![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() ![]() There is a tiny paper wrinkle above one shoulder. I missed it when i had the card raw in hand, I guess. Should this be a 4 or 5? I think not.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
|