6" is a little conservative. ![]() This '55 Aaron is one of those cards that you need to hold in hand to truly appreciate. A couple corner touches can't be overlooked, but the surface and gloss on this card are so fresh. The gloss practically sparkles. ![]() This '48 Leaf ('49 Leaf to keep Ted Z. happy ![]() ![]() Last, but not least, is a prewar entry. Lower right corner is dinged, but damn, who pissed in this grader's Cheerios? I look high n' low for a wrinkle, but couldn't find it. ![]() |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That Dan Dee Mantle is amazing!! If there are no chip stains on the back, I would venture to say that is the best looking '5' out there for that particular issue!
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
CW,
I've admired your selections for years now-- impeccable taste in cards. That is a run of egregiously undergraded cards, my friend. I want it on the record: That 59 Mantle grade is a CRIME against cardboard. That card hits my eye like an 8 all day. The Dan Dee deserves a grade higher. And the 55 Aaron looks like a 7. While the Gehrig also would look at home in a 4.5 or 5 no question. Bottom line: tremendous purchases. Your eye got you some huge discounts on that grouping! |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS 33 Goudey Cuyler SGC 45 (3.5). UNDERGRADED LOOKS EXMT $75 OBO | brian29575 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 08-13-2013 06:28 PM |