 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-25-2020, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I may be undergrading some of my stuff. If something had a corner ding that noticeable, the color and everything else would have to be almost perfect for me to consider a possible 8 
|
|
#3
11-25-2020, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
An$on Lyt!e
|
|
#4
11-25-2020, 07:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
To be clear, the 1963 Lou Brock is NOT the card you're considering, right? Can you post pics of the ones you're interested in, or do you not want to disclose it in case it makes someone else grab it right out from under you?
Being much more of a corners guy, if the OC isn't too bad or distracting, I'd generally jump on that one. If the centering is atrocious, that's a whole different story. We'd all have much more insightful opinions if we could see the two choices.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land  https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. 
|
|
#5
11-25-2020, 08:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It would depend on the age of the card, and how common it is to be found in a higher grade. Without seeing the cards or knowing any other details, I would say I would be more likely to lean towards the 8OC the older the card is, since an 8 might be really hard to find on a pre-war card.
On a card from the 1950s-60s, I could be more likely to go with the 5, since an 8 is easier to find, and maybe the 5 could look gorgeous but just have a very small wrinkle. So, it all depends on the specific card at hand. Remember, the market generally dings an OC by two grades in pricing, so an 8 OC would typically sell for around 6 prices. But again, that's all subject to change, based on the specific card we're talking about here.... Last edited by scooter729; 11-25-2020 at 08:37 PM.
|
|
#6
11-25-2020, 09:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by Casey2296; 11-26-2020 at 10:23 AM.
|
|
#7
11-26-2020, 07:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I chose to buy this Orr rookie in 8(OC). To me the centering is hard to read on this card and in my judgment it doesn’t put my eye off when I look at it. Not even sure why the designation. It also seems arbitrary to me when a card is downgraded on centering versus labeled OC. I don’t get it.so I would make the decision on your own eye appeal.
|
|
#8
11-26-2020, 08:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Totally agree. Some cards don’t look as bad OC as others. Your Orr is a perfect example. It’s spectacular and I’m sure it has more relative value (to other Orr RCs with no quals). In general not all OCs are created equal. A card that is OC both vertically and horizontally usually has significantly worse eye appeal than a card just OC vertically. And in a case like the Orr card where there is no clearly defined bordering it’s not nearly as conspicuous as cards with bordering. My guess is you could easily get the same money as a 7 with NQ if you chose to sell that card perhaps even more since there tends to be a huge gap between 7 and 8s in condition sensitive issues (other examples being ‘62 and ‘71 topps baseball).
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
