![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Am curious what you guys think is better if you're trying to sell a card. I requested no qualifiers when I submitted this to PSA and ended up with a 2.5. I've definitely seen uglier specimens than this get 4s, so I'm wondering if I would have been better off with something like a 4 (O/C).
Ted.JPG
__________________
Thanks, Jason Collecting interests and want lists at https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...nd-want-lists/ |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Well, they gave it a 2.5 due to the wear, not the centering. So there must be some creasing that's not visible or back damage. Presents really well, and it's better for the registry and for resale value (IMO) to be in the 2.5 slab.
__________________
-- 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. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
__________________
Thanks, Jason Collecting interests and want lists at https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...nd-want-lists/ |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
If that's the case, I'd probably send it in for review. Could easily be a 3.5-4 IMO. At least with a review, if it didn't bump, they'd give you the reason it only got a 2.5.
__________________
-- 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. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frequently off-center cards in Topps issues, e.g., 1972 Aaron in-action | MCoxon | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 23 | 11-04-2019 02:34 PM |