![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Sorry, the scans that you provided are of the same card.
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yeh, whatcha smokin’ there 🤪?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Two identical cards. Two identical grades. I think neither deserves a 2, but at least they were consistent.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The same over graded card.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Hahaha. Oh man, sorry about that. Should be fixed now.
Whatever, I know this is one isolated comparison of two cards, but still, I really don’t know what they’re thinking sometimes. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
One is a half grade over graded the other is probably right, maybe a half under, if i had in hand could probably see what is making it a 2.5 instead of a 3. not sure what the big deal is eye appeal is not technical grade no matter how many times some stomp their feet about it.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Can't anyone see the first card ? It is missing a corner. Should be graded as authentic or altered, sure not a 2 ! What a difference in cards and only a .5 grade difference and we continue to send money to these companies.
__________________
Wanted : Detroit Baseball Cards and Memorabilia ( from 19th Century Detroit Wolverines to Detroit Tigers Ty Cobb to Al Kaline). |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I agree with most of the comments so far. The first one should probably be a 1. The second maybe a 3. Not exactly the worst mistake I've seen a grading company make.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yet another example of why you should buy the card, not the holder. I know I'm in the minority, but to me "eye appeal" is everything, and not just one of many other equal factors that go into determining the value of a card. I don't know about everyone else, but I buy cards for their visual appeal, not because of the integrity of the cardboard slab. A minor crease here or there, or a rounded corner, or a bit of paper loss in an unobtrusive section of the card, to me pales in comparison to how sharp the image is, coloring, and centering - but the grading companies just evaluate the quality of the cardboard - and for some people, that's all that matters (cardboard collectors). Again, I see cards graded 6-8 all the time that I wouldn't even have in my collection (even if I could afford them), due to some appearance issue that the grading companies don't take into consideration. But the grading companies have come to have a stranglehold on the hobby, and we've let them do it, so that little number on the upper right is now much more important than the actual card itself. Sad.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This should stop smoking...... | Brian Van Horn | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 10-23-2014 06:27 PM |
What was this guy smoking? | frankbmd | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 12 | 08-18-2013 02:21 PM |
Pacquia-Bradley: WTF were the judges smoking? | Exhibitman | Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk | 19 | 06-18-2012 09:11 AM |
You can be smoking with cash at the National | Yankeefan51 | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 07-11-2010 11:29 PM |
Crack smoking graders | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 04-18-2002 09:54 PM |