New T206 Wagner?

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Looks like it. Maybe the scanner contrast turned up on the graded version to flatten out a lot of the edge wear you can see in that collage shot.

I wonder if that's a reholder, because no way that's a 2.5 with the way SGC has been grading things lately.

I am sure SGC cupped the owners sack while he graded it himself just like PSA does. We don't have enough money to get preferential treatment like that.

IMO I agree that the borders look like they have been pressed. Also why use SGC when you know a PSA holder brings more? Probably ten of thousands more easily.

[fkm_bky]

First thought...what a beautiful card. You couldn't get deeper color or better registry if you tried.

Second thought...how the hell is that a 2.5 with that top edge alone?

Bill

[Exhibitman]

A: It is the same card, just a difference in scans.

B: It hasn't been trimmed. Recently. It does look trimmed before.

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by fkm_bky

First thought...what a beautiful card. You couldn't get deeper color or better registry if you tried.

Second thought...how the hell is that a 2.5 with that top edge alone?

Bill

For the same reason there will never be a 4th PSA 10 1952 Topps Mick...protect the integrity of what's already been graded and those investors/owners.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

If even the same card, the SGC 2.5 vsn's bottom left corner to about 50% in toward the center has been trimmed. The 2.5 vsn is much less equidistant (and even more angled) to the card's inner boarder than 3rd row 3rd card vsn.

I wonder if 2.5 vsn is altered throughout. Something's off on it...seems much too bright and crisp...also, Wag's jersey on left side is bleeding/crosses over the card's inner boarder into the boarder.

Originally Posted by T205 GB

IMO I agree that the boarders look like they have been pressed. Also why use SGC when you know a PSA holder brings more? Probably ten of thousands more easily.

It's "borders"; NOT "boarders"

"Boarders" are people (non-family members) who are living in someone else's house (such as a boarding house).


Steve

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Steve D

It's "borders"; NOT "boarders"

"Boarders" are people (non-family members) who are living in someone else's house (such as a boarding house).


Steve

Thanks! How the hell did I ever earn an MBA from Babson when I can't spell?! Thank goodness finance is my core competency and not grammer

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

Thanks! How the hell did I ever earn an MBA from Babson when I can't spell?! Thank goodness finance is my core competency and not grammer

*Grammar

the spell check police are out in droves this morning

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

*Grammar

the spell check police are out in droves this morning

Hahahahahaha

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

*Grammar

the spell check police are out in droves this morning

Dang, I haven't been busted in a while Thank goodness it was just a warning and not a fine

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

*Grammar

the spell check police are out in droves this morning

LOL, that one was intentional, I don't asipre to be a habitual offender officer